The main purpose of this compilation is to provide information on some of the worldwide concern about genetic engineering and its consequences for health, farming and the environment, given the uncertainty over the safety of the technology. Efforts range from regulations, moratoria, bans, GE-free zones to labelling requirements, on import, production and crop trials of GMOs. Action has been initiated at various levels, from the local community, local authorities, government departments, to national governments.
This document is in chronological order, with most recent first. As far as possible, links to original postings are given. Please be aware that the situation is constantly changing and this only provides a snapshot of efforts that have been taken, some of which are being currently challenged or may have been reversed. If you have any updates, corrections or additional information, do send them on to us! A summary table of this information is also available on this site.
Lim Li Ching 21 March 2002
Date: 13 March 2002
Where: Philippines
Who: National government
What: Companies that import agricultural products to the Philippines will soon be required to issue certification stating whether or not those products contain GMOs. This certification program is part of a new set of guidelines covering GMOs to be issued soon.
How: Certification would be required from importers of soybeans, corn, potatoes and other potential GMO-containing crops being imported. The certification process will last for a prescribed period - possibly June 30, 2003 - until the country can conduct its own risk assessment of these crops.
Links: Biotech Activists, www.iatp.org; source: newswires
Date: 12 March 2002
Where: Scotland
Who: Local communities and campaigners
What: 12 GM trials have taken place in Scotland. Final planting of GM seeds is scheduled for next year.
How: A petition demanding an immediate stop to GM crop trials has been taken to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee. More than 4000 protesters, including the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Kennedy, urged Ministers to scrap all GM tests in Scotland. They are urging for a free vote in the Parliament on whether GM trials should be scrapped in Scotland.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: Evening Times
Date: 11 March 2002
Where: France
Who: Group of experts (three 'wise men') commissioned by the agriculture and environment ministries
What: The French government has organised public debate on the future of GM field trials. This report recommends that French rules on outdoor trials of GM corps should be tightened.
How: Field trials should not take place until the usefulness of laboratory and greenhouse-based tests has been exhausted. The public and locally elected officials must be given a greater role in deciding how and when open-air field trials should take place. Distances between GM and conventional crops should be significantly increased, and measures to protect against transgenic pollination should remain in place long after trials are over.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: Environment Daily, http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=11755; the report: http://www.environnement.gouv.fr/telch/2002-t1/20020307-rapport-ogm.pdf
Date: 9 March 2002
Where: Newport, Scotland
Who: Local community
What: Crop trial of 22 acres of genetically modified oilseed rape in a field outside the town.
How: Public meeting, in which there was overwhelming approval for a motion rejecting sowing GM oilseed rape at Wester Friarton and calls for the Scottish Executive to refuse a licence to carry out the trial, with only three votes against.
Links: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/febcourierrede/NewsStory.cfm?StoryID=22237&Today=090302
Date: 9 March 2002
Where: Warwickshire, England
Who: Local community and campaigners
What: Concerns that safety procedures in place for GM trials are inadequate.
How: Direct action following a public meeting and march. Nearly 100 protesters ripped up parts of a field of GM oilseed rape in the village of Long Marston.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; sources: http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20020310670.4_2ce6000105edb1c9, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1863000/1863980.stm
Date: 8 March 2002
Where: n/a
Who: Yolanda Kakabadse, president of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and former environment minister of Ecuador
What: Says GM crops are threatening global diversity of animal and plant species and costing livelihoods. Fears that GM foods could harm humans.
How: Instead of introducing GM crops in developing countries, funds should be invested into bolstering production of local varieties, which would support communities and satisfy global demand.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: Reuters
Date: 6 March 2002
Where: Vermont, USA
Who: Residents of 28 Vermont towns
What: Resolutions opposing the genetic engineering of food and crops
How: Votes at annual town meetings. Most resolutions called upon state legislators and the Vermont congressional delegation to support labelling of GE foods and seeds, as well as a moratorium on growing GE crops. Eight towns took steps toward ending the use of GE crops within their towns, either declaring a town moratorium or urging that the planting of GE seeds be actively discouraged.
Links: Biotech Activists, www.iatp.org; contact: ISE Biotechnology Project info@nerage.org www.nerage.org
Date: 4 March 2002
Where: Brazil
Who: Jose Sarney Filho, Environment Minister of Brazil
What: The Brazilian government is appealing against an injunction that has blocked the planting and sale of GMOs for the past three years.
