Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Australia, the third largest agricultural exporter to Japan, has recently reformed its national regulatory schemes for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some genetically modified crops (GM crops) have already been grown on trial sites and might be commercialized soon under the new regulating schemes, which may affect Japan's imports from Australia. In addition, Australia, as a leading country of the Cairns Group, is one of the key players in international agricultural negotiations, where regulating GMOs has become a hot issue. Therefore, it shall be useful for Japanese authorities, traders and consumers to investigate details of recent regulatory reforms for GMOs in Australia. In this context, firstly, this report explores the recent regulatory reform of GMO dealings. For the past 13 years, the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) has overseen the use of gene technology. However, the system supervised by GMAC has no legislative backing ; compliance with GMAC guidelines and GMAC recommendations was voluntary. This meant that there was no legally enforceable way to audit or monitor the use of gene technology or to penalize breaches. But, the range of GMOs is being developed rapidly and some GMOs do not fall neatly within the existing regulations. Also, more GMOs are approaching the commercialization stage. In response to this situation, in December 2000, the Federal Government passed the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act). The legislation came into force on 21 June 2001. The predominant feature of the GT Act is to establish an independent statutory office named the Gene Technology Regulator to administer the legislation and make decisions (e.g. risk assessments) under the legislation. The regulatory reform of labelling genetically modified food (GM food), as reviewed in the second chapter of the report, was another notable development in Australia. Food standard A18 approved by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) regulates GM food labelling in Australia and New Zealand. On 28 July 2000, ANZFSC agreed in principle to new labelling requirements for GM food. ANZFSC formally approved the revised standard on 24 November 2000. It was gazetted on 7 December 2000 and comes into effect on 7 December 2001. The new standard requires all GM foods and ingredients to be labelled where they contain novel DNA and/or novel protein in the final food or have altered characteristics. It means that some GM foods are required to be labelled even though they are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. However, as defined in A18, GM food labelling requirements have some exemptions such as the unintentional presence of a GM food not more than 1%. The revised GM food labelling standard will be almost as rigid as the EU standard. Finally, this report concludes with some expectations. Australia is lagging behind key trading rivals such as US, Canada and Argentina in the GM crop field. It seems that Australia has established a solid legislative basis, i.e. the GT Act, for the future commercialization of GM crops to catch up with its rivals of the world grain market. On the other hand, the revised GM food labelling standard might put Australia into a difficult position because the country has strongly accused such a rigid GM food standard as disguised protection against trade liberalization. Australia may change its strategy in future international negotiations for GM food standard.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».