Jeremy Lennard in Bogotá
The Guardian Weekly Volume 160 Issue 9 for week ending February 28,
1999, Page 1
A TREATY among 170 countries to ensure safe trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been sabotaged by the United States, which believes that its business interests are threatened. The US has refused to allow commodities such as soya bean and corn, which account for 90 per cent of the world trade in GMOs, to be included in the negotiations.
If they were included they would need to be clearly labelled when being traded, something Americans are anxious to avoid since it could lead to their products being boycotted. The US action came 24 hours before a deadline for the biosafety negotiations in Colombia were due to be completed. The US refused to bow to pressure from the vast majority of the 170 countries present, who called for a cautious approach to the international trade.
After working groups failed last week to produce a consensus on a paper for the final debates, the treaty, due to be signed on Tuesday, was expected to favour free trade concerns over environmental prudence, and play into the hands of biotech companies such as the US giants Monsanto and Dow. "The US is willing to threaten biodiversity in the name of short-term profits. It wants a biotrade, not a biosafety, protocol," said Greenpeace's political adviser, Louise Gale. "Over the past two years the US has flooded the market with unregulated and unlabelled genetically-engineered [GE] grain." Although the US has no formal delegation in Cartagena, it sent a powerful lobby group of biotech company representatives, who have worked with a handful of countries to ride roughshod over the concerns of Europe and the developing world, which fears becoming a testing ground for biotechnology.
The proposals essentially reduce any potential agreement to govern the trade in genetically engineered seed, and offer few or no restrictions on the trade in GE grain to be used in food, and other commodities containing GMOs. If adopted, the paper was also expected to sideline liability concerns for another four years while freeing up trade.
John Burgess in Montreal
The Guardian Weekly 3-2-2000, page 35
The United States last weekend accepted under pressure a new international trade agreement that could speed the labelling of genetically engineered foods on the world market. The pact, adopted by delegates of 140 countries after being endorsed by the United States, would allow a country to ban the import of a genetically modified food without full scientific proof that it was unsafe. The United States, the leading producer of genetically altered food, had resisted the regulations. In return for signing, other nations agreed to put off for two years from the pact's implementation proposals to regulate global shipments of such foods. The United States could point to numerous concessions it had won. Many conference participants, however, thought that the accord would legitimize notions that bioengineered foods are specialized products that must be treated differently than foods that are not altered. This could speed the spread of labelling. Many consumers prefer non-engineered foods. Europe has required consumer labelling in stores; in the United States the practice has remained voluntary and rare. If consumer resistance increases, U.S. farmers may have to reconsider their use of the technology. Frank E. Loy, an undersecretary of state and head of the U.S. team in Montreal, described the agreement as "not perfect." He said, however, that laying out rules will "make it easier for all of us to harness the promise of this technology to feed the world's growing population using less land, less water, less pesticides." U.S. officials said the deal requires that barriers to the products be based on scientific findings, not baseless fear or protectionism. U.S. opponents called the accord a victory for their side, saying it will increase people's right to control what they eat. "This is about the right to choose for consumers," said Margot Wallstrom, commissioner of environment for the European Union, which contends that despite U.S. findings of safety the new foods and organisms may harbor unknown health and environmental hazards. In sessions leading up to the agreement, bargaining had as much to do with economics as the environment. U.S. farmers sold the world about $50 billion in farm goods last year, much of it genetically engineered. Other nations worry that the technology will put their own farmers at a disadvantage. (GMOs).Consumer boycotts and pressure from foreign governments are pushing farmers and grain companies to develop economical ways to separate foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).The gene-altered foods are mixed with regular crops once they leave the fields. The United States has pioneered the use of genetics in agriculture. The products must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration before they can be used commercially. Last year more than a third of the corn, soybeans and cotton planted in the United States was of genetically altered varieties, and much of the crop was exported.
Richard Black,
BBC Science
Thursday, 11 September, 2003
An international treaty on the trade in genetically-modified organisms came into force on Thursday. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety gives countries the right to bar imports of live GM organisms (GMOs) - plants, animals, bacteria or viruses - which they believe carry environmental or health risks. However, the biggest users of GM agriculture have yet to ratify it. The more than 50 countries which have ratified the protocol now have the right to bar imports of live GMOs from other nations which have also ratified.
CARTAGENA PROTOCOL
-Only global treaty on handling and movement of GMOs
-Establishes information "clearing-house" in Montreal, Canada
-Adopted January 2000 by members of UN Convention on Biological Diversity
-Entry into force triggered by ratification by 50th state in June
If they are not sure what the risks are, they can ask the exporting country to provide a risk assessment; and there is also to be a central online database of information on risks. Running through the protocol's wording is an acknowledgement that GMOs may constitute a danger to health and the environment; but that's not a view which everyone agrees with. The US Government in particular believes GMOs pose no risk at all. It hasn't even signed the protocol, let alone ratified it. If American companies find poorer nations blocking exports on safety grounds, the protocol may provide little protection; the rules and procedures of the World Trade Organisation may in the end prove more powerful. Nevertheless, the protocol has been hailed by environmental groups who see it as a way of providing knowledge and safeguards for countries which currently have far fewer resources than biotech multinationals.
Return to TOP of page