Home
About this site
What's new
Publications
Site Map
Terms and Definitions
FAQs
Links to relevant sites
Contact us

What's new?
Articles from internationl sources

March 2004

• Latin America: UNEP regional office urges caution on transgenics , from its Global Environment Outlook report 2003.
• Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement. British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education, March 2004
• Gone to seeds. By the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), March, 2004.
• Earth Matters: An eye on GM infiltration. By Sarah Sabaratnam, March 2, 2004
• On the road to safer crops. By TAN CHENG LI , March 2, 2004
• Mendocino County voters ban GM crops and animals, by Mike Geniella. Press Democrat, March 3rd 2004.
• Biosafety Protocol takes bold moves, By Martin Khor and Lim Li Lin, Third World Network. March 4, 2004.
• Genetically Modified Crops – A Decade of Failure (1994-2004). Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, March 10, 2004.
• Trilateral agreement: a pre-emptive strike by exporting countries. Third World Network Information Service, March 13, 2004.
• Europe urged to reject modified rice.Source: Friends of the Earth Europe, Belgium. Coalition against BAYER-Dangers, Germany. Press Release, Mar 22, 2004 .

Latin America: UNEP regional office urges caution on transgenics

Mexico City, 3 Mar (IPS/Diego Cevallos) -- The United Nations Environment Programme warned Wednesday in Mexico that transgenic crops could pose a threat to biodiversity and human health, and recommended that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean act with caution in using genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

This stance clashes with the position taken by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in 2001.

The UNEP opinion issue is laid out in its Global Environment Outlook report (GEO 2003) for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented in the Mexican capital Wednesday to enthusiastic applause from environmentalists.

"It is quite surprising that the UNEP has taken this stance, one that we agree with," said Silvia Ribeiro, of the Canada-based NGO, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group).

Maria Colin, legal adviser for the environmental watchdog Greenpeace-Mexico, said, "We should celebrate" this declaration by an agency of the UN system because it represents "an important new approach."

According to the GEO 2003 report prepared for the UNEP regional office, the application of this kind of biotechnology - introducing the genes from one species of plant or animal into another - could endanger natural genetic diversity. The document, mostly dealing with the state of environment in the region, devotes two pages to this issue.

Nevertheless, environmentalists placed great importance on the mere mention because it is an area in which transnational biotech and seed companies invest and earn billions of dollars a year – and against which the activists are waging an intense battle.

GEO 2003 warns of the possibility that modified genes might be spread accidentally amongst species outside the laboratory, and could pose a real danger to the biodiversity that is fundamental to humanity's food security.

The report states that the debate on GMOs involves polarised positions and major commercial interests, and that the precautionary principle should be applied as the norm until scientific consensus exists on the matter.

ETC Group and Greenpeace activists agreed that UNEP has taken a stance that favours their groups' campaign against transgenics, and even wields arguments similar to theirs.

The area planted with genetically modified seeds worldwide reached 67.7 million hectares in 2003, nine million more than in 2002, according to figures from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a non-governmental organisation that promotes the use of GMOs.

The commercial varieties of transgenic crops - soya, maize, cotton and canola - are controlled by just five transnational corporations based in the industrialised North, which own the patents for those seeds.

More than 90% of the area planted with transgenics is located in Argentina, Canada and the United States, but these crops are expanding rapidly in other countries.

In South America, for example, genetically modified soya has expanded from Argentina to Paraguay and Uruguay, and is widely planted in southern Brazil.

The UNDP's Human Development Report for 2001 said GMOs could be the key to fighting hunger in the world and this branch of biotechnology should not be ignored, a position that won the ire of environmental activists.

According to the UNDP, the environmental impact of GMOs has not been proven. What is certain is that there are 850 million hungry people in the world who could be fed with these kinds of crops, said the UN agency.

The ETC Group's Ribeiro believes the new position taken by the UN Environment Programme "vindicates the UN system." This is a bold declaration, "because it contradicts Washington and the biotech companies, which argue that transgenics are the solution to ending world hunger," she said.

While application of transgenics in agriculture is claimed to increase crop yields or to improve other characteristics, such as resistance to extreme climates, pests or herbicides, anti-transgenic activists argue that GMOs pose a threat to human health and the environment and create total dependence  of farmers on the transnationals that provide the transgenic seeds.

Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Aventis and Dow, leaders in transgenics and also in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, argue that the GMOs pose no such threats and that their main interest is to fight world hunger.

According to the policies of the TNCs, farmers who use the genetically modified seeds are legally prohibited from saving seeds from those harvests to replant in the next season.

Transgenic seeds have been used without authorisation and have contaminated wild species with their altered genetic material, as occurred with maize in Mexico, the birthplace of this grain crop.

UNEP cites the Mexican example in its report as a reason for concern about the introduction of modified genes into domestic plant varieties.

I hope the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean take into account the UNEP position on transgenics and adopt policies that are less permissive with respect to the companies that promote them," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Colin.

Top

Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement. British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education, March 2004

The full statement is available at: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GMFoods/$file/GM.pdf

Editorial Board
A publication from the BMA science and education department and the Board of Science and Education
Chairman, Board of Science and Education Professor, Sir David Carter
Director of professional activities, Dr Vivienne Nathanson
Head of science and education, Dr Caroline Seddon
Project manager, Nicky Jayesinghe
Research and writing, Angela Sharpe
Editorial secretariat, Sherri Cooper

Board of Science and Education
This statement was prepared under the auspices of the Board of Science and Education of the British Medical Association, whose membership for 2003/2004 was as follows:

• Professor Sir Brian Jarman, President, BMA
• Dr George Rae, Chairman, BMA representative body
• Mr James Johnson, Chairman, BMA council
• Dr David Pickersgill, Treasurer, BMA
• Professor Sir David Carter, Chairman, Board of Science and Education
• Dr P Maguire, Deputy chairman, Board of Science and Education
• Dr P H Dangerfield
• Dr G D Lewis
• Professor S Lingam
• Dr J Long
• Dr S Minkoff
• Dr S J Nelson
• Dr S J Richards
• Dr D M B Ward
• Dr C Smith
• Dr S J L Smith
• Professor B R Hopkinson, Co-optee
• Dr G Buckley, Co-optee
• Dr N D L Olsen, Deputy member

Approval for publication as a BMA policy report was recommended by BMA
Board of Professional Activities on 18 February 2004.

Acknowledgements

The Association is very grateful for the help provided by the BMA committees and many outside experts and organisations. We would particularly like to thank those experts who attended the round table meeting in June 2003.

Introduction
The advent of genetically modified (GM) technology has raised concerns about technological advances in food production to an unprecedented level and it has proved difficult to hold a balanced and objective debate. Individuals and organisations are all too readily perceived as for or against genetic modification of food crops, and this has not helped us understand the implications or make decisions based on a clear examination of risks and benefits.
 