How: Letter saying that Environment and Health Ministries do not support the government's appeal, to federal judges who will vote on whether to lift the injunction. One of a three-strong panel of federal judges has already voted to overturn the injunction. However, a final decision will be delayed until at least March 15.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk
Date: 4 March 2002
Where: Fife, Scotland
Who: Charles Saunders, Chairman of the British Medical Association's public health committee and Consultant in public health for Fife Health Board
What: Environment Minister Ross Finnie is due to make a decision on the first GM crop site in Fife and two others in Aberdeenshire as part of Scotland's role in the UK farm scale evaluation programme.
How: Calls for end to the testing of GM crops until scientists can prove they are safe. The precautionary principle should be applied, and would therefore dictate that these trials should not be going ahead.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: The Herald
Date: 4 March 2002
Where: Munlochy, Scotland
Who: Local community
What: The Scottish Highlands community has been opposing their local GM field trial near Munlochy for the past two years.
How: A constant vigil (Munlochy GM Vigil) was set up at the site, which is now the focus of a movement to free Scotland from GM. A conference was held on 16 February to debate the issues. The Vigil has organised a petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for an immediate end to GM trials in Scotland, and for a full parliamentary debate, with a free vote on GM crops in Scotland.
Links: Institute of Science in Society, https://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scotland.php
Date: 4 March 2002
Where: Canada
Who: 53-member Canadian General Standards Committee on voluntary labelling, comprising members from a variety of agriculture, biotechnology, consumer, manufacturing and retail groups, plus representatives from federal and provincial governments
What: The committee is trying to agree a voluntary standard for labelling genetically engineered food.
How: If the committee can agree on a proposal, it would be sent to the Standards Council of Canada, which would decide whether to adopt it as national standard. Several environmental groups refused to participate on grounds the committee was "stacked" in favour of the biotechnology industry and because they oppose anything short of mandatory labels. The National Farmers Union said food products containing GM ingredients must be subject to clear, consistent, mandatory labelling.
Links: Biotech Activists, www.iatp.org; source: Ottawa Citizen
Date: 28 February 2002
Where: Vermont, USA
Who: Non-profit farm and environment organizations
What: Resolutions opposing the genetic engineering of food and crops
How: Town to Town Campaign on Genetically Engineered Food and Crops
Links: Biotech Activists, www.iatp.org; source: Farm News from Cropchoice, http://www.cropchoice.com
Date: 28 February 2002
Where: Mexico City, Mexico
Who: 400 representatives of NGOs, environmentalists, social activists, academics and Indian authorities ranging from the Tzeltal nation on the southern border to the O'Odam people on the northern
What: Contamination of native maize by GM varieties threatens Mexico's maize diversity.
How: Under the banner of "The Defence of Maize" they gathered in late January to formulate a common defence and national strategy, which includes demands that the government shut the border to U.S. and Canadian corn, and for widespread testing in all corn-producing areas. The conference also called for the establishment of a network of seed banks throughout the country.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: Now online edition, Vol. 21 (27), Canada, http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2002-02-28/news_story3.php
Date: 27 February 2002
Where: Philippines
Who: Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture
What: All activities relating to genetically modified crops
How: Guidelines on the use of crops containing genetically modified organisms, covering field-testing, propagation, commercialization and importation of genetically engineered crops.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html
Date: 26 February 2002
Where: Mexico
Who: Mexican government - Interior Ministry (Secretaria de Gobernacion)
What: The Mexican government on Feb. 6 was cited as saying that it would penalize all parties who import transgenic crops and/or introduce them into the environment. Punishment includes imprisonment from 1-9 years and a fine from 300 to 3,000 times the minimum daily wage. Article 420 states that this punishment will be imposed on anyone who, in violation of previously established applicable regulations, introduces, commercializes, transports, stores, or releases into the environment any GMO that negatively alters or could negatively alter the components, structure, or function of natural ecosystems.
How: Modification to the Federal Penal Code, published in Mexico's "Diario Oficial" (Federal Register) on 6 February, 2002, effective 7 February 2002. However, enforcement of this law may be difficult.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html
Date: 22 February 2002
Where: Brazil
Who: Independent judiciary, NGOs, several state governments particularly Rio Grande do Sul, scientists
What: Federal government wants to approve GMOs and has introduced a bill in Congress to do so. It is appealing against an injunction forbidding GMOs until requisite studies on environmental and health risks are carried out.
How: Campaign for a GM-free Brazil. Three states, Rio Grande do Sul, Para and Mato Grosso are legislating for a moratorium, independently of the federal government.
