The WTO Versus the Biosafety Protocol for Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of appropriate rules for the regulation of trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become the focal point of an often heated debate. The wrangling over trade rules is part of the larger international debate raging over the regulation, and even the desirability of, commercial applications of genetic manipulation. Biotechnology represents a significant technological change, which along with having the potential to provide considerable benefits, also raises questions and creates uncertainties. For those investing in the development of biotechnology, trade is a crucial issue. The rate of technological advance in biotechnology is likely to be very rapid meaning that the commercial life of any new genetic modification is likely to be short. This means that access to potential markets may be a critical determinant of profitability. After a relatively long development phase, the potential for commercialisation of the use of biotechnology has come very rapidly and, with it, the prospect of considerable international trade in GMOs. In the early 1990s the first transgentically modified crop, tobacco, was released in China. Commercial development began in North America in 1994 and global production of genetically modified (GM) crops reached an estimated 100 million acres in 1999, with an estimated market value of at least US$2.1 billion. Industry sources forecast GM food sales could grow to US$8 billion by 2005 and to US$25 billion by 2010. In 1999, 13 genetically modified species were grown commercially: soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, potatoes, squash, papayas, tomatoes, flax, tobacco, sugar beets, melons and rice. Soybeans accounted for 54 percent of the total acreage, corn for 28 percent and cotton and canola for 9 percent each; all of the rest of the crops combined accounted for less than one million acres or 1 percent of the total. About 99 percent of the crops involved two key input traits—herbicide tolerance and insect resistance (Bt)—while less than 1 percent of the crops had other input or output traits (e.g. improved nutrition). Approximately 72 percent of the production took place in the United States, 17 percent in Argentina and 10 percent in Canada. Nine other countries—China, Australia, South Africa,
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".