The BMA produced an interim report in 1999 on the health implications of GM food crops. In accordance with our intention to keep the public informed, we held a round table meeting of experts in June 2003 and have recently reviewed the emerging evidence. In producing an update of our 1999 report, the BMA seeks to support balanced debate. As an organisation of doctors, we are not experts in agricultural techniques and crop science, but we are concerned with all issues of public health.
The environment in which we live, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat, all have an impact on our health as individuals. It is this context that the following statement has been prepared.
 
The need for further research
A great deal of research, of varying quality, has been conducted since 1999 in the arena of genetic modification of food. However, many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment. The few robust studies[1]  that have looked for health effects have been short-term and specific. There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment.
 
It is clear from the public debate that this remains a matter of great public concern. If research sponsors and government are to continue to meet their responsibilities to enhance choice for growers and the public, it is crucial that the public's concerns are taken into account from the earliest possible stage of the research process.
 
In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. The BMA has identified several areas where we believe more research is needed:
 
* Allergens : While we are not aware of any evidence that existing GM foods cause allergic reactions, it remains possible that any new food products could elicit new allergies. We appreciate that there are difficulties with carrying out research in this area, not least the lack of baseline data on food composition and consumption, and the lack of a reliable, well-validated animal model with which to test allergenicity. Further research is required to develop reliable in vitro methods for sensitization events based on human tissue samples or cell cultures. Research should also be undertaken to understand how nutritional status, the plant food matrix and subsequent digestive processing may alter allergenic potential. There is evidence that the food matrix can affect the release of other nutrients during digestion and it seems likely that it can also influence the release and digestion of allergens in the digestive tract. With regard to sensitisation it is still not known whether other components in the food matrix can have an adjuvant effect on the development of IgE responses in susceptible individuals.
Greater knowledge in this area will enable improved risk assessments to be made for novel foods in general, not just GM foods. In any surveillance of food/crop allergenicity (see below) it is important to consider that inhalation and skin contact may prove to be just as significant as ingestion.

* Nutritional status : GM foods could conceivably have different effects on those of poor nutritional status and/or those belonging to 'vulnerable groups' (notably the foetus, infants, children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly and those with chronic disease) when compared with healthy individuals.[2] Whereas the GM content of the adult diet is likely to remain low, it will be important to ensure that any food products, intended to be in large amounts by infants or other 'vulnerable groups', are subjected to rigorous processes of approval by the designated regulatory and advisory authorities.

* Genetic transfer : While gene transfer has been observed in the gastrointestinal tract of some mammals [3],[4] and birds,[5] there is still great uncertainty as to the extent and the consequences of this transfer.[6] Many consider that transfer occurs at such a low frequency that any addition to the natural pool of antibiotic resistant organisms, for example, is marginal. We consume large amounts of non-human non-GM DNA as part of our daily diet with no identifiable problems.
 
However, research is needed to assess whether transfer of DNA from GM food is more likely to occur as it contains additional material used to assist insertion of the GM DNA in the first place.

* Environmental impact : Major concerns still surround the use of herbicides with GM crops and their effect on the environment. Recent UK Farm Scale Evaluations of GM herbicide-tolerant crops (GMHT)[7] indicate that if GMHT beet and spring oilseed rape were introduced and managed as they were in the trial, a significant reduction would be expected in weed biomass and weed seed return. This would result in fewer nectar resources for pollinators and fewer weed seed resources for granivorous birds. For GMHT maize, the evaluations indicated that the opposite is expected. It is clear that there is still a need for long-term case-by-case research into the effects of GM crops on the environment and biological diversity. It must be stressed that the effects seen in the Farm Scale Evaluations were a consequence of the herbicide regimes applied and not a direct consequence of the way in which the GM crops had been engineered.

The potential to create 'super weeds' also gives rise to concern. Canadian farmers found that their fields filled with stray GM crop plants known as 'volunteers'. These were resistant, not only to the substance against which the main crop was engineered, but to the other two herbicides used as well. It is possible that such 'volunteers' could
turn into uneradicable weeds.[8]
 
Furthermore, recent research has supported the contention that hybrids between GM crops and their non-GM equivalent are 'almost inevitable'.[9] Research by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on consumer views shows that although concern about GM foods has decreased over the past three years, many people remain unclear and/or unconvinced about the case for consumer benefits. The potential impact of GM crops  on the environment and biological diversity is the issue that has given rise to most concern.[10]

* Experimental design: More research is required on how best to carry out experiments, risk assessments and surveillance studies with respect to GM crops and foods. We accept that research into the possible health effects of GM foods in this country has been limited to date by the lack of firm hypotheses regarding such effects, difficulties of defining individual consumption, and the generally low levels of consumption of GM foods.[11] Acquisition of baseline data on the composition, purchase and consumption of food will be imperative for nutritional and health surveillance. The FSA is encouraged to act on the suggestions made in its commissioned feasibility study[12] and ensure that a constantly updated database of nutritional information relating to food products (including GM products) is established and maintained in this country. Labelling of GM-containing foods should be continued in order to facilitate further health research and allow the public to choose whether they consume GM food or not. Robust population health surveillance in relation to consumption of all foods, including GM foods, is essential and we endorse the suggestions in the FSA feasibility study regarding the importance of linking nutritional and health surveillance data.
 
Risks and benefits
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. The BMA supports the improvement of conventional and organic farming, and appreciates the concerns about cross contamination with GM crops.[13 ] While we acknowledge the potential benefits of GM crops, the evidence for real benefit is not yet sufficiently persuasive to grow GM crops at the expense of conventionally derived alternatives that can be grown at least as effectively.
 
Effective food security (ie freedom from hunger and fear of starvation) relies on genuine public goods that can be shared and copied freely.[14] We understand the concerns being expressed about the negative consequences of allowing the private sector to dictate the price of genetically modified crops and/or pesticides and about the gradual privatisation of scientific research and its potential consequences for the independent regulatory assessment of GM technologies. While discussion of such concerns and related farming issues are beyond the scope of this present statement, we see the need for further debate about the social and health risks potentially associated with GM foods. If public mistrust is to be alleviated, it is imperative that bodies, which regulate new agricultural and food technologies, should retain full transparency in their deliberations and remain fully accountable to the public they are intended to serve.
 
Members of the GM jury project* were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the
environment, food safety and other potential health effects.[15 ]
 
In addition, there should be an end to assumptions that GM crops are necessary to feed the starving, given the complex food distribution, social and economic factors that lie behind such hunger.[16]  While the BMA does not see a case to halt the sale of currently available GM foods, it does not feel that the argument has yet been made to allow widespread commercial planting of GM crops in this country.
 
