Biosafety talks conclude in surprising accord

A normal corn earworm larva, right, dwarfs one fed on a genetically altered baculovirus. Both larvae are 10 days old.

February 2, 2000
Web posted at: 12:07 p.m. EST (1707 GMT)

By Environmental News Network staff

The Biosafety Protocols negotiated in Montreal this past weekend are being cautiously praised by both environmentalists and industry representatives. The agreement on rules to regulate the international trade of genetically modified organisms has been extremely controversial and five years in the making.

Greenpeace called the agreement a historic step toward protecting the environment and consumers while industry representatives called the rules "workable."

	MESSAGE BOARD
Genetically modified food

"The significance of establishing the precautionary principle, which environmentalists have lobbied for across many issues, can not be understated," said Philip Bereano of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

Under the protocols the precautionary principal allows countries to refuse to accept a shipment on the basis that it might cause harm to the environment or human health. Bereano, who is a professor at the University of Washington in technology and public policy, attended the Montreal meetings in his capacity as a representative of a non-government organization (NGO).

"In addition, the provisions of this treaty signifies that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are not the same as conventionally grown crops. Industry has been making this argument while at the same time taking out patents that say they're completely different. This treaty emphatically establishes that GMOs present different kinds of risks that require particular scrutiny. The agreement is a tremendous victory for the environment."

Genetically modified products include seeds, grains, processed food and feed that have been bioengineered for a specific trait, such as resistance to pests, increased production or delayed ripening times. Advocates of GMOs emphasize the benefits of bioengineering: less pollution from pesticides and fertilizers and increased production to help combat world hunger. Opponents fear that unleashing biologically altered organisms into the environment could lead to a catastrophic loss in biodiversity.

The United States and its biotech allies — Uruguay, Argentina, Canada, Chile and Australia — managed to scuttle agreements in 1995 and 1999, fearing that the rules would restrict trade. Public opinion against bioengineering, as demonstrated in Seattle in November and in many European countries over the last year, may have ultimately swayed the negotiators representing the United States and its five allies to reach a compromise.

The most important issue was the establishment of the right of countries to reject a shipment on the basis that it might have a negative impact on the environment or public health. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which is widely perceived to favor trade over environmental issues, a country had to show a preponderance of scientific evidence.

Which set of trade rules would take precedence — those of the World Trade Organization or the rules negotiated under the Biosafety Protocol — was a sticky issue. The negotiators essentially finessed the issue with language saying that the two agreements will be "mutually supportive" and that nothing in the treaty is "intended to subordinate this protocol to other international agreements." How this issue is resolved will largely determine the effectiveness of the Biosafety Protocols.

"That's all preambulatory language," says Bereano, "not operative language, and it doesn't have any legal weight. The importance of the document is in its flexibility. How the language is interpreted will be determined by the political and social realities of the future. But it's a huge step forward to be squabbling over language rather than the principal itself."

Labeling products that contained genetically engineered organisms was another big issue. The United States and its allies agreed to the label "may contain living modified organisms" without specifics. Negotiators will have two years from the time the treaty goes into effect to come up with more specific labels.

Negotiators also reached a compromise on the Advanced Informed Agreement procedure, which would have required countries exporting GMOs to notify each country when a shipment containing GMOs was scheduled. This was a major sticking point at the talks that took place in February 1999. Under the compromise, technical information will be posted to a central registry rather than to individual countries.

The issue over who pays if environmental damage from GMOs occurs was tabled and will be addressed at future negotiations.

The negotiations, which took place Jan. 24-28, were held under the auspices of the United Nations. The agreement is an adjunct to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity. Juan Mayr Maldonado, Colombia's environment minister, headed the discussions.

Copyright 2000, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.