Liability and Redress of Trans-Boundary Movement of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Biosafety Law in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosafety refers to the efforts taken in ensuring the safety of the application of biotechnology, which necessitates for proactive steps to be taken to “reduce and eliminate the potential risks resulting from biotechnology and its products”. Modern biotechnology has enabled scientists to genetically and biochemically modify plants, animals as well as microorganisms. In the effort to increase crop production for the purpose of securing global food supply, the application of biotechnology in the agricultural sector must be carried out in a safe and sustainable manner. The recognition of the potential risks to human health and the environment must not be discounted and countries looking towards the application of biotechnology must ensure its safe application. The need for further regulations on biosafety was discussed in 1992, when the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted. Article 19(3) of the Convention requires its members to consider the need for a protocol on “the safe transfer, handling and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.” This consequently led to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which primarily regulates the trans-boundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs) or alternatively known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In Malaysia, the Biosafety Act 2007 (BSA) was passed to regulate the release, importation, exportation and contained use of GMOs in order to protect inter alia human, plant and animal health as well as the environment and biological diversity. This paper highlights the issues pertaining to liability and redress, which provides for the legal obligation to compensate the damage especially to the environment accruing from the trans-boundary movement of the GMOs, as well as the position of the present Malaysian biosafety law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".