Our reasoning relates more to the lack of clear benefit rather than presence of unacceptable risk to health, and to the demonstrated need [7] to assess GM crops on a case-by-case basis.
 
Public mistrust of science in the UK has been fostered by a number of recent scandals in relation to the application of food technology. It is of paramount importance that the communication of risk to the public is improved and that the information provided be unbiased, based on sound science and accessible. Communication of risk is about more than providing even the best information; it is a matter of two-way communication and obtaining consensus or agreement. 
 
Conclusions regarding GM foods and health
The Royal Society review (2002) [17] concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
 
Epidemiological health surveillance will remain impractical while so few of the UK population are exposed to GM foods. In the USA where a much larger proportion of  the population has been exposed, food-derived illnesses are on the increase,[18], + although any suggestion that this could be linked to GM foods is not supported by scientific evidence. It is noteworthy that hospital admissions for systemic allergic disorders, including food allergy, increased significantly in England between 1990-91 and 2000-01 despite very low levels of exposure to GM foods.[19]

However, this debate underlines the need for the UK to take steps now to improve its nutritional and related health surveillance. The BMA still considers that with several caveats (notably adequate risk assessment procedures, independent and rigorous testing of novel foods, adequate post marketing surveillance and proper regulation), genetically modified food has enormous potential to benefit both the developed and the developing world in the long-term. Continuing sound scientific research will provide the only means of eliminating the uncertainty that still surrounds the environmental and health impact of GM crops.
 
+ The incidence of foodborne illness caused by most pathogens under active surveillance decreased during 1996-2001. However, the proportion of outbreaks caused by fruits and vegetables has increased (Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention, USA).
 
* Two juries of 12 to 15 people were established by selecting names at random from the electoral roll in four wards of both Gateshead and St Albans (for further information go to: www.gmjury.org
 

References
1 Pryme IF & Lembcke R (2003) In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed -  with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health 17 : 1-8 . (back to article)
2 Beck M (2000) Potential adverse effects of genetically modified crops. J Toxicol Environ Health 6 :211-25. (back to article)
3 Gruzza M et al (1993) Gene transfer from engineered Lactococcus lactis strains to Enterococcus faecalis in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice. Microb Releases 2 : 121-5. (back to article)
4 McConnell M et al (1991) Transfer of plasmid pAM?1 between members of
the normal microflora inhabiting the murine digestive tract and modification of the  plasmid in Lactococcus reuteri host. Microb Ecol Health Dis 4 : 343-55. (back to article)
5 Netherwood T et al (2000) Gene transfer in the gastrointestinal tract. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(11) : 5139-41. (back to article)
6 New Scientist (27/07/02) Does it matter if genes can jump from GM food to bugs in human gut? (back to article)
7 The Farm Scale Evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified crops: a themed issue from Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences Series B Volume 358 Issue 1439 29 November 2003. (back to article)
8 The Economist (09/02/02) Seeds of uncertainty. (back to article)
9 Wilkinson M et al (2003) Hybridization between Brassica napa and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science 302 : 457-9. (back to article)
10 FSA (2003) The Food Standards Agency's contribution to the public dialogue: consumer views of GM foods . London: FSA. (back to article)
11 MRC (2000) Report of a Medical Research Council expert group on genetically modified (GM) foods. London: Medical Research Council. (back to article)
12 Elliot et al (2003) Surveillance and post market monitoring of potential health effects of novel (including GM) foods: feasibility study . London: FSA. (back to article)
13 The Independent Science Panel on GM final report. www.i-sis.org.uk (accessed September 2003). (back to article)
14 Food Ethics Council (2003) Engineering nutrition: GM crops for global justice? London: FEC. (back to article)
15 www.rssl.com (accessed September 2003). (back to article)
16 Policy Ethics and Life Science Research Institute (PEALS) (2003) The people's report www.gmjury.com . (Funded by Co-op, Unilever, Green Peace and Consumers' Association) . (back to article)
17 The Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health - an update . Policy document 4/02. London: the Royal Society. (back to article)
18 Close N (29 September 2003) Genetic disorder? Public Health News p10-2. (back to article)
19 Gupta R et al (2003) Increasing hospital admissions for systemic allergic disorders in England: analysis of national admission data. BMJ 327 : 1142-3. (back to article)

The full statement is available at: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GMFoods/$file/GM.pdf

Top

Gone to seeds. By the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), March, 2004.

The full report is available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/seedreport_fullreport.pdf.
The executive summary is reproduced below.

Executive Summary

Nothing is more fundamental to agriculture and our food supply than seeds. Whether eaten directly or processed through animals, seeds are the ultimate source of human nutrition. The variety, abundance, and safety of foods are all dependent on the availability and quality of seeds.

The prowess of genetic engineers notwithstanding, seeds cannot be made from scratch. They must be harvested, saved, and shepherded from generation to generation by knowledgeable, engaged individuals. The value to the food supply of the seeds entrusted to our generation cannot be overstated.

In this report, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examines a new phenomenon that may threaten the quality of the seed supply: the contamination of traditional seeds by DNA sequences derived from genetically engineered crop varieties. These varieties are produced by molecular techniques-variously known as genetic engineering, genetic modification, or transgenic techniques-that allow scientists to move novel traits into plants from distantly related organisms such as animals and bacteria.

The number of transgenes that might potentially contaminate the seed supply is large. Although most commercial transgenic varieties of corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola contain only two traits (herbicide and insect resistance), hundreds of other novel genes have been engineered into crops that have been field tested but have not been, and may never be, commercialized. Most of the transgenes used by genetic engineers are new to foods and some are not intended for use in foods at all. For these and other reasons, concerns have arisen about the possibility that transgenes introduced into crop varieties through genetic engineering might unintentionally contaminate the seed supply for traditional, or non-genetically engineered, varieties of crops.

The research covered in this report addresses that possibility with a small pilot study of seeds of traditional varieties of three major food crops: corn, soybeans, and canola. The study found that the seeds of traditional varieties bought from the same retailers used by U.S. farmers are pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences originating in genetically engineered varieties of those crops.

This conclusion is based on tests conducted by two respected commercial laboratories using duplicate samples of seeds of six traditional varieties each of corn, soybeans, and canola. One laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of the soybean, and 100 percent of the traditional canola varieties tested. The other laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 83 percent of the traditional varieties of each of the three crops. The most conservative _expression of the combined results is that transgenically derived DNA was detected in 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of the soybean, and 83 percent of the canola varieties tested.

Other than suggesting that the levels are low, the pilot study is too limited to support quantitative estimates of overall contamination levels in seeds of traditional crop varieties. The data available lead us to expect levels of contaminated seed roughly in the range of 0.05 to 1 percent, but larger studies are needed to determine contamination levels with any degree of precision.

