摘 要
台灣在農業生技領域的發展，尤其是基因改造動，植物及水產動物皆有具體成效。台灣自2005年實行植物品種及種苗法以管制基因改造植物，相關子法包括基因轉殖植物田間試驗管理辦法，基因轉殖植物輸出入許可辦法及基因轉殖植物之標示及包裝準則，亦陸續生效實施。基因轉殖植物規範系統之建立，不僅具體落實一個全面性的管制制度，同時政府部門更投入相當多資源以加強軟，硬體部分之能力建構。除此之外，相關資源之投入也見於基因轉殖動物及水產動物管制上。對於一個非卡塔赫納生物安全議定書之會員國而言，台灣的投入值得全球更多的肯定及協助。 具體而言，包括科技合作，技術移轉，防檢疫對策，資訊交換，和越境轉移前之預警制度等方面，皆是重點合作的方向。無疑地，基因改造生物仍許多風險疑慮。在與台灣有貿易往來的各國邊境管制政策寬鬆不一的現況下，如何摒棄基因改造產品的成見，同時加強合作談判才是積極的雙贏策略，畢竟全球性的生態風險絕不可能憑藉各國各自的國土政策而能免除。如果環境衝擊，食品安全與科學怪物真正成為人類生存的重大風險，在國境上管制基因改造生物充其量只能暫時維護國家安全，唯有凝聚國際共識及建立環球性的效率管控方是長遠之道。
關鍵詞：基因改造生物、卡塔赫納生物安全議定書、植物品種及種苗法、基因轉殖動物、基因轉殖水產動物Abstract
Taiwan has made certain achievements in the field of genetically modified organisms, including plants, animals and aquatic plants and animals. After enacting the Plant Variety and Plant Seed Act in 2005, bylaws such as ‘Regulations for Approving Import/Export of Transgenic Plants’, ‘Regulations for the Field Trial of Transgenic Plants’ and ‘Guidelines on Transgenic Plant Labeling And Packaging’ have subsequently been made and implemented. These legal instruments work together to form a workable regulatory framework on transgenic plants. Moreover, the government also invests resources to help carry out capacity building needed to execute implementation. Such voluntary actions taken with great effort by the Taiwanese government apparently represent the paradigm for non-contracting members to the Catagena Protocol, and in response, more international support shall be poured in to help improve the current regulatory framework in Taiwan. Specifically, scientific liaisons, technology licensing, quarantine measures, information sharing and precautions warnings are areas to be enhanced in cooperation with the international community. Given the varied GMO border policy of different countries, especially those with trade relationships with Taiwan, the challenge to offset negative feelings towards GMO before coming to the negotiation table to work together deserves high priority in the cooperation agenda. After all, even though borderlines can be defined by political jurisdiction, no artificial intervention can define the borderlines of the global ecological system. If environmental impact, food safety and science-created monsters are really threats to human kind, border control of GMO can only play the role of temporarily securing national security, while international consensus and effective regulatory framework should be the ultimate solution in the long run.
摘 要
台灣在農業生技領域的發展，尤其是基因改造動，植物及水產動物皆有具體成效。台灣自2005年實行植物品種及種苗法以管制基因改造植物，相關子法包括基因轉殖植物田間試驗管理辦法，基因轉殖植物輸出入許可辦法及基因轉殖植物之標示及包裝準則，亦陸續生效實施。基因轉殖植物規範系統之建立，不僅具體落實一個全面性的管制制度，同時政府部門更投入相當多資源以加強軟，硬體部分之能力建構。除此之外，相關資源之投入也見於基因轉殖動物及水產動物管制上。對於一個非卡塔赫納生物安全議定書之會員國而言，台灣的投入值得全球更多的肯定及協助。 具體而言，包括科技合作，技術移轉，防檢疫對策，資訊交換，和越境轉移前之預警制度等方面，皆是重點合作的方向。無疑地，基因改造生物仍許多風險疑慮。在與台灣有貿易往來的各國邊境管制政策寬鬆不一的現況下，如何摒棄基因改造產品的成見，同時加強合作談判才是積極的雙贏策略，畢竟全球性的生態風險絕不可能憑藉各國各自的國土政策而能免除。如果環境衝擊，食品安全與科學怪物真正成為人類生存的重大風險，在國境上管制基因改造生物充其量只能暫時維護國家安全，唯有凝聚國際共識及建立環球性的效率管控方是長遠之道。
關鍵詞：基因改造生物、卡塔赫納生物安全議定書、植物品種及種苗法、基因轉殖動物、基因轉殖水產動物Abstract
Taiwan has made certain achievements in the field of genetically modified organisms, including plants, animals and aquatic plants and animals. After enacting the Plant Variety and Plant Seed Act in 2005, bylaws such as ‘Regulations for Approving Import/Export of Transgenic Plants’, ‘Regulations for the Field Trial of Transgenic Plants’ and ‘Guidelines on Transgenic Plant Labeling And Packaging’ have subsequently been made and implemented. These legal instruments work together to form a workable regulatory framework on transgenic plants. Moreover, the government also invests resources to help carry out capacity building needed to execute implementation. Such voluntary actions taken with great effort by the Taiwanese government apparently represent the paradigm for non-contracting members to the Catagena Protocol, and in response, more international support shall be poured in to help improve the current regulatory framework in Taiwan. Specifically, scientific liaisons, technology licensing, quarantine measures, information sharing and precautions warnings are areas to be enhanced in cooperation with the international community. Given the varied GMO border policy of different countries, especially those with trade relationships with Taiwan, the challenge to offset negative feelings towards GMO before coming to the negotiation table to work together deserves high priority in the cooperation agenda. After all, even though borderlines can be defined by political jurisdiction, no artificial intervention can define the borderlines of the global ecological system. If environmental impact, food safety and science-created monsters are really threats to human kind, border control of GMO can only play the role of temporarily securing national security, while international consensus and effective regulatory framework should be the ultimate solution in the long run.