Biosafety information management systems. A comparative analysis of the regulatory systems in Canada, Argentina, and Chile
CamBioTec, a Canadian-Latin American Network promoting the safe and effective use of agricultural and environmental biotechnology, undertook an analysis of the current capacities of Argentina, Chile and Canada with respect to the management of information related to assessment and approval of produc...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
2000
|
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-34582000000100002 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | CamBioTec, a Canadian-Latin American Network promoting the safe and effective use of agricultural and environmental biotechnology, undertook an analysis of the current capacities of Argentina, Chile and Canada with respect to the management of information related to assessment and approval of products of modern biotechnology/ genetically engineering. This report is based on data obtained during a number of interviews and institutional visits conducted during August 1998 and includes: an overview of current regulatory policy, identification of key human resources and authorities, analysis of information management capacity, recommendations for capacity building, and descriptions of relevant international initiatives. Canada has a regulatory system in place that is respected throughout the world for its ability to insure high-quality agricultural biotechnology products that meet international human and environmental health and safety standards. Argentina is recognized as leader among Latin American countries in the regulation of biotechnology products. Chile is a well-known center of genetic diversity for a number of plant species but with very little in the way of biosafety regulation. Together these countries represent a broad spectrum of technical experience, regulatory policy, and agricultural interests. |
|---|