Search Results

An organization possesses three kinds of knowledge: tacit or personal knowledge; explicit or codified knowledge, and cultural knowledge in its beliefs and norms. An organization can create new knowledge by (1) converting between tacit and explicit knowledge; (2) extending core capabilities; and (3) transferring knowledge across different parts of the organization. Knowledge sharing depends on social networks that are built on norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation. This chapter looks at a number of cases that exemplify these concepts, including the community of practice in the Xerox Eureka project, and knowledge transfer at GM-Toyota NUMMI.

This chapter discusses European Community legislation for traceability and labeling of genetically modified crops, food, and feed. After a brief discussion of EC law making and the role of the precautionary principle, the chapter discusses EC measures for authorization of bioengineered or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GM food and feed. It focuses on EC Regulations that require, and establish thresholds for, traceability and labeling of GMOS and their food and feed products. The chapter addresses the practical issue of coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops, and it reviews EC policy documents and Member State measures to ensure coexistence.

This chapter reviews variations across the region for the single most informative polymorphism from the autosomes, the GM locus. There are over 11,000 samples analyzed for GM from Pacific populations. Their pattern of variation reinforces some themes established in the mitochondrial DNA. There is a GM connection between Australian Aboriginal and certain New Guinea populations; between Southeast Asian and Austronesian groups; and between certain Eastern Highlands New Guinea and Island Melanesian populations. The GM pattern also indicates a substantial level of intermixture between Austronesian and Papuan speaking populations in Northern Island Melanesia, which is also echoed in the mitochondrial DNA.

Increased global cultivation of GM crops raises concerns about the coexistence of GM varieties with conventional and organic crops. In the European Union, where few GM crops are grown, GM content that exceeds strict regulatory thresholds triggers requirements for labelling and traceability. Successful coexistence measures can minimize GM presence and avoid those labelling and traceability requirements. Though the European Union does not impose standards for coexistence, a 2003 Commission Recommendation lays down guidelines for Member State strategies and best practices. Member States have enacted (or will enact) coexistence measures, including education, notification, and on-farm practices. Significant issues related to coexistence include limits on GM content in seeds, the effects of GMOs on organic production, the legality of GM-free areas in the European Union, and liability for damage caused by commingling of GM and other crops.

Within the framework imposed at European Union level, Member States have taken advantage of the considerable discretion which they are accorded when implementing coexistence measures at national level. This divergence is examined by reference to four Member States: France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. While there may be important similarities in approach (for example, in all four Member States the choice has been taken to regulate by legislative means), there are also notable differences. In France, the emphasis is on freedom of cropping, with the result that actions seeking to impose GM-free zones, whether initiated by organic producers or local authorities, have met with little success. In Italy, until recently, there has been a legislative impasse by reason of a battle for competence between the state and the regions. In Spain, a draft Royal Decree has been promulgated, but it remains to be implemented, and several of its measures have already proved controversial. In the United Kingdom, the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales have shown marked hostility to GMOs, while, more generally, the slow pace of legislative progress may be attributed to the absence of immediate intent to proceed to commercialization of GM crops.

Modern biotechnology has promised much for agriculture, and these promises are certainly attractive in the case of Africa. Importantly, a number of countries in the continent continue to grapple with food insecurity and starvation. But it remains controversial whether modern biotechnology, in its current state, can overcome these unique challenges. For reasons such as biosafety and fear of loss of export markets, Africa has remained largely ambivalent towards GM crops, and the regulatory regimes governing biosafety in several countries largely restrict their development. While recognizing some of the hurdles which modern biotechnology must clear before it can deliver its promises, this chapter argues that the continent stands to benefit from promoting the development and safe use of GM crops. It further argues that African countries should invest heavily in research and development, with a view to owning the technology and ensuring relevance to their circumstances. This should be the guiding objective of biosafety regulation in Africa.

Canada approved GM canola for unconfined release in 1995, but it did so without open and informed debate about the problems of coexistence of GM and non-GM agriculture, and without a regulatory structure to adequate addressing them. They are, therefore, being dealt with by the courts. This chapter first discusses what this entails for affected farmers in the well-known cases of Monsanto v Schmeiser and Hoffman v Monsanto. It then explores the possibility of bringing an action against the government for negligence in regulating and controlling GM technology, particularly in failing to provide adequately for the coexistence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Several class actions relating to BSE currently before the Canadian courts are presented as examples.

