The Great, Global Promise of Genetically Modified Organisms: Overcoming Fear Misconceptions, and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Protocol), 6 an agreement reached in January 2000 in Montreal and an outgrowth of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), is one response to these concerns about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). 7 While there were already some international trade guidelines for GMOs, the Protocol is the first agreement to require consent by an importing country before transfer of certain GMOs, for the purpose of assessing risks to human health and the environment. 8But why is the Protocol only concerned with the products of genetic engineering, when crop geneticists have a whole array of methods available to them for use in creating new crop varieties?The Protocol fixates on a particular process and not on what should be the true focus of a biosafety agreement: the safety of the resulting product.' 0This paper examines some of the main structural elements of the Protocol.Specific attention will be given to how the Protocol's narrow focus of regulating the trade of GMOs can be counterproductive and potentially quite harmful to the regions of the globe that stand to benefit the most from the use of GMOs.In part I, the goal will be to make clear precisely what the Protocol regulates.Part II will survey the potential benefits and harms associated with GMOs.In part III, the role of the precautionary principle in the Protocol will be explored, including how biotechnology fears could circumvent this role.Part IV will look at the "labeling" requirements of the Protocol and the issues surrounding labeling of GM food in general.Finally, part V will explore the potential effects of the Protocol and GMOs on developing nations. 6.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".