In the interim, we are concerned that the significance of low-level contamination might be too quickly dismissed. Contamination levels in the 0.05 to 1 percent range would represent huge absolute amounts of seed. To illustrate, we calculated the tonnage of transgenically contaminated corn seeds that would have been planted in fields of traditional corn varieties if the seed supply were contaminated at a one percent rate. Our calculations, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data on corn acres planted with traditional varieties in 2002, suggest a total of 6,250 tons of transgenically derived seeds - an amount that would fill 240 large tractor-trailer trucks.

Most of the specific DNA sequences for which the laboratories tested are found in popular transgenic crop varieties currently allowed on the U.S. market. Although the study sheds little light on how the seed contamination occurred, there is no reason to believe that the transgenes detected in this study are the only ones moving into the traditional seed supply.

Instead, it seems likely that the contamination is a symptom of generally porous seed production and distribution systems. Until we know otherwise, it seems minimally prudent to assume that novel genes originating in less popular transgenic varieties, as well as the hundreds of engineered varieties that have been field tested in the United States, could potentially contaminate the seed supply of food and feed crops.

IMPLICATIONS

The recognition that the seed supply is open to contamination by low levels of a wide variety of genetically engineered sequences has broad implications. In general terms, seed contamination is important for two reasons. First, seeds reproduce and carry genes into future generations.

Every season of seed production offers new opportunities for the introduction of new genes. In the case of genetic engineering, transgenic sequences that enter the seed supply for traditional crop varieties will be perpetuated and will accumulate over time in plants where they are not expected and could be difficult to control.

Second, seeds are the wellspring of our food system, the base on which we improve crops and the source to which we return when crops fail. Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves wrong. Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level. Unless some part of our seed supply is preserved free of genetically engineered sequences, our ability to change course if genetic engineering goes awry will be severely hampered.

Seed contamination by transgenically derived sequences also has implications in a number of other regulatory and policy contexts. Pharm crops, trade, and organic food production are discussed briefly in this summary, but our report also addresses implications for food safety, the environment, intellectual property, the food system, and the agriculture of developing countries.

Pharmaceutical and industrial crops receive special attention in this report because the transgenic products they make-drugs, vaccines and industrial chemicals-would raise immediate alarms if they contaminated the food supply, and seed contamination is the back door to the food supply. The realization that seeds for food crops are vulnerable to contamination with pharm and industrial transgenes and that, in fact, some seeds may already have been contaminated is alarming. The report urges prompt action to protect seed production from these sources of contamination.

On the trade front, U.S. grain and oilseed exporters face enormous challenges in a global marketplace bristling with regulatory regimes that apply to genetically engineered crops. U.S. companies need to assure export customers that grain and oilseed shipments do not contain unapproved transgenes and transgenic crop varieties. While gene flow and physical co-mingling during production and transport probably account for most of the unapproved transgenes and transgenic seed varieties present in exported grain and oilseed, traditional crop varieties carrying transgenically derived sequences may also contribute to the problem. Contamination of the seeds of traditional plant varieties also makes it difficult to supply commodity products free of genetically engineered sequences to those customers who want them.

Transgenic contamination of traditional seed varieties poses a special threat to the future of organic agriculture, an increasingly important sector of U.S. agriculture. To meet both consumer demand and federal standards that forbid the use of genetically engineered crops and inputs, organic growers strive to produce crops that are free of transgenically derived DNA. If, through no fault of their own, they are unable to supply such products, they potentially face eroding markets.

The ease with which the traditional seed supply can be contaminated with transgenically derived DNA unfairly frustrates organics farmers seeking to deliver high-quality products.

RECOMMENDATIONS

UCS hopes that, as a result of this report, the seed and food industries, the scientific community, and the federal government will begin to acknowledge and confront the issues raised by the contamination of the traditional seed supply with sequences originating in genetically engineered crops. While not entirely reversible, this contamination can be substantially reduced. With sufficient attention and will, it is possible to look forward to sources of seeds that are free of genetically engineered sequences. The first step, however, is acknowledging and understanding the problem.

More specifically, UCS recommends the following actions:

1. The USDA should sponsor a full-scale investigation of the extent, causes, and impacts of contamination of the traditional seed supply by transgenically derived DNA sequences.
2. The USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate coordinating elements of the federal government should amend the regulations for transgenic pharm and industrial crops to ensure that the seed supply for food and feed crops is not contaminated at any level with drugs, vaccines, plastics, or related substances.
3. The USDA should establish a reservoir of seeds for non-engineered varieties of major food and feed crops free of transgenically derived sequences.
4. The USDA and land-grant (agricultural) universities should reinvigorate the public plant breeding establishment to help ensure a supply of pure seed of traditional crop varieties.
5. The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies should establish a national standard for breeder and foundation seed of traditional crop varieties: no detectable level of contamination by transgenes and associated sequences  originating in genetically engineered crops.
6 . The USDA, the organic agriculture community, land-grant universities, and plant breeders should develop new policies and programs to provide organic agriculture with pure seeds of traditional crop varieties.
7. The USDA, the organic and biotechnology industries, and national growers' associations, among others, should sponsor a series of meetings to begin addressing how those sectors of U.S. agriculture that have adopted transgenic crops and those threatened by contamination with transgenically derived DNA sequences from those crops can coexist.
8. Private seed companies in the United States should periodically test their seed stocks, especially breeder and foundation seed and parental inbred lines, for the presence of transgenically derived DNA sequences. They should then make public the extent to which the seeds of the traditional varieties they market are free of transgenically derived contaminants.

The full report is available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/seedreport_fullreport.pdf.
The executive summary is reproduced below.

Top

Earth Matters: An eye on GM infiltration. By Sarah Sabaratnam, March 2, 2004

(http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/Features/20040302084129/Article/indexb_html)

With something as controversial as genetically modified food and organisms being traded around the world, there should be a safety net for unwitting consumers. This was on the agenda of a recent international meeting on biosafety in Kuala Lumpur. SARAH SABARATNAM was there. WHEN the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into force on Sept 11, (CPB) last year, it sent out an important message to the world: Genetically Modified Organisms are inherently different. They carry special risks and hazards to human health and the environment and thus, need to be regulated by an international regime.

"Indeed there is still no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs," writes Lim Li Ching from Third World Network in her paper Genetic Engineering Dangers and Impacts: Lessons from Real Life.

Which is why two of the important issues discussed when Parties to the CPB met for the first time last week in Kuala Lumpur were identification of GMOs traded from one country to another, and the need for a system of liability and redress.

Basically, identification deals with the issues of labelling GM food meant for export and import.

A liability and redress mechanism, if fairly implemented, will allow you to sue a biotech company should you one day find that GM food has affected your health or environment adversely. However, if there is no labelling, how would you trace your sickness to the GM food you ate, and to the biotech company selling it?