This chapter reviews the development of both EU and US regulatory policies and practices regarding agricultural biotechnology since 2000, in light of bilateral and international pressures. The first section examines the remarkable root-and-branch reform of the EU's regulatory framework. The second section examines the domestic debate over the adequacy and possible reform of the US regulatory framework for GM foods and crops, and the resulting incremental changes to the behaviour of market actors as well as US national regulators. The story of US and EU regulation of GMOs since 2000 has primarily been one of continuity, with the US retaining its preference for a relatively lax, technocratic, and product-oriented regulation, while the EU has retained the essential features of its more precautionary and process-oriented regulatory system involving individual approval decisions by politicians.

The 2011 Japanese quake affected many companies and illustrates the growing problem with deep-tier supply chain disruptions in which the suppliers of suppliers are affected. Chapter 3 examines GM’s handling of the Japan crisis and the management of what GM calls “white-space”—the gap in parts supply left between pre-disruption inventories in the supply chain and the post-recovery refilling of the chain. The white-space conceptual framework allows companies to estimate a value-at-risk from various types of disruptions and to prioritize prevention and preparation initiatives.

This chapter looks into the introduction of genetically modified (GM) materials into food. If there is a crisis, a crisis of confidence in GM science and its use in agriculture, it can be viewed as a kind of pre-emptive or anticipatory crisis. Clear evidence that GM food threatens the health of consumers does not exist. Yet European governments have invested considerable amounts of financial and political capital in responding to public anxieties. They have invested heavily in enhancing the public's understanding of the science underpinning GM crops.

After earning the nickname "The Arsenal of Democracy" during WWII, Detroit’s auto plants experienced production disruptions during postwar reconversion to civilian production. This meant significant layoffs, especially for women autoworkers. Shortages of crucial materials, often caused by steel strikes and coal strikes, made auto employment sporadic. Authorized strikes in the auto industry, including the 1946 GM strike called by Walter Reuther, and unauthorized "wildcat" strikes, all contributed to ongoing instability. Cold weather, hot weather, and federal credit regulations played roles as well. As a result, autoworkers experienced persistent layoffs even though auto companies managed to earn profits during the early postwar years. By late 1948, no one in the industry thought that the postwar boom had arrived.

The chapter focuses on the sustainable use of land which is fixed in availability and has competing uses for meeting the requirements of any economy. As agriculture for food supply is the most critical use of land it outlines the theory of land use and rent with reference to soil or land quality and defines the carrying capacity of land in terms of providing life support to people in calorie units. It critically discusses the issue of food security with reference to the adequacy of carrying capacity of land and points to both the challenges of distribution as well as augmenting carrying capacity using biotechnology and developing genetically modified crops. It further discusses the actual pattern of land use and land degradation in India, and their causal factors, like soil erosion, chemical and physical degradation of land, poverty, overpopulation and dependency on ecologically fragile resources with their policy implications.

This chapter highlights the human rights concerns in biotechnology. In this regard, responses from the governments of the US, India, and EU have been mapped. Various international human rights conventions and agreement have been analyzed in the context of biotechnology and connected human rights concerns. EU directive’s stand on human rights concerns, the US and Indian policy responses to biotechnology in the context of human rights are highlighted. Human rights issues connected with cloning, genetic research, and genetically modified (GM) foods have been highlighted. The concept of GM foods, its efficacy, acceptance and associated consumer rights, right to food, and such other human rights issues have been debated. Further, the right to health in the context of biotechnology and genetic research is discussed. The aim was to discuss and debate various human rights concerns involved in biotechnology research, development, innovation, use, and exploitation.

