Viktoriya Bashuk


The purpose of this article is to investigate the regulation of the use, consumption, and trade of genetically modified organisms in different countries of the world, as well as in Ukraine. The definition of international approaches to risk assessment of genetically modified products is of particular importance for international trade. Methodology. The study is based on data from different sources, beginning with the first mention of genetically modified organisms, ending with the latest received data from different countries. Purpose. Show how different countries refer differently to the production of genetically modified products, differently perceive it and are guided by different principles. Find ways to solve the problems associated with the introduction of GMOs in Ukraine and compare them with other countries. Results. The study showed that developed countries have developed clear rules for the production, labelling, consumption, and trade of products containing GMOs. Also, the bodies and structures responsible for compliance with all these rules are defined and a large number of legislative acts has been adopted, which cannot be said of Ukraine. In Ukraine, this is a large gap because “on paper” also seems that there are some rules according to GMOs but they are not clear, consistent, and they are not followed due to their observance, as these powers are entrusted to a large number of structures. Due to imperfect legislation and lack of funds, products that are imported are not tested for GMOs content, there are no studies on the safety of their consumption and cultivation, the reliability of information on labels is not followed. Practical implications. In Ukraine, in order to ensure the proper level of state regulation, protection, and use of genetically modified products obtained with the help of modern biotechnologies, it is necessary to adhere strictly to the fulfilment of the main criteria: 1) adoption and further improvement of legislation regulating this area of activity; 2) registration and prevention of the danger of genetic pollution of the environment as a result of the production of genetically modified products; 3) determination of economic efficiency from growing GM plants; 4) introduction of a transparent GMO registration system and issuing permits for field testing of transgenic plants, limiting plant testing to several years; 5) solution of a problem of intellectual property protection in this area and technology transfer; 6) determining the degree of influence of genetically modified products on human health and the biosystem as a whole; 7) formation of public opinion, development of environmental education; 8) enhancement of international cooperation in plant biotechnology and biosafety. Value/originality. Ukraine is a big country that is developing, it has a good potential and can get economic benefits from the production of genetically modified products, so it is necessary to fill in all the gaps in this matter in the near future in order to take its place in this sphere.

How to Cite

Bashuk, V. (2017). FEATURES OF THE STATE REGULATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PRODUCTS IN THE WORLD AND IN UKRAINE. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(2), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-2-4-11
Article views: 347 | PDF Downloads: 7



genetically modified organisms (GMOs), genetically modified products, trade regulation, regulation of using GMOs, Ukraine.


Balasynovich B. & Iaroshevska Iu. (2010). GMO: the challenges and the experience of legal regulation. Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting, 255 p.

Blum Ya., Sivolap Yu., Rydiy R. & Sozinov A. (2006). A new wave of the «green revolution».

Brooks G. & Blum Ya. (2012). Potential economic and ecological effect from the introduction of modern GM crops into the agricultural production of Ukraine, 88 p.

Dromashko S.E. & others. (2011). Genetically modified organisms and problems of biosecurity. Minsk. State Institution of Education “Researchers Training Institute National Academy of Sciences of Belarus”. 70 p.

Iakovleva I. V., Vinogradova S. V. & Kamionskaia A. М. (2015). State turnover regulation of biotechnological (GM) agricultural products: an analysis of different approaches in the world’s practice. Ecological genetic. No 2. P. 21-25.

Iaroshevska Yu. (2009). The choice of Ukraine regarding the policy in the field of genetically modified organisms: the EU model or the US? Kiev. Institute of Economic Research and Policy Consulting. 66 p.

Iulevich O.I., Kovtun S.I. & Gil M.I. (Ed.) (2012). Biotechnology: textbook. Nikolaev. NSAU. 476 p.

Koval L. (2007). Transgenes: salvation or threat. Government courier. No. 90.

Lozinska Т. М. (2009). The concept of three-dimensional product typology in public administration of food market development. Actual problems of public administration. №2. P. 117-125.

Makarovskaya V.R. (2008). Administrative and legal regulation of production and consumption of genetically modified foods. Medical Law of Ukraine: the legal status of patients in Ukraine and its legislative support (genesis, development, problems and prospects for improvement). Materials of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference. Lviv. P. 155-159.

Malysh N. (2013). Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food Safety System of Ukraine. The State and the Market. No 2(14) P. 116-122.

Novozhilov O.V. (2008). Legislative and regulatory framework for the use and regulation of the turnover of genetically modified organisms in Ukraine. Genetically Modified Organisms: Problems and Prospects of Use in Ukraine. Moscow. Agrarian Science. P. 15.

Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 468 of May 13, 2009. On approval of the procedure for labeling food products containing genetically modified organisms or produced with their use and put into circulation.

Stepnova А. & Berlova H. (2007). About regulation of genetically modified products markets. All about meat. No 6. P. 2-7.

Volkov О. (2014). State regulation of the turnover of GMOs in Ukraine: current status and the blueprint of reforming. Kyiv. USAID Agroinvest. 37 p.