Article 18 of the CPB allows each Party to take the necessary measures within their country to require that any Living Modified Organisms (GMOs are known as LMOs in international treaties) for food, feed and processing coming into their country, be accompanied by documentation that states that the consignment "may contain" LMOs.

This is to ensure that they can be handled, transported and packaged safely in order to prevent their escape into the environment where they can contaminate crops and varieties in the wild. Any LMO consignment meant for introduction to the environment (such as seeds) should also be labelled clearly.

This will help countries that do not want to grow genetically engineered crops to avoid its accidental release into the environment.

A huge problem presents itself at this juncture. So many LMOs are being moved around that even non-LMO consignments are contaminated with LMOs. This contamination - even at very low levels - can end up escaping into the environment (as you will learn further down).

The other issue concerning imports is the need for a legally binding regime on liability and redress. Such a regime will allow countries or their farmers to be compensated if they experience any form of damage that may be caused by LMOs.

Just like any technology (cars, electrical appliances) purchased comes with a warranty, the liability and redress scheme will allow for compensation in the event that LMOs, already acknowledged to be risky, prove to be dangerous to human health or to the environment.

Article 29 of the CPB requires parties to begin crafting the liability and redress regime at the first Meeting of Parties and to complete the process in four years.

Kristin Dawkins and Josh Dubois in their paper Towards a Liability and Compensation Regime Under the Biosafety Protocol maintain that previous international environmental agreements have incorporated liability provisions, and LMOs should not be exempted from such a regime.

"The Space Objects Convention addresses liability for damage caused by the launching of spacecraft. The liability problems surrounding spacecraft are similar to those which surround GMOs: in both instances, new technology gives rise to the potential for widespread, unanticipated environmental damage," they write. They also cite the example of the Basel Convention which deals with the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

Friends of the Earth International (the world's largest coalition of environmental NGOs) called for a strong, legally binding regime on liability and redress to be crafted as soon as possible.

"Damage derived from the contamination of GM crops is already occurring today ...Mexico, a centre of origin for corn has been found to be contaminated by GM maize, even though GM maize was not legalised for cultivation. Moreover, the introduction into the environment of new GM crops, like biopharmaceutical crops in the United States, raises huge concerns. GM crops for non-food uses (non-edible crops) containing drugs and industrial chemicals have been released into the environment, and already a couple of incidents of contamination have been identified in the US."

Imagine accidentally having your edible crops contaminated with crops genetically engineered to produce industrial chemicals!

Mexican Silvia Riberio, researcher and programme manager for the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (etc Group) said the socio-economic impact on Mexico, if the contaminated corn were to pose health and environmental consequences, would be severe.

"Maize is the economic basis of most farmers in Mexico. It is also the staple food of Mexicans. Almost everything we eat is based on maize. Nobody knows what will happen."

The etc Group did a study in nine states in Mexico and found crops there contaminated. Their study came after official studies by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that two states were contaminated.

This is why commodities that may have even the tiniest bit of LMOs in them must be labelled as containing them. Studies have shown that even negligible levels of LMOs in non LMO consignments, can end up in the environment.

The New Zealand experience is a telling one.

In the year 2000, New Zealand authorities detected the presence of genetically modified corn in a routine test of seeds imported from the US.

The New Zealand producer had purchased "certified-GM-free" seeds from organic farms in the US. Then in 2003, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry confirmed a Japanese finding that corn produced in New Zealand had been contaminated with GM material. (GM corn has not been authorised for cultivation in New Zealand).

The level of contamination was found to be at 0.05 per cent - less than five seeds in every 10,000.

This means that for every 75,000 (non GM) corn plants planted per hectare in New Zealand, there were 37 GM plants. New Zealand had 775 ha planted with corn, putting the number of GM corn in the country's 98 fields, on both the North and South islands, at 28,675.

"If you have a genetically engineered organism, it can expand in the environment and it may do so exponentially, predicting when it may do so is impossible. What looks like small numbers becomes big numbers," says Professor Jack Heinemann, director of the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology who spoke on New Zealand's experience at the Third World Network Seminar on Biosafety recently.

Given that contamination has been proven to take place so easily, despite stringent measures taken by countries like New Zealand, means that a liability and redress regime is indeed needed - and urgently - not to mention more detailed monitoring of food coming into a country.

"You have to think of the Precautionary Principle," says Juan Lopez Villar of Friends of the Earth International. "You have to do something before the damage happens. Liability plays a key role in prevention of any damage."

Scientist Arpad Pusztai, formerly head of protein chemistry at the Rowett Research Institute in Britain says that lack of immediate scientific evidence does not mean that the threat to health is not there.

"It took a long time to link a high fat diet to heart disease. You need to keep records for four generations. That is how long it takes to trace a sickness back to its original source," he said.

Thankfully, governments aware of the potential threat of GM food and crops made a strong stand on the issues of liability and identification at the conclusions of the First Meeting of Parties last week.

Although there is still no international liability regime for damage caused by GMOs, thanks to efforts by delegates from Ethiopia, Malaysia and Colombia, in four years' time, there will be one.

A Working Group with a strong and clear mandate to work out international rules and procedures for liability and redress by 2007 has been created.

With regards to identification, the parties opted for stronger requirements which require exporters to provide clear and detailed information about the LMOs a consignment contains. Importing countries have the right to refuse the shipment if this information is not provided.

"(This) ...is an important step forward for protecting consumers, farmers and the environment from the dangers of GMOs," said Juan Lopez.

Hamdallah Zedan, the Protocol's executive secretary was also pleased at the outcome of the negotiations. "The rigorous system for handling, transporting, packaging and identifying GMOs is in the best interests of everyone - developed and developing countries, consumers and industry, and all those who care deeply about our natural environment," he said.

Now that the meetings are over, it's up to each individual country to put the necessary mechanisms in place to monitor everything that comes into their country. But like the New Zealand experience shows, even with such strict monitoring system in place, LMOs can slip right by.

Parties really need to get back to the drawing board, working with independent scientists and experts and get a proper monitoring system in place, one that will not overlook even the tiniest bit of contamination. Where something has not proven to be a hundred per cent safe, one can't afford not to be cautious.

Top

On the road to safer crops. By TAN CHENG LI , March 2, 2004

New rules adopted at the recently concluded global meeting on biosafety will chart the path towards safer handling and transportation of genetically modified crops, writes TAN CHENG LI.  

THE showdown never came. Talks at the United Nations conference on biosafety in Kuala Lumpur last week went surprisingly smoother than many had expected. Sure, there were the usual tedious sessions which lasted into the night which have come to characterise meetings of multilateral environmental agreements but disputes were speedily sorted out.  

Delegates to the First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP1) had braced themselves for lengthy and painful negotiations as the meeting was to determine three contentious issues: how to identify shipments of living or genetically modified organisms (LMOs or GMOs), liability and compensation in cases of damage caused by transboundary movements of LMOs, and how to deal with non-compliance of the Protocol.  

