| Popis: |
This research had the objective of analyzing the legislative opinions regarding the proposed amendment of Law no. 11.105 / 2005 (Biosafety Law) that conforms the Draft Law º? (CRA), the Committee on the Environment (CMA), the Committee on Science, Technology, Innovation, Communication and Information Technology (CCT) and in the Committee on Social Affairs (CAS) - all within the scope of the Federal Senate. As a complementary objective, it sought to identify, on the one hand, the possible consequences of this legislative change to biotechnology companies, small producers and small businessmen and, on the other hand, potential violations of consumer rights. The conclusion reached was that the proposal deprecates the constitutional right of information and the precautionary principle. As regards the first, according to the terms of the proposal, the food consumer will not be informed of the possible presence of genetically modified organisms if they are less than 1% of the total composition of the product; in addition, it will not receive information that would be expected to be broad and adequate on food labels whose composition has a concentration higher than that limit, leaving no real conditions for a mature choice as to the consumption of these foods. Regarding the lack of precaution, there is no conclusive scientific analysis on the impacts of genetically modified foods, whether harmful or beneficial, on human health; it should be added that transgenics have different biological consequences and consequences, depending on who ingests the food, which is why it is even more important for the consumer to be able to consciously choose foodstuffs that may contain transgenics. The research also concludes that the legal proposal that allows the small farmer and the small business owner to mention the non-use of genetically modified organisms in their products is innocuous and ineffective, since the analysis necessary to prove the composition of the food produced generates costs that are passed on to the consumer, violating free competition. The methodology used, as far as the means, was of the deductive and descriptive methods, through doctrinal, bibliographical and legal analysis. As for the purposes, the research was qualitative. |
