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.

Engaging with theories of dialogue and voice: Using Bakhtin as a framework to understand teaching and learning Indigenous Australian women's performance

In this paper I explore the Indigenous Australian women's performance classroom (hereafter ANTH2120) as a dialectic and discursive space where the location of possibility is opened for female Indigenous performers to enter into a dialogue from and between both non-Indigenous and Indigenous voices. The work of Bakhtin on dialogue serves as a useful standpoint for understanding the multiple speaking positions and texts in the ANTH2120 context. Bakhtin emphasizes performance, history, actuality and the openness of dialogue to provide an important framework for analysing multiple speaking positions and ways of making meaning through dialogue between shifting and differing subjectivities. I begin by briefly critiquing Bakhtin's "dialogic imagination" and consider the application and usefulness of concepts such as dialogism, heteroglossia and the utterance to understanding the ANTH2120 classroom as a polyphonic and discursive space. I then turn to an analysis of dialogue in the ANTH2120 classroom and primarily situate my gaze on an examination of the interactions that took place between the voices of myself as family/teacher/student and senior Yanyuwa women from the r e m o t e N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t y o f B o r r o l o o l a as family/performers/teachers. The 2000 and 2001 Yanyuwa women's performance workshops will be used as examples of the way power is constantly shifting in this dialogue to allow particular voices to speak with authority, and for others to remain silent as roles and relationships between myself and the Yanyuwa women change. Conclusions will be drawn regarding how my subject positions and white race privilege affect who speaks, who listens and on whose terms, and further, the efficacy of this pedagogical platform for opening up the location of possibility for Indigenous Australian women to play a powerful part in the construction of knowledges about women's performance traditions.