Global trade in GM food and the cartagena protocol on biosafety: Consequences for China

The UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety adopted in Montreal, 29 January, 2000 and opened for signature in Nairobi, 15-26 May, 2000 will exert a profound effect on international trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their products. In this paper, the potential effects of various articles of the Protocol on international trade in GMOs are analyzed. Based on the present status of imports of GMOs and domestic research and development of biotechnology in China, likely trends in imports of foreign GM food and related products after China accedes to WTO is explored. Also, China's potential countermeasures to control and regulate imports of GMOs in line with implementation of the Protocol are discussed. China, in recent times, has increased its food and agricultural imports substantially from USA and Canada. China imported soybean 10.42 mill. tons in 2000 and about 15 mill tons in 2001, of which majority are from USA where GM soybean accounts for 60%. The plantation of US Monsanto's transgenic Bt cotton was increased to more than 1 million ha in China in 2001. Though China has paid great attention to develop biotechnology, it appears to have little scope to export GMOs and GM products. So China may consider a range of administrative measures to implement the Cartagena Protocol and to regulate its import of GMOs and GM agricultural products. Consequently, the Regulation on Safety of Agri-GMOs was issued on June, 2001 and followed three detailed rules issued in Jan. of 2002, with a priority to limit foreign GMOs importing by safety certification and labeling system. These were outlined taking into account policies adopted in Western countries such as green barriers to international trade.

Performing race, culture, and gender in an Indigenous Australian women's music and dance classroom

One perpetual concern among Indigenous Australian peoples is authenticity of voice. Who has the right to speak for, and to make representations about, the knowledges and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples? Whose voice is more authentic, and what happens to these ways of knowing when they make the journey into mainstream Western academic classrooms? In this paper, I examine these questions within the politics of “doing” Indigenous Australian studies by focusing on my own experiences as a lecturer in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of Queensland. My findings suggest that representation is a matter of problematizing positionality and, from a pedagogical standpoint, being aware of, and willing to address, the ways in which power, authority, and voice are performed and negotiated as teachers and learners of Indigenous Australian studies.