Biosafety Protocol Compromise

CANADA - In January, delegates from more than 130 countries met in Montreal and signed a treaty to regulate the global trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) is meant to protect global biodiversity by regulating the trade in all GMO imports - from algae and tomatoes to cattle and fruit trees.

The CPB (which one geneticist called "a muddy compromise") will become law 90 days after ratification by 50 nations. It states that nations are to regulate GMOs under the "Precautionary Principle" - in other words, no GMO will be approved for a trade until it is first proven safe.

The European Union already subscribes to the Precautionary Principle. In Montreal, however, the US and its allies lobbied to place the CPB under the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This would have left world markets wide-open to a tide of genetically altered products from major US corporations such as Monsanto.

The CPB's preamble states that there will be no change in the "rights and obligations of a [nation] under any existing international agreements." One such agreement is a WTO rule that turns the Precautionary Principle on its head. It would forbid any nation from banning imports unless it can be proved to a "scientific certainty" that the products are unsafe. However, the CPB's preamble contains a further disclaimer: "The above is not intended to subordinate this protocol to other international agreements."

"Our rights and obligations under WTO are completely intact," maintains Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. On the other hand, Kristin Dawkins of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis argues that established precedent (which holds that multinational disputes are decided on the newest or most specific laws) favors the CPB's precautionary weight over WTO's pro-corporate bias.

Most of the debate in Montreal centered on genetically engineered seeds for crops such as Monsanto's Bt corn and Roundup Ready™ soybeans. In 1999, half of the soy and a third of the corn exported from the US was genetically modified. Consumers in Japan and Europe have angrily rejected GMO imports and some US processors are now paying a premium to farmers for non-GMO grain.

Most importing countries represented in Montreal wanted GMOs clearly identified with labels listing the variety of the plant and for what purpose it was modified - e.g. for herbicide resistance. Major exporters argued that separating GMOs from their natural relatives is impossibly cumbersome. A last-minute compromise called for labels that merely state the products "may contain LMOs [Living Modified Organisms]" that are "not intended for intentional introduction into the environment."

University of Minnesota geneticist Anne R. Kapuscinski points out that such vague warnings "could greatly impair our ability to do risk assessments [and] ... greatly dilutes the information available to an importing nation…. If future health or environmental problems surface," she asks, "how will researchers trace which organism was responsible?"

Pharmaceuticals also were specifically exempted from the CPB. This overlooks a new range of drugs and vaccines that have been gene-spliced, for example, into bananas or potatoes.

In another exemption, the CPB requires that GMO seeds intended for planting must be shipped only by "prior informed agreement." But when these seeds are shipped for human or animal food - or for processing - no prior notice is required. Routine spilling of GMO seeds in transit (or the common practice of diverting seeds from the mill for planting) would introduce GMOs into the environment without safeguards or informed consent.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair continues to backpedal from his support for genetically engineered (GM) foods. In February, US Public Interest Lawyer Steven Druker addressed a food-safety conference in Edinburgh and charged that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had covered up warnings of dangers from GM foods. According to Druker, "the FDA's own scientists warned that genetic modification may generate unexpected toxic carcinogens, allergens and anti-nutritive substances."

And in Canada, government scientists were alarmed to discover that pollen from three different fields of genetically modified canola had unexpectedly mixed to form a "superweed."

Each test field contained a variety of canola engineered to resist a different herbicide -- Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit. Scientists assured farmers that the pollen would not migrate. Yet, within a year, canola plants sprouted that had a freakish "triple-resistance" to all three herbicides. The fields had be planted 30 meters apart. Scientists are now recommending that fields of GE canola be separated by at least 200 meters.

What You Can Do For more information, contact: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy [2105 First Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55404, (612) 870-0453, www.iatp.org]. Conference documents are posted at www.biodiv.org and www.unep.ch/conventions.