Links: Institute of Science in Society, www.i-sis.org.uk/Brazil.php
Date: 22 February 2002
Where: Philippines
Who: Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)
What: Demand for a legislative ban on GMOs
How: Forum with legislators, urging support of Bills that would prohibit field testing and entry and distribution of GMOs into and within the country, as well as mandatory labelling of GMO products
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Peasant Movement of the Philippines, http://www.geocities.com/kmp_ph
Date: 22 February 2002
Where: European Union
Who: European Commission
What: The European Commission has proposed a Regulation on the cross-border movements of
GMOs. The aim is to establish safeguards at international level for transfer, handling and use of GMOs, and facilitate EU implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
How: The proposal will implement into EU legislation the provisions of the Biosafety Protocol. Among other things, it will set rules for identification of GMOs for exports in line with the latest EU developments on Labelling and Traceability. In parallel, the Commission is preparing a Proposal for a Council decision that aims at ensuring the ratification of the Protocol by the EU.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: EC Press Release, http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/299|0|RAPID&lg=EN
Date: 21 February 2002
Where: USA
Who: National Academies' National Research Council
What: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), regulates transgenic plants, reviewing applications from biotech companies wishing to field-test new transgenic plants or petitioning to have a plant deregulated. Field-testing is largely approved through the "notification" process, whereby applicants notify APHIS that a plant meets general guidelines for not causing unwanted environmental effects. If the agency agrees, the plant can be grown while the company conducts further field-testing to rule out adverse environmental effects. There is no public or independent scientific input in this process, and no limit on acreage planted.
How: The USDA should more rigorously review potential environmental effects of new transgenic plants before commercial approval and involve the public in the review process. Ecological testing and monitoring should continue after transgenics enter the marketplace. Before making precedent-setting decisions regarding field-testing or deregulation, it should solicit broad external scientific and public review and convene a scientific advisory group before changing regulatory policy. It should increase the rigor of its analysis of pest resistance and impacts on non-target species.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: The National Academy of Sciences, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309082633?OpenDocument; Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation: http://www.nap.edu
Date: 19 February 2002
Where: Sri Lanka
Who: Environmental Foundation Sri Lanka/Friends of the Earth
What: Regulations on Genetically Modified Foods, gazetted by the last government and due to come into force 1 May 2001 were suspended until 1 September 2001 to accord with WTO requirements. These regulations under the Food Act banning the import or commercial manufacture of GM foods have now been indefinitely suspended, as has the parallel requirement that certain imported foods should carry a certificate from a competent authority from the country of origin certifying that the food has not been genetically modified.
How: Lobbying the government of Sri Lanka (directed at the New Minister of Health) to re-impose the interim ban on GMOs.
Links: From: hemantha@ef.is.lk; information service facilitated by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific: www.poptel.org.uk/panap/caravan.htm
Date: 19 February 2002
Where: Saskatchewan, Canada
Who: Lorne Calvert, Provincial Premier
What: Raised concerns about GM wheat and impacts on the organic sector (Saskatchewan has largest number of organic producers in Canada) and on exports. GM wheat hasn't been approved for commercial use in Canada, but is grown in test plots.
How: Suggests working closely with Agriculture Canada and the research side to be very careful. Says however that it is not within the provincial government's jurisdiction to ban the experimental crop from Saskatchewan, but under the federal government's jurisdiction.
Links: NLPWessex: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/; source: http://www.canada.com/regina/news/story.asp?id=03E3C0D6-ECFE-47D7-8E76-76F893A53BEA
Date: 14 February 2001
Where: Australia
Who: 30 local councils/ local governments
What: Rosalie Shire Council, in Queensland's Darling Downs food cradle, is the latest of about 30 local governments across the nation to pass a resolution declaring itself a GM-free zone.
How: Resolution declaring GM-free zones and banning GM crop trials. However, this cannot be enforced as they have no legislative backing from state governments. Local councils are pushing for alteration of state laws to allow official GM-free zones. Tasmania has introduced a two-year moratorium on GM crops. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has said that voluntary bans by local farmers are a preferable way of creating GM crop-free areas, rather than passing State laws.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: The Australian,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3772387%255E2702,00.html
Date: 12 February 2002
Where: South Africa
Who: The Food and Allied Workers' Union (Fawu)
What: Fawu deputy-general secretary William Thomas said that it was asking for debate on the issue with government and business at the National Economic, Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).
