|
Background:
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international treaty under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity that:
- Establishes rules and procedures for the international trade in GMOs (referred to as "living modified organisms" (LMOs)) in order to protect the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
- Requires that exporters of LMOs seek governmental advanced informed agreement (AIA) before shipping LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment of importing countries;
- Requires government decision making on imports to be based on sound scientific risk assessment and for results of such assessments to be made available through a Biosafety Clearing House (BCH);
- Requires LMOs shipped to countries Party to the Protocol for contained use, intentional introduction into the environment or for direct use for food, feed, or processing (LMO-FFPs) to be identified in accompanying documentation as specified in the Protocol.
The Biosafety Protocol came into force on 11 September 2003. As of this writing, 141 countries have become Party to the Protocol (i.e., made it law in their own country), including the European Union countries, Mexico, Philippines, Japan, Switzerland, Brazil and New Zealand, as well as most African and Asian nations. Many of these countries - which have voluntarily undertaken the legal obligations of the Protocol - do not have adequate systems in place to handle requests for imports or to comply with even the most basic Protocol requirements. Canada, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia and the United States (i.e., the major agricultural exporting countries) have not joined the Protocol.
The Views of the Users and Developers of Modern Biotechnology†
- The users and developers of agricultural biotechnology products support the spirit of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which has the potential to harmonise national regulatory frameworks thus ensuring appropriate biosafety decision making based on scientific risk assessment. If properly implemented, the Protocol has the potential to encourage innovation, development, technology transfer and capacity building in relation to biotechnology, while also achieving the goals of conservation, sustainable agriculture and equitable sharing of the technology's benefits.
- To realize its potential, however, decisions concerning Protocol implementation must be carefully considered and should not place undue burdens on a technology that possesses such great potential to contribute positively to sustainable agriculture and development throughout the world. Government negotiators have a duty to consult widely to assess in concrete terms the benefits and costs of proposed options.
- Governments should remain free to make their own decisions in relation to the use this powerful technology into their borders, and the users and developers of agricultural biotechnology products will respect these. However, it is imperative that decisions about biotechnology are science-based and the result of agreement between all arms of government and a product of meaningful consultation with all sections of the interested society - including public research organizations, academia, and industry.
- Much more work is needed to ensure that the Protocol ends up doing what it is intended to do - that is, to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Success will require, however, a first-things-first approach where initial efforts focus on bringing all Parties to the Protocol into compliance with it as quickly as possible. Developing further requirements or fine-tuning obligations at this stage only worsens the degree of non-compliance already in existence.
- Therefore, capacity building should remain the primary area of focus under the Biosafety Protocol, to ensure the safe adoption of this technology. In this regard, material exists to help national governments (e.g., Model Act: Proposed Provisions for a Transparent, Effective and Workable Biosafety Regulatory Framework, both available, free of charge, at www.arentfox.com/biosafetymodelact.pdf).
- The users and developers of agricultural biotechnology embrace their share of the duty in the Protocol implementation process and will continue to campaign for fair, science-based regulations and assist with and contribute to effective capacity building.
† The Global Industry Coalition (GIC) for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety receives input and direction from trade associations representing thousands of companies from all over the world. Participants include associations representing and companies engaged in a variety of industrial sectors such as plant science, seeds, agricultural biotechnology, food production, animal agriculture, human and animal health care, and the environment. For more information, contact Sarah Lukie (slukie@bio.org).
The Parties meet for their fourth meeting in Bonn, Germany from 12-16 May where they will continue discussions on a number of implementation issues. The views of the users and developers of modern biotechnology on all issues to be discussed at this meeting are as follows:
Resources:
International Environmental and Biosafety Agreements:
International Product Approvals and Biosafety Databases:
Other Biosafety Resources:
- Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project, Institute for International Agriculture, Michigan State University.
- American Biological Safety Association.
- Ronald Bailey, The Looming Trade War Over Plant Biotechnology, CATO Institute, Trade Policy Analysis No. 18 (August 1, 2002).
- Bioline International, BioSafety Journal.
- European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle (February 2, 2000).
- European Union, EC-Sponsored Research on the Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms: A Review of Results (2001).
- Food and Agricultural Organization, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
- Food and Agricultural Organization Secretariat for the International Plant Protection Convention.
- Greenpeace International, Biosafety Protocol.
- International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Biosafety Web Pages.
- 7th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, Beijing, China (October 10-16, 2002).
- International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- International Service for National Agricultural Research.
- Mywish K. Maredia, The Economics of Biosafety: Implications for Biotechnology in Developing Countries, Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 98-5, Michigan State University (April 1998).
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, LMOs and the Environment: An International Conference, Raleigh-Durham, United States (November 27-30, 2001).
- Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Dispute over Labeling of GM Foods Threatens Billions in Trade (2002).
Read the issue brief here.
Read the policy dialogue here.
- U.S. Department of State.
For more links, click here.
|
Printer Friendly