Most developing countries and the European Union (EU), supported by environment groups, want detailed identification of LMO cargoes as well as clear rules on liability and compliance.  

On the other side of the fence are the major exporters of GM commodities – a group nicknamed the Miami Plus, made up of the United States, Argentina, Canada and Mexico – which argue that detailed documentation are tedious, unnecessary and will impede trade.  

The battle was to be drawn along these lines – except that it never really took off. Instead, countries ignored the lobby of the Miami Group and stood united with a single objective – to put in place better controls of LMO transboundary shipments so as not to put human and environmental health at risk.  

The result was decisions which pleased even the most critical of environment groups. The meeting decided on stricter identification and documentation for LMOs shipments and initiated moves towards an international regime on liability and redress for damage caused by transboundary movements of LMOs. A new 15-man commitee will promote compliance with provisions of the Protocol and to address incidences of non-compliance.  

“It is clear that we made steps forward,” says Dr Doreen Stabinsky, science adviser of Greenpeace International.  

At the end of the day, it made a difference whether a country is a party or non-party to the Protocol. Observers say talks proceeded smoothly because the opposers had little say. Except for Mexico, the rest of the Miami Group are not parties to the Protocol. Although their “observer” status allowed them to air their views during negotiations, they were excluded when discussions moved into smaller groups.  

“It was simply that like-minded people negotiated the documents. This is an impetus for countries to join the Protocol,” says Lim Li Lin, a researcher at Third World Network (TWN), a group working on development issues.”  

US officials are not pleased with the meeting and its outcome. “We have serious concerns about the transparency and procedural process of this meeting,” says Deborah Malac of the US Department of State.  

For many delegates, however, the results of MOP1 are the first steps to set the Protocol in motion. “It means that the Protocol is finally on track and this is the way forward to manage a technology which has received extremely divided views,” says negotiator Gurdial Nijar, a Universiti Malaya law professor.  

Protocol executive secretary Hamdallah Zedan says many countries had watched the meeting closely to see if its decisions would give the Protocol bite. “I think it has.” He says an action plan to promote capacity in dealing with LMOs which the meeting adopted, would help parties implement the Protocol and make informed decisions.  

TWN's Lim agrees. She says the critical next step is the kind of capacity-building projects available for developing countries to implement the Protocol. “It is what laws countries will have at the end of day that determines the outcome of the Protocol.” 

Despite the optimism on the outcome of MOP1, some say these are early days yet for the Protocol. Expert groups are only starting to delve into the details of identifying LMO cargoes and determining liability issues. There will be plenty of opportunities for the Miami Group to influence negotiations and change the rules of the game. There are already talks that Argentina will soon sign the Protocol, which will give it a bigger voice in future talks.  

So the battle is only beginning.  

These are the three major outcomes of the meeting:  

Shouldering responsibility  

At MOP1, parties took the first step towards making biotech giants responsible for damages resulting from cross-border movements of LMOs. An expert group will elaborate on international rules on liability and redress by 2008.  

These are needed as biotech companies have proven reckless in their handling of GMOs in some instances. GM crops not approved for consumption have tainted food products and conventional crops while farmers have suffered losses and received no compensation when their GM cotton failed to live up to promises of higher yields and lower production costs .  

“The threat of damage from GMOs is real and is already occurring. Farmers' livelihoods are already suffering due to contamination by GM crops,” says Juan Lopez of Friends of the Earth International.  

During negotiations, the Miami Group argued that national product liability laws were sufficient for dealing with the hazards of GMOs but other countries said GMOs could be effectively regulated only through an international regime which placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of those who produced, released and exported the GMOs.  

“Not establishing a regime would lead to a situation where victims are not compensated or damage to the environment is not restored. This situation is unfair,” says Beat Nobs of the Swiss environment authority.  

The expert group will look into these concerns: What kinds of damage deserve compensation? Who should pay? Who can file claims? What are the roles of exporters and importers? What are the remedies for damage?  

Geneticist Dr Doreen Stabinsky says many parties seek a broad definition of “damage” as little is known about the potential problems from escaped GMOs. She says liability should cover cost of restoring damaged environments, loss of or damage to property and loss of profit, and indigenous and farming communities should be compensated if they fall victim to failed GM crops.  

Liability should not be confined to environmental damage but should extend to socio-economic elements, says Dr Philippe Cullet of the International Environmental Law Research Centre in Switzerland. For instance, organic farmers may lose their crops and certification if their fields were contaminated by GM crops.  

The issue of “reverse liability” needs attention too as most GMOs are patented. He says farmers in Canada and the United States are being sued for unlicensed use of patented GM seeds although many say their fields were contaminated with transgenes.  

Ensuring safe cargoes  

The Protocol requires labelling of LMOs to ensure safe handling. Failure to segregate LMO grains had led to transgenes contaminating traditional corn varieties in Mexico as farmers had unknowingly sowed GM seeds.

LMO shipments to be introduced to the environment (such as GM seeds for planting) must now be marked “destined for contained use” and carry the common, scientific and commercial names of the modified organism, the identity of the modified gene, special handling and storage needs and their usage.

Shipments intended for food, feed and processing (mainly commodities such as soyabean and corn) must be marked “may contain LMOs” and carry documents detailing the importer, exporter or other appropriate authorities. However, precise listing of the varieties of LMOs in shipments is voluntary, due to objection by Mexico. Many parties want the listing as it will verify that shipments contain only approved GM varieties.

More labelling rules are in the pipeline as an export group will be finalising detailed requirements over the next year. It will consider the percentage of LMOs shipments may contain to be considered LMO-free (the United States suggested 5%, while the EU uses 0.9%), accompanying documents and precise listing of LMOs in shipments.

The new rules were not well received by LMO exporters who had pushed for minimal documentation so as not to obstruct trade. GM commodities for food, feed and processing form 90% of GM products traded today.  

US trade official Richard White warns of the difficulties to come in meeting the new requirements in the absence of experience and know-how. “The parties are moving so quickly that the consequences of their actions raise a lot of concerns.” 

US Department of State official Deborah Malac regrets that the recommendations of exporting countries (such as the United States), which have the experience and knowledge on what was feasible, were ignored. “The decisions taken were by importing countries which have no idea of the complications involved.”

At MOP1, the United States was touting its version of documentation rules, spelt out in a trilateral agreement signed in October with Canada and Mexico. Under the deal, shipments are labelled “may contain LMOs” only if they contain over 5% of LMOs. As long as the presence of LMOs is unintentional, labelling is unnecessary. Information will only be in a commercial invoice and not in a separate, more detailed document.  