This chapter dwells on the regulatory structure of biotechnology in India. Ranging from the 1989 rules on manufacture and use of genetically engineered organisms until the 2013 biotechnology regulatory authority of India bill, all the rules, regulations, guidelines, protocols, and bills on biotechnology regulation in India have been discussed and analyzed. The institutional mechanism for regulation of biotechnology in India comprising various technical, review, advisory, and approval committees have been presented and appraised. The approach of the Government of India towards biotechnology promotion, the Indian Parliament’s concerns on biotechnology in agriculture, and the Supreme Court’s technical appraisal of biotechnology promotion and regulation have been debated and highlighted. The objective of the chapter is to present, analyze, and highlight the existing and prospective regulatory mechanisms in India on biotechnology with its policy underpinnings from different organizations of the Government of India.

This chapter analyzes case studies on the Toyota plant in Indiana, Toshiba, Hansen Corporation, and GM Lansing. Compared to Toyota Japan, the Indiana plant is operating fairly well and is expected to fully implement the Toyota Production System (TPS) as company culture. Toshiba has three plants with separate roles. Hansen, located in a conservative rural area, follows many American traditions but follows the Japanese style of factory management. It is a good example how management philosophy and management systems of the parent company, Japanese Minebea, coexists with traditional American-style management. GM Lansing uses a lean production method acquired from GM-Toyota NUMMI joint venture. It is a typical example of an American factory using the TPS.

Legal regime that deals with farmers’ rights in India suffers from multiple legal and institutional obstacles, particularly because of lack of harmony between these legal frameworks. Some of the ongoing developments such as the proposed Seeds Bill further add to these already existing inconsistencies. This chapter summarizes interfacing legal discourses on farmers’ rights. It argues that the effective realization of farmers’ rights in India depends upon the ongoing efforts on framing a legal regime for the protection of traditional knowledge and the extent of coordination between all these related statutory frameworks. Both the PPVFR Act and the Biodiversity Act provide for benefit-sharing under their respective provisions. Both the acts interface in dealing with the same subject matter of benefit-sharing in case of access and utilization of resources. This raises an issue of ‘multiple regime complex’ and even if this provision materializes, the farmers end up confused regarding which is a better forum to seek remedy.

Although human beings have been altering genomes by selection and breeding of particular animal or plant variants for thousands of years, and X-rays and chemicals were first used to create mutants in the early 20^th century genetic engineering in the true sense only became possible much more recently. First, the discovery that genes are made of DNA, revealed the material nature of the genome. Second, scientists in the early 1970s discovered enzymes in bacteria that can be used to cut and paste DNA in the test tube. Using such molecular ‘tools‘ bacteria were engineered to produce important medical products such as human insulin for diabetics, and from this was born what would become a billion-dollar biotechnology industry. A further important development was the discovery of embryonic stem cells and manipulation of these to make ‘knockout’ mice that had a deletion of a specific gene, or ‘knockin’ mice that had subtle changes in a gene. However such an approach was still relatively expensive and time-consuming, and cold only be applied to mice. And although gene constructs could be introduced into cells in a less precise manner, the crude nature of this approach limited its application for both agriculture and gene therapy. In both areas of application there have been concerns about the safety and ethics of using such an approach. A major criticism has been the lack of precision in where a gene construct would end up the genome, leading to concerns about possible adverse effects.

Despite many inequalities in the world, it is a testament to human technology that modern agriculture is able to feed the 8 billion people on the planet. However, recently extreme weather patterns linked to global warming have been having an adverse effect on crops and farmed animal production, leading to fears about whether agriculture can continue to feed all the humans on the planet. Genome editing looks set to revolutionise agriculture by making it possible to precisely edit the genomes of farm plants and animals rapidly and economically in an unprecedented way. Such editing could be used to create vegetables and meat with enhanced flavour or nutrition. It could also be used to create disease resistant plants and animals, and reduce the use of antibiotics or pesticides. Looking further into the future it might eventually be possible to use genome editing to reconfigure plants or animals to survive in increasingly extreme types of climates. Despite these positive ways of using genome editing in agriculture, concerns have been raised about the safety of food produced from genome edited animals and plants, and potential adverse effects on animal welfare. Another criticism is that genome editing may only benefit giant agribusiness companies, and not ordinary farmers and consumers. Yet against this criticism, one of the revolutionary aspects of genome editing is how easy and economical it is to use, which means that unlike previous GM technologies, there is no reason why it cannot be used in a local, sustainable, and accessible way.