GMO Biosafety Research 2014, Vol.6, No.1, 1-9
7
Figure 8 The eigen value of the criteria of social community aspect in GEPs management
The main priority for the GEPs safety to human health
is the same as what has been determined by law No. 7
in 1996 Article 13, paragraph 1 "that any person who
produces food or uses raw materials, food additives
and or other auxiliaries in the food activity or
production process resulted from the modifying
genetic process must be, first, checked and claimed as
a safe food for human health before circulated". As a
top priority of AHP analysis, food safety (it is
important to note- as this is related to the
sustainability of human life) in accordance with the
terms of the GEPs releasing have to meet the
environmental safety point and safe food and / or feed
safety point (PP No. 21/2005) . The polarization
between the pro and cons of the GEP in Indonesia is
still ongoing, especially between the public opinion
and acceptance about GEP the risks on the
environment and human health. Based on the labeling
regulation established since 1996 under Law No. 69
in1999 on the Labeling of GEP Food, there is a
requirement to label any released GEP, but this rule
can not be applied until now due to bureaucratic
problems in government level.
Eigen values for the alternative of GEPs management
policy are based on environmental aspects, economic
aspects, social aspects and technology aspects. Based
on the eigen values given, we gain
law enforcement
of
regulations and laws as key element. The second
highest element of eigen values is the upgrading
capabilities of TTKH- element in assessing the
biological safety. Both of these elements are the main
alternative to be done in implementing the strategy of
improving GEPs management in Indonesia to be
sustainable. Regulatory compliance as well as the
ability of the government as the relevant institutions in
conducting an assessment to the development of new
technologies that may give negative effects on the
environment and human health, should be the focus of
concern for policy makers in this country, so that there
will be no error in making GEPs management policy.
Results of the expert’s assessment on the alternative
elements are based on environmental, economic,
social and technological aspect as shown in Table 1.
b. Analysis of the required alternative elements in
the GEPs management using Interpretative
Structural Modeling analysis (ISM)
Twelve alternative elements that have been given their
eigen values by the experts are continued their
assessment to determine the relationship pattern
amongst the elements and their roles in the chosen
policy using graphical applications theory or ISM
method. On Figure 9, it can be seen that all the
selected elements by the experts become the
sustainable alternative of GEPs management and they
are scattered in sectors II, III and IV (none of them in
sector I (Autonomous)). Sub element of law
enforcement
to the regulations (A12), an increase of
TTKH quality in doing assessment of biological safety
(A5) and human resource capacity building in doing
biological safety testing (A4) are located at sector IV
(independent sector) as sub- key element and as the
most important alternative to be noticed that will
deliver a high effects to other sub- other element in the
using of sustainable GEPs in Indonesia. Besides, the
three sub- elements have a big driver power to other
the sub- elements, so that the changes occurring to
these three key elements can affect the other elements.
Key elements which are at the IV sector need attention
and serious study in their implementation.