The deal drew strong protests. Green groups say it promotes weak labelling standards and sets unacceptable precedents for future talks on identification. “If governments accept the 5% contamination level, there will be no need for the Protocol on Biosafety. Contamination will be everywhere in a matter of years,” says Hope Shand of the US-based ETC Group which works on cultural and ecological issues.

A joint statement by 28 NGOs urges governments to reject the agreement. “It only serves to facilitate exports of transgenics. Exporters are essentially free from assuming liability for damages as the weak contamination standards allow them to declare ignorance about the presence of transgenics.” 

Defending the trilateral deal, Malac says it was to maintain trade flows and clarify documentation requirements since there was none from the Protocol. “The agreement has been very demonised. We thought we were being proactive in implementing the Protocol.”

Dr Klaus Schumacher, an official of the International Grain Trade Coalition (made up of 17 trade organisations in nine countries), says the 5% threshold is an interim proposal pending the decision of the expert group and can be lowered to meet specific needs of importers.

He says unintentional presence of LMOs occur because huge quantities of grain pass through a long chain of production, storage, distribution and shipment. “Commingling can occur in any part of the chain. Zero threshold is impossible as the bulk handling system is not constructed for segregation of grains. This might have to be developed over time but now, grains are shipped in bulk to reduce cost.” He says complete purity is impossible except in special contracts requiring GM-free grains.

Adhering to rules  

The formation of a compliance committee was applauded. It will promote compliance and weigh cases of non-compliance. A crucial point, says EU official Christoph Bail, is that committee members serve as individuals and not as country representatives, thus helping to de-politicise proceedings.  

Any party affected or likely to be affected can file a complaint. Offenders will be cautioned and published in the Biosafety Clearing House, a mechanism for sharing of information on GMOs. Most delegations call for incentives to promote compliance. Hence, countries that fail to comply because of inadequate capacity, will receive assistance.  

The meeting, however, could not agree on how to punish repeat offenders and deferred the decision until its meeting in 2006.  

“We would have liked to explore options such as withdrawing privileges like voting rights,” says a disappointed Manfred Schneider, a director at Austria's environment authority.  

Various quarters say Mexico might well be the first party to face the compliance committee as its trilateral agreement appears to contravene the Protocol. “This was why Mexico watered down the wordings of the decision by disagreeing with compulsory disclosure of GMOs contained in a shipment,” says Greenpeace's Stabinsky.

Top

Mendocino County voters on Tuesday were the first in the nation to ban genetically engineered crops and animals.

By a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, they approved Measure H, an initiative pushed by the county's organic farmers and one that has far greater symbolic impact than practical effect because such crops are not likely to be introduced in the county for years.

Some of the nation's largest agricultural interests spent more than a half-million dollars in a bid to defeat the measure, fearing that it could become a precedent for other counties.

And that is likely to happen.

"Passage of Measure H is just the beginning. We're the first county, but the revolution is just starting," said Els Cooperrider, owner of a Ukiah organic brew pub who spearheaded the campaign.

Groups in Sonoma and Humboldt counties already are preparing drives to qualify similar initiatives on the November ballot. Allen Henson of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center has said passage of Measure H will give Sonoma County activists incentive to develop a policy to keep out genetically engineered crops.

Cooperrider and Measure H supporters were jubilant Tuesday night, especially after having been outspent by a 7-1 margin in the most hotly contested initiative election in Mendocino County history.

All but two Fort Bragg precincts and about 3,000 absentee ballots, representing less than 2 percent of the vote, had been counted by 10 p.m. Tuesday.

The election drew statewide, national and even international attention, with reporters for major news media outlets on hand to witness the noisy Measure H victory celebration at the Cooperrider pub.

A consortium of agri-business interests called CropLife America waged a two-month campaign to defeat the measure. CropLife was joined by local and state Farm Bureau leaders and members of the county's agricultural establishment.

But their high-profile efforts weren't enough.

A coalition of organic grape growers, businesses and local political figures convinced voters that Mendocino should take a stand in the global debate over the adequacy of safeguards surrounding a fast-emerging biotechnology industry. A current void in state law allowed the issue to be placed before Mendocino voters.

"This is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the state, national or global level, but you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is Mendocino County," said Measure H supporter Art Harwood of Harwood Products.

Elizabeth Brazil, coordinator of the campaign to defeat Measure H, said Tuesday night that opponents were disappointed by the results.

"Mendocino County is going to be harmed by this measure," Brazil said.

Brazil declined to speculate whether local opponents and CropLife are prepared to mount legal and legislative challenges to Measure H. Mendocino County voters in the 1970s adopted an initiative to ban aerial spraying of pesticides, but the state Legislature within two weeks stripped counties of that right.

Spokeswoman Laura Hamburg said supporters are prepared for any challenge. "We have had this ordinance reviewed by top lawyers, who say they're confident it will stand up to any challenge."

Top

Biosafety Protocol takes bold moves, by Martin Khor and Lim Li Lin, Third World Network

International regulation of the trade in genetically engineered organisms took a vital step forward last week when governments adopted several measures at the first ever Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

MOP 1 ended last Friday (27 February) with the adoption of ten decisions on issues ranging from information-sharing and finance to the handling of living modified organisms (LMOs). (LMOs is the term used in the Protocol for what is commonly known as genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered organisms.)

When Malaysian Minister of Science, Technology and the Environment, Datuk Law Hieng Ding, who chaired the meeting, used the gavel for the last time after three weeks of negotiations on biodiversity and biosafety, there was some satisfaction that progress, however modest, had been made to implement the Protocol.

These gains were largely due to the fact that none of the Miami Group (a negotiating group of some of the major exporters and producers of GE organisms) are currently Parties to the Protocol. During the MOP, although the views of the non-Parties were considered, priority was given to Parties to the Protocol in drafting proposals and in the negotiations on the text of decisions for adoption.

For many years now there has been growing concern about the potential health, environmental and socio-economic risks posed by genetically engineered crops and food.

Whilst the biotech industry claims that the process and products from genetic engineering are safe, many governments and environmental and consumer groups have asked for more information about genetically engineered products and for action to regulate them. 

After years of hard negotiations, the Biosafety Protocol came into force last September, and Malaysia hosted the first formal meeting of the 87 countries that have joined it. 

Three of the most important decisions adopted by MOP 1 were on:

· Measures for handling, transporting, packaging and identifying LMOs, in line with
Article 18 of the Protocol;

· Establishing compliance procedures and mechanisms for the Protocol; and

· Establishing an expert working group on liability and redress in the context of
the Protocol.

Under Article 18 of the Protocol, countries shall take measures to require that LMOs that move across borders are handled, packaged and transported safely. The aim is to avoid adverse effects on biodiversity and risks to human health.

For the first time, the MOP has decided on the documentation that should accompany three categories of LMOs:  first, those that are used as food or feed or for processing;  secondly, those that are for "contained use" (mainly in laboratories);  and thirdly, those for introduction into the environment (such as genetically-modified seeds for planting).

