Volume 2, Issue 3

With its recently enforced Act on the Reform of the Law on Genetical Engineering, the German Government regulated the so-called coexistence of genetically modified crops with other forms of farming, i.e. conventional and organic farming. The new provisions aim at protecting organic and conventional farming from the supposedly dangerous or hazardous effects of genetically modified crops. By establishing this unbalanced legal framework, the German Legislator not only breaks with basic principles of the law of torts (regarding liability and the burden of proof), it also violates various obligations arising from EC law. Matthias Herdegen’s in-depth analysis presents the most elaborated scrutiny of these manifold legal issues so far. It will therefore foster the ongoing debate on the national and international level.

Introduction The new knowledge from the Human Genome Project has created much interest and anticipation of improved health for the population. A significant aspect of this has been the expanded use of genetic testing to identify whether a person has the affected gene and is therefore at risk of developing a particular condition or, in the case of conditions inherited on an autosomal dominant basis, establishing that a person is presymptomatic of a condition that they will almost certainly develop. Whilst knowledge of genetic risk can be of great benefit, in allowing life-planning in the knowledge of that risk, and in some cases, taking of preventative measures, concerns have been generated about the availability of genetic test information, and the use that commercial third parties may seek to make of this information.

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization was negotiated prior to the commercialization of any plant-based biotechnology. While the negotiators of the TRIPS anticipated biotechnology a number of important international issues in the treatment of biological material as intellectual property have arisen in the wake of commercialization. This paper analyses the international treatment of biotechnology and other plant genetic resources in the light of this experience. In particular, the problem of monopoly rents, the differential treatment of scientific discovery versus traditional knowledge in international intellectual property law and differences in scientific capacity are examined. The paper ends with some suggestions for the reform of the international regime for the protection of intellectual property.

Introduction The development of genetic manipulation in recent years has caused both angst and excitement. The technology has the potential to solve world hunger and create cures for many of humanities ailments. However many have also expressed concern that our understanding of the potential of the technology to cause significant environmental harm is limited. The possibility that this harm could extend beyond national boundaries has led to the technology being discussed in the international environmental law arena. The Biosafety Protocol is a result of nations coming together to regulate so as to minimise the potential harm and maximise the potential gains from this emerging technology.

Introduction On 18 April 2004, a little more than a year before the publication of this article, the core provisions of the new regulatory framework for genetically modified food products entered into force. This article is of a descriptive nature. It goes into the new framework as far as food is concerned. Feed will not be discussed. This article is published in 2 parts. Part 1 deals mainly with the new authorisation procedure. In this context some attention will first be given to the developments that led to the new framework and at the end of part 1 to administrative review. The main topics discussed in part 2 are the traceability requirements and labelling. Further some attention will be given to emergency measures, legal protection and transitory measures.

Introduction Until recently there were no specific regulatory controls on the development and release of agricultural genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’) or their products in Australia. A voluntary and self-regulatory system had existed since the mid-seventies but there were no direct legal repercussions where those ‘regulations’ were not adhered to. Commercialisation of GMOs’ end products was also not specifically regulated. Some end products were subject to general regulation which applied regardless of whether genetic modification (‘GM’) was used in their production. Other GM end products were not regulated at all. This Article concerns the regulatory background against which agricultural GMO commercialisers must act in Australia. It does not concern cloning of human beings and associated techniques, which are prohibited in Australia pursuant to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and complementary State legislation. The Article begins in Part 2 with a description of the new national regulatory scheme for GMOs. The recently introduced second level of regulation of agricultural GMOs, that of the individual States of Australia rather than national legislation, is then summarised in Part 3. Part 4 concerns end product regulation relevant to those wanting to commercialise agricultural GMOs in Australia. It explains how the most significant of those regimes for agricultural GMOs, food regulation, operates. Part 5 is the conclusion.

Introduction The communist state of Vietnam with its currently 64 provinces (tinh) and 5 municipalities (thu do), experienced little economic growth over the last two decades. This was a result of the more conservative leadership policies in the country. However, since 2001 Vietnamese authorities have committed to economic liberalization, whereby structural reforms were enacted, as well as the economy was modernized and the country produced more competitive, export-driven industries. With a population of approximately 82,689,518, over 70 % of the people are involved in agricultural production, such as paddy rice, corn, potatoes, rubber, soybeans, coffee, tea, bananas, sugar; pigs, and fish. Other active development of the country, besides agriculture, is considered to be industry with its imports and exports. The growth rate of the national economy is estimated of 7.2 % on average, and investments for science, technology and environmental protection can be seen as the major reasons of economic growth.