ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops does not only pose considerable risks to the environment and human health; but based on literature, there are debates involving contested ethical values and widespread scientific uncertainty of GM crops. Malaysia has established regulatory measures to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), takes place in safe conditions. Various policies are relevant and applicable to GM crops. GM technology is recognised as one of the mechanisms to ensure food security in a sustainable industry through the National Agro-Food Policy for 2011-2020. As a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Malaysia has established regulatory measures to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in safe conditions. Nevertheless, the regulatory measures may not serve well to address and protect bioethical issues relating to farmers’ rights specifically rights to livelihood arising from GM crops in Malaysia. There is still room for improvement in the regulatory measures especially on the bioethical issues relating to farmers’ rights evident from the subsequent analysis. Therefore, this research is pertinent because it investigates the adequacy of the existing regulatory measures in protecting farmers’ rights arising from GM crops in Malaysia as well as the bioethical issues in respect of farmer’s rights arising from GM crops. This research applies doctrinal and non-doctrinal approaches, which the findings discover that the existing regulatory frameworks do not adequately address the bioethical issues of farmers’ rights protection.
Clark, A. E. (2004) So, Who Really Won the Schmeiser Decision?, Crop Choice http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2612. Retrieved October 2021.
Barboza, D. (2010). As biotech crops multiply, consumers get little choice, New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/us/as-biotech-crops-multiply-consumers-get-little-choice.html.
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. (2011). Every thirty minutes: farmer suicides, human rights, and the agrarian crisis in India. New York: NYU School of Law. http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/every30min.pdf.
David, A. (2010) Bt Brinjal: The scope and adequacy of the GEAC environmental risk assessment. India: Sunray Harvesters, https://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/383642714cb3fcfce2ee7.pdf. Retrieved November .
Faruqi, S. S. (2008). Document of Destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Star Publications (Malaysia), pg 26.
GM Contamination Register (2014). [http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org] GM Contamination Register (2014).
Grue` Re, G., & Sengupta, D. (2011). Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence-based assessment. Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), 316–337.
Holmberg, M. (2010). I-P crops: Mission impossible; problems in producing non-genetically modified identity-preserved crops. Successful Farming. http://business.highbeam.com/1131/article-1G1-71888203/p-crops-mission-impossible; Hamilton, N. (2001). Legal issues shaping society's acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 6, 81-115.
IFAD. (2013). Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment (Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development, 6.
Jemison, J. M., Jr. and Vayda, M .E. (2001).Cross Pollination from Genetically Engineered Corn: Wind Transport and Seed Source, AgBioForum ,Vol. 4, No. 2, 91.
James, C. (1998). Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops. ISAAA Briefs No. 8. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) in National Research Council (US) Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants.(2002). Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207491/.
Krishnakumar, A. (2005). Seeds of controversy. Frontline, 22(12). http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2212/stories/20050617003010200.htm
Murphy, D. (2007). Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal Context and the Future of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; See also Thompson, P. B., & Hannah, W. (2009). Food and agricultural biotechnology: A summary and analysis of ethical concerns. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, 111, 229–264.
Martin, C., Hemananthani S., Loshana K. S., & Rahmah, G. (2017). Fruits From Camerons Rejected. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/10/26/fruits-from-camerons-rejected-produce-exported-to-china-found-to-contain-lmo/.
Mauro, I. J., & McLachlan, S. M. (2008). Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: postrelease evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis; 28(2): 463-76.
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 - Supreme Court (2010).
Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser, No. T-1593-98, 2001 FTC 256 (Trial Div. Mar. 29, 2001) available at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256 html; see also, Hilary,P.(2003). Drift of Patented Genetically Engineered Crops: Rethinking Liability Theories, 81 Texas Law. Review. 1153.
Nadal, A. (2007). Monsanto, cereal killer GM and agrarian suicides in India. La Jornada, http://www.genecampaign.org/Publication/Pricedpublication/story%20of%20BtCotton.html.
Riddle, J. (2012). GMO Contamination Prevention: What Does it Take? (Lamberton: Southwest Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, 1-7.
Supreme Court of Western Australia Supreme Court of Western Australia Judgement Summary: Marsh vs Baxter [2014 ] WASC 187 (Civil 1561 of 2012).
Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada, Inc., [2004] No. 29437, 2004 SCC 34 (Can. Jan. 20, 2004), available at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc034.wpd html. at 95.
Samruddha, S. (2010). Brief Review of Bt Cotton in Karnataka. https://jis-online.org/2017/04/21/gmos-as-potential-human-rights-violations/#_ftn32.
Sahai, S. (2005) The story of Bt cotton in India. Gene Campaign, November 2005. http://www.genecampaign.org/Publication/Pricedpublication/story%20of%20BtCotton.html
In-Text Citation: (Idris et al., 2022)
To Cite this Article: Idris, S. H., Manab, S. N. A., Zain, F. M., Zulkipli, Z. N., Jayabalan, S., Oon, J. C. C., Ariffin, R., & Rodiyah. (2022). Genetically Modified (Gm) Crops and Ethical Issues: Protection of Farmers’ Rights. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(11), 2392 – 2400.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non0-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode