The article attempts to define the concept of legal regulation of relations in the area of genetic technologies. The different models of legal regulation are used as a basis. Priority is given by the authors to the two-level model of legislation. This model consists of one Federal framework law, the provisions of which are supplemented by a group of special legislative acts which regulate certain aspects of genetic technologies. The authors present arguments in favor of choosing this model, in order to build a legislative system for genetic technologies and they highlight its advantages. The article concludes with a proposal to amend the current Federal Law of 5 July, 1996 No. 86-FZ ‘On State Regulation in the Field of Genetic Engineering’ which may serve as a basis for the development of the two-level model of legislation.

As a traditional agricultural country, China produces a wide range of diverse agricultural products. However, China's legislation on geographical indications (GI) for agricultural products is incomplete, existing in three different legal documents. Although China appears to be ready for an independent GI law, it has not yet been enacted, and the method of its administration remains unclear. China is faced with the choice of whether to adopt ‘strong protection’ or ‘weak protection’ in its GI legislation. This question is also directly related to the relationship between international GI treaties and domestic legislation. The protection of geographical indications of agricultural products in China lacks strategic design. The main legislative and administrative bodies are confused, and the specific legal documents at the national, provincial and municipal levels are imbalanced. The recommendation of this article is that, China should choose ‘strong protection’ for primary agricultural products and processed agricultural products with key characteristics, and ‘weak protection’ for other general agricultural products.

The article analyzes the current state of international legal regulation of genetic research in connection with the development of Russian legislation. The author concludes that all international legal regulation of genetic research is reduced today either to the establishment of basic principles or to prohibitions. The provisions of current Russian legislation governing genomic research do not go beyond the paradigm set out in international acts, although they have their own characteristics. The article notes that a distinctive feature of Russian legislative machinery is the detailed regulation of procedural issues and the powers of state bodies. At the same time, several issues including biobanking are not regulated at all. According to the author, the further development of science may require a more detailed regulation and a shift towards more flexible methods of regulation.

The article discusses the collision of patient's right to confidentiality and their relatives interests to know a risk to the health earlier and to increase chance to receive therapy promptly. The author makes an ethical and legal analysis of the existing provisions governing the issue, and attempts to find practical solutions to the question of the doctor-patient relationship.

The approach that privacy can be limited according to the decision of the patient is the most doubtless according to legislation of considered countries. Doctor’s role is to assist to share patients’ genetic risks with concerned relatives and explains how it effects the health and, several tools for this are offered (e.x. letter about genetic risks with recommendations, opportunity to invite relative for consultation).

So, privacy is not absolute right and can be limited, but in what cases it is ethical? Legislation orders doctor to save patients’ rights. At the same time professional duty of physician to help people in a broad sense.

As a result, and due to burden of knowledge doctors are have to overcome the serious moral dilemma and find the compromise – how to inform patients relatives about risks and even prevent diseases and not to undermine trust of the patient. The legislation of most of the countries does not answer this question, recognizing the right to confidentiality not as an absolute right, but as a prevailing right in comparison with the relatives’ interests. At the same time, the problem is more detailed in “soft law” acts and more progressive approaches are proposed – to consider confidentiality on the family level (not individual) in sphere of genetics. Moving such approaches from soft law acts into the field of legislation will remove part of the decision-making burden from doctors.

For thousands of years India has been producing plants with desirable traits by conventional breeding methods. Through controlled cross breeding, several generations of our indigenous farming families have not only identified and selected but have also combined and propagated plants with favorable characteristics. This has been succinctly put by Viva Kermani, the environmentalist, in the following way: ‘Indian farmers have legitimate claims to be scientists, innovators, natural resource stewards, seed savers and hybridization experts.’ It is, therefore, ironical and agonizing that even though non-genetically modified agriculture is inextricably intertwined with Indian culture, history and ethos, and India produces enough to satisfy the hunger of its masses, there has been a push to promote genetically modified crops [GMCs] in India. Mammoth seed MNCs are greedily waiting to prey upon our multi-billion rupee seed market. This will create havoc with the lives of our farming communities; human, animal and plant life; agriculture and food safety and security; environment; and our rich bio-diversity.

What are GMCs? Is there a need for such crops in India? Are there any risks related to GMCs? Do case studies support the mythical advantages of GMCs? What is the road ahead for India? This paper raises these questions.