How: Fawu is threatening to strike if talks with Nedlac to ban GM for five years fail.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/130202b.htm; source: Business Day, http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1021039-6099-0,00.html
Date: 12 February 2002
Where: Northern Irealand
Who: Environment Committee
What: Raised concern about the introduction of GM crops in the UK. Northern Ireland has had one GM experiment to date but no farm-scale evaluations.
How: One committee member raised the possibility of Northern Ireland being declared a GM-free zone.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: Belfast Telegraph
Date: 7-9 February 2002
Where: New Hampshire, USA
Who: Panel of volunteers of all ages and from all walks of life
What: The Just Food Citizen Panel was created in response to concerns about GM foods. Ordinary citizens needed a way to develop an understanding of this technology and, based on this understanding, a way to contribute to public policy governing its use.
How: The panel participated in a 5-month learning process, involving extensive reading, intensive retreats and a two-day consultation with experts. Recommendations include effective regulation of GMOs, increasing federal funds for independent risk assessment, placing the onus on the applicant of GMO products to submit independent scientific data to demonstrate that their product will not cause harm, review and re-licensing of existing GMO crops, clear labelling of products that have GMOs, post-market/post-approval assessment of GMOs, assuring that organic and other farmers may farm without impingement from GMO agriculture, review and modify patent laws governing GMO technology, prohibit use of antibiotic resistant marker genes, consumer education regarding GMOs, and increased funding for research into agricultural systems that do not involve GMOs.
Links: http://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/fas/justfoods/index.html
Date: 7 February 2002
Where: Sweden
Who: Swedish farmers
What: An opinion poll was conducted on a statistical sample of 1 000 farmers with over 20 hectares of arable land in December 2001.
How: The poll shows 77% of Swedish farmers will not consider growing GMO crops on their land. Answers vary slightly according to region, with small farm and animal farming regions more negative. Only 15% explicitly state that they are positive to growing GMOs.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/070202b.htm
Date: 31 January 2002
Where: Thailand
Who: National government - Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture
What: 37 GM crops are to be banned from entering the country except for scientific research. The Cabinet last year also forbid field tests of GM crops until the country has a biosafety law. Only research in laboratories and greenhouses is currently allowed.
How: The 37 crops will be put on the prohibited plant list under the 1964 Plant Quarantine Act. There are already 40 GM plant species on the prohibited list, which cannot be imported, whether in whole or in part, except for scientific experiments in quarantine conditions under the control of the National Biosafety Committee. Anyone wanting to import natural-born examples of the species has to show certification to guarantee that they are not GM plants.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: The Nation, Thailand, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=3&id=54980&date=2002-01-31&usrsess=1
Date: 31 January 2001
Where: France
Who: French food safety authority, Afssa
What: France is one of the strongest supporters of the EU moratorium on new GM crop approvals, in operation since 1998. It argues that authorisations should not restart until planned rules on labelling and traceability of GM foods is in place.
How: Afssa says that long-term potential health risks posed by GM material in food require further investigation before commercialisation, and that current safety testing for GM foods is insufficient. Research into the impacts of prolonged exposure is needed, with emphasis on identifying risks of gradual development of allergic reactions. Existing testing procedures designed to identify acute toxicity should be complemented by tests for "subchronic" toxicity.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin): http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/030202d.htm; source: Environment Daily 31/1/02
Date: 25 January 2002
Where: South Korea:
Who: Local environmentalists, including Green Korea United, the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement and Women's Link.
What: While visiting the South Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. trade officials were said to have requested the South Korean government to ease labelling restrictions on imported GMO products by raising the adventitious threshold level to 5% from the current 3%.
How: South Korean food safety laws state that when bioengineered food ingredients exceed more than 3% of a product, then it must be labelled as containing GMOs. Local environmentalists held a rally in front of the KFDA building demanding that U.S. trade officials stop pressuring South Korea to ease regulations on GMOs.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/240102c.htm; source: Korea Times
Date: 24 January 2002
Where: Italy
Who: National government - Farm Minister Giovanni Alemanno
What: Italy will not tolerate the accidental contamination of seeds with genetic material. EU countries have imposed a moratorium on imports of biotech food, but tolerating up to 1% level of GMOs.
How: 'Zero tolerance' policy. Needs investment of at least 50 million euros in customs and other controls to guarantee seeds are free of genetic material.
Links: GENET-news archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html; source: Reuters
Date: 19 January 2002
Where: Barangay Alinguigan 2nd, Philippines
Who: Mayor Delfinito Albano and local council
What: Monsanto-Philippines has defied a local council moratorium on the field trials of Bt-corn in the town. It claims that the field trials have been approved by the National Committee on Biosafety.