For the first category, documents should clearly identify that the shipment may contain LMOs for direct use as food, feed or for processing and not intended for introduction into the environment.

The documents should include the common, scientific and commercial names of the LMOs, the transformation event code or its unique identifier code to establish clearly the identity of the LMO and any unique identification.

An expert group was set up to elaborate detailed requirements of identification of the LMOs under the first category, and report to the next Meeting of the Parties in 2005. The above measures are thus interim, and countries are requested or urged to take them now.

An important step forward was that the decision recognised that national legislation can require that the documentation accompanying LMOs for food, feed or for processing are identified as such with no ambiguity, when they are shipped from one country to another under the procedures of the Protocol.

For the second category of LMOs, documents accompanying them should clearly identify the LMOs by specifying their common and scientific names, and that they are destined for contained use. Additionally their commercial names and new and modified traits and characteristics may be included. Significantly, this information includes the transformation event(s), risk class, how they are to be used, and their unique identification.

For the third category, the documents should clearly identify them as LMOs by describing their names and traits (including transgenic traits such as transformation events or unique identification). Additionally their commercial name, risk class and the required approval permit for import under the Protocol may be included.

The documentation of LMOs under categories two and three must also specify any requirements for safe handling, storage, transport and use under existing international instruments, as well as domestic regulations and any agreement between the exporter and importer.

The names and addresses of the exporters and importers and the contact point for more information (including in case of emergencies) should also be provided in the documents in all three categories.

On the compliance issue, MOP 1 had a week-long intense debate on how to deal with countries that do not comply with their obligations under the Protocol. The European countries were especially keen to get a strong compliance regime so that countries would take their obligations seriously. 

The MOP eventually established some compliance procedures and mechanisms.

A Compliance Committee was set up, comprising 15 persons, three from each of five regional groupings. Committee members shall serve objectively and in a personal capacity. MOP 1 confirmed the members from Iran, Malaysia, Tonga, Mexico, Colombia, Barbados, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Mali, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, among the 15 countries.

The Committee, which will meet twice a year, will receive cases submitted to it of non-compliance. It will identify circumstances and causes of these cases, provide advice to the concerned Party to assist it to comply, review general compliance issues, take measures or make recommendations to the MOP.

A Party complained against has three to six months to respond, and the Committee will consider the views of both the Parties making and receiving the submission. The Committee can then take measures including giving advice or assistance to the Party and to develop a compliance action plan with a timeframe, ask the Party to submit progress reports, and make reports on efforts made by the Party to the MOP.

In turn, the MOP can decide on taking the following measures: provide assistance, technology transfer, training and capacity building measures; issue a caution; have the cases on non-compliance published; or take other measures (to be decided at the Protocol Parties' third meeting) in the case of repeated non-compliance.

The issue of liability and redress was perhaps the most important for developing countries, with developing countries (especially from Africa) pressing that MOP 1 adopt a strong and clear mandate to begin negotiations on an international regime.

They argued, in general, that in the event of accidents or incidents where LMOs cause damage to farmers' crops, the environment or human health, there should be a legally binding regime to determine who is responsible and how redress or compensation can be made to the victims and for the harm done.

During the negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol itself, the issues was so divisive that in the end, the compromise was to insert a provision in the Protocol that requires MOP 1 to take a decision on a process to elaborate international rules and procedure on liability and redress.

Top

Genetically Modified Crops – A Decade of Failure (1994-2004). Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, March 10, 2004.

The executive summary of the report is reproduced below. The full report can be downloaded at:
http://www.foei.org/publications/gmo/index.html .

Executive Summary

The first decade of the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops was a resounding failure for biotech companies. The first GM crop was commercialized in 1994, and now, ten years later, the promises made by the biotech industry and its powerful lobby groups have still not materialized. Meanwhile, the global opposition to GM crops continues to swell.

Brave new agriculture

The genetic engineering of seeds is without doubt the most radical transformation in food production since the first days of agriculture, more than 10,000 years ago. The first GM crop was commercialized in the United States in 1994. This ‘Flavr Savr' tomato was a flop, and was eventually removed from the market. But other GM crops were better received, and between 1996 and 1999 a significant number of GM crops were sown, primarily in the United States, Argentina and Canada.

The seeding of global opposition

The enthusiasm of the biotech industry about the introduction of GM crops around the world was not universally shared. Concerns quickly arose about the potential health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of these new crops.

By the end of the 1990s, opposition to GM crops had arisen on every continent. The European Union adopted a moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), bans were established in Asian and Latin American countries, and many southern countries refused GM food aid. In general, consumers worldwide were reluctant to embrace GM food.

Although the biotech industry had expected people and governments everywhere to embrace GM crops without question, public skepticism has forced companies to limit their current activities to a few main countries. Biotech corporations failed to market products with clear benefits for consumers or farmers. Instead, GM crops created novel and alarming problems, including genetic contamination.

Biotech giants and their powerful lobby groups relied heavily on public relations strategies to sell their products. For example, they heralded the genetically modified ‘Golden Rice' as a solution for Vitamin A deficiency in the Third World, but to date this appears to be a ‘golden hoax' to promote GM crops.
Behind the scenes, biotech companies play dirty to secure their interests; for instance the biotech industry has been behind various threats of trade sanctions, including the attempts by the US administration to impose GM food on reluctant countries like Bolivia, Croatia and Sri Lanka as well as on the European Union.

However, citizen opposition to GMOs is snowballing. In Europe, distrust is so high that GMOs have in effect been removed from the majority of supermarket shelves. In the South, several countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have rejected GM food aid outright. Consumer and retailer suspicion has forced Monsanto to delay the commercialization of its GM wheat, initially planned for 2004.

Ten years later: broken promises and unsustainable agriculture

Biotech companies promised that GM crops were safe, that they would provide better quality and cheaper food, that they were environmentally sustainable, that they would improve agricultural production, and that they would feed the developing world.

After ten years, none of these promises have materialized. The regulatory regimes in GM producing countries cannot ensure the safety of GM crops, and the StarLink and biopharmaceuticals incidents are early warnings of the potential health implications of introducing food products not authorized for human consumption into the food chain.

Furthermore, not a single GM food on the market is cheaper or better quality than its ‘natural' counterpart. GM crops may threaten biodiversity: for example, the 2003 UK Farm Scale Evaluations concluded that GM oilseed rape damaged farmland wildlife.

Developing countries are already experiencing serious problems with GM crops. In several parts of India and Indonesia for example, farmers have complained that Monsanto's GM cotton has not delivered on the company's claims of higher yields and improvements in the livelihoods of farmers. Furthermore, the case of Argentina proves that GM crops are not the solution for feeding the world, as the biotech