developed Bt. Brinjal, a geneticall

developed Bt. Brinjal, a genetically modified species of brinjal that can produce toxin to kill insects, but the scientists did not give guarantee of its safety. The Indian Government wanted to introduce it for human consumption within the country, and to make it an internationally tradable item so that it could be a matter of revenue generation. But because of the safety concern expressed, mainly from scientists and the NGOs, the government had to order for further repeated lab and field testing, so that it could be safe for human consumption. The safety of all GMOs, developed in various countries, became a matter of international concern, which has prompted development of PP to be enforced both by international laws and national legislations.

The necessity of PP was first felt by the UN General Assembly[1]. Its importance was further realized for attaining sustainable development (SD), which is evident from the Bergen Declaration[2], and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development[3]. These international soft laws put on the states two requirements on all to be followed: there should be adequate reason for safety of the LOMs and GM food; and there should not be intention for a short-term economic gain. It also disseminates ethical values for the individual scientists and companies engaged with gene manipulation with a predominant quest to have a breakthrough research and develop a novel plant or animal species – especially for human consumption, directly, e.g. oil seeds, or indirectly, e.g. use of Bt. Cotton seeds for making edible oils or animal feed – that they should not engage in such activities only only for name and fame. They have to give priority to the precautionary measures. There are strong precaution and weak precaution. The strong precaution, which emanates from the Cartagena Protocol, requires that activities should not be allowed if there is no guarantee of “no harm”; the weak precaution, which is there in the international soft law and SPS Agreement, stipulates that states may adopt precautionary measure(s) if there is no evidence of harm. Although the soft international law points to the soft precaution, most of the developed, developing and least developed countries stick to the strong precaution when there is question of import of GMOs for human consumption, as they supply utmost importance to “human, animal and plant life and health”. However, there are a number of states, especially those, which have vested interest in GMOs exports or have concern about the starving world population, plead for application of the weak precautionary measures.

In the midst of the two views, rationalists, including the author, have attempted to strike a balance and opine that if the supply of food is the pressing need of the time, the weak precaution should be applied; if supply of food is plentiful, strong precaution should be the option. And in no case, the safety aspects determined by the GMO producing company or state should be taken as conclusive. The burden of proving the safety of the GMO should be of the exporting country. The importing country should also determine it; and if need be the country may seek safety information from the exporting country. Both must follow the internationally accepted risk-assessment standards (Ansari and Parveen, 2011; Ansari and Lekha, 2012; Stephen, 2006). This is also warranted by the pressing need of a comprehensive approach in international trade law and international environmental law. This is because in the era of pluralism, globalization and mutual existence and survival of the people and the environment requires to emphasize on them rather than moving forward with fragmentation, which is a decade old approach and which has failed to gather enough support. The approach suggested by the authors will break the hegemony of protectionism and parochial approach of trade law (Panaglotis Delimatsis, 2010).

Results (Indonesian) 1:

dikembangkan Bt. Brinjal, genetika spesies brinjal yang dapat menghasilkan racun untuk membunuh serangga-serangga, tetapi para ilmuwan tidak memberikan jaminan keselamatan. Pemerintah India ingin memperkenalkan untuk konsumsi manusia dalam negeri, dan membuatnya item internasional diperdagangkan sehingga bisa menjadi masalah pendapatan. Tapi karena keselamatan keprihatinan yang diungkapkan, terutama dari para ilmuwan dan LSM, pemerintah harus memesan untuk lebih lanjut berulang lab dan bidang pengujian, sehingga bisa aman untuk dikonsumsi manusia. Keselamatan semua GMO, dikembangkan di berbagai negara, menjadi masalah perhatian internasional, yang telah mendorong perkembangan PP untuk dilaksanakan baik oleh hukum internasional dan peraturan perundang-undangan nasional.The necessity of PP was first felt by the UN General Assembly[1]. Its importance was further realized for attaining sustainable development (SD), which is evident from the Bergen Declaration[2], and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development[3]. These international soft laws put on the states two requirements on all to be followed: there should be adequate reason for safety of the LOMs and GM food; and there should not be intention for a short-term economic gain. It also disseminates ethical values for the individual scientists and companies engaged with gene manipulation with a predominant quest to have a breakthrough research and develop a novel plant or animal species – especially for human consumption, directly, e.g. oil seeds, or indirectly, e.g. use of Bt. Cotton seeds for making edible oils or animal feed – that they should not engage in such activities only only for name and fame. They have to give priority to the precautionary measures. There are strong precaution and weak precaution. The strong precaution, which emanates from the Cartagena Protocol, requires that activities should not be allowed if there is no guarantee of “no harm”; the weak precaution, which is there in the international soft law and SPS Agreement, stipulates that states may adopt precautionary measure(s) if there is no evidence of harm. Although the soft international law points to the soft precaution, most of the developed, developing and least developed countries stick to the strong precaution when there is question of import of GMOs for human consumption, as they supply utmost importance to “human, animal and plant life and health”. However, there are a number of states, especially those, which have vested interest in GMOs exports or have concern about the starving world population, plead for application of the weak precautionary measures.In the midst of the two views, rationalists, including the author, have attempted to strike a balance and opine that if the supply of food is the pressing need of the time, the weak precaution should be applied; if supply of food is plentiful, strong precaution should be the option. And in no case, the safety aspects determined by the GMO producing company or state should be taken as conclusive. The burden of proving the safety of the GMO should be of the exporting country. The importing country should also determine it; and if need be the country may seek safety information from the exporting country. Both must follow the internationally accepted risk-assessment standards (Ansari and Parveen, 2011; Ansari and Lekha, 2012; Stephen, 2006). This is also warranted by the pressing need of a comprehensive approach in international trade law and international environmental law. This is because in the era of pluralism, globalization and mutual existence and survival of the people and the environment requires to emphasize on them rather than moving forward with fragmentation, which is a decade old approach and which has failed to gather enough support. The approach suggested by the authors will break the hegemony of protectionism and parochial approach of trade law (Panaglotis Delimatsis, 2010).