How: Monsanto-Philippines has been asked to stop the tests and uproot the Bt-corn plants. If the firm ignores the local government's requests, they will file a case against it for defying the moratorium.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: Philippine Inquirer
Date: 15 January 2002
Where: Croatia
Who: National government - Environment Ministry
What: A 1998 parliament resolution called for a ban of GMO food. The U.S. government asked the Environment Ministry to revise its course of action or face possible consequences within the WTO.
How: Croatia is drafting legislation to ban production and limit imports of food containing GMOs. They are aiming to ban production, but may allow imports of food containing a small percentage of genetically manipulated ingredients. The minimum requirement is for labelling.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk
Date: 10 January 2002
Where: China
Who: National government - Ministry of Agriculture
What: First statute on GMOs enacted in June 2001 to protect people, animals and the environment while pushing agro-biotechnology research.
How: Safety certification process on GMOs entering China for research, production and processing. Imports lacking safety certificates and relevant papers will be returned or destroyed. All genetically altered soy beans, corn, rapeseed, cotton seed and tomatoes are to be clearly labelled as GMO products after March 20. However, the US has recently won concessions for an interim arrangement that would allow trade to continue.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: China Daily, http://www.OrganicConsumers.org/gefood/chinalabel011402.cfm
Date: 8 December 2001
Where: Aotearoa/New Zealand
Who: National Maori Hui on GE
What: Maori urged to protest against GE, exercising their exclusive right under the Treaty of Waitangi How: Political campaign, direct action
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk
Date: 11 December 2001
Where: South Korea
Who: National government
What: South Korea aims to import 300,000 tonnes of non-GM soybeans from China each year, starting 2002.
How: Chinese exporters will be required to provide non-GMO certificates provided by China's Inspection and Quarantine authorities. South Korea started labelling of GM corn, soybeans and bean sprouts in March 2001. The National Agricultural Product Quality Management Service is in charge of assessing GMOs in these products. The Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) is in charge of labelling GMO processed food products, and the Agriculture Ministry, labelling agricultural products with GMOs. Fines of up to 10 million won ($8,636) will be proposed for GMO produce without proper labels. Those guilty of false labelling face a maximum three-year prison sentence or 30 million won fine.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk
Date: 6 December 2001
Where: Mexico
Who: Mexican Congress
What: Following the discovery of transgenic material in wild corn in Oaxaca, fears abound that GM corn would threaten the genetic integrity of Mexico's crops and its food supply.
How: The Mexican Congress demanded that President Vicente Fox ban the importation of GM corn. The Senate has demanded access to the results of Agriculture's Secretariat's study of the affected corn in Oaxaca as well as advances in the creation of the federal commission for biosecurity.
Links: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://www.ngin.org.uk; source: TheNewsMexico.com, http://www.thenewsmexico.com/noticiahist.asp?id=14306
Date: 31 October 2001
Where: Aotearoa/New Zealand
Who: Maori, local communities
What: The government announced on 30 October 2001 that it would allow GE field trials.
How: Non-violent direct action, anti-GE marches, civil disobedience, environmentally-responsible trial destruction ('Green Gloves') targeting direct releases into the environment.
Links: http://www.purefood.org/patent/maori110201.cfm
Date: 25 June - 1 July 2001
Where: Andra Pradesh (AP), India
Who: Representatives of small and marginal farmers from AP, small traders and food processors and consumers. Most jury members were small and marginal farmers and indigenous ('adivasi') people. Over two thirds of jury members were women.
What: The State of AP is currently re-thinking its approach to farming, land use and marketing. Its vision of the future of the State's food system is embodied in 'Vision 2020'. Whilst it proposes fundamental, profound transformations of the food system, there has been little or no involvement of small farmers and rural people in shaping this.
How: Through participatory means and deliberative democracy i.e. citizens' jury on food and farming futures. The jury were presented with three different scenarios. It was up to them to decide which of the three would provide them with the best opportunities to enhance their livelihoods, food security and environment in the future. Key conclusions were a desire for food and farming, for self reliance and community control over resources, maintenance of healthy soils, diverse crops, trees and livestock, and building indigenous knowledge, practical skills and local institutions. They opposed, among other things, GM Crops, including Vitamin A rice & Bt cotton.
Links: International Institute for Environment and Development: http://www.iied.org/agri/IIEDcitizenjuryAP1.html ; Institute of Development Studies Environment Group: http://www.ids.ac.uk/IDS/env/citizenjury.html
Article first published 21/3/02
Got something to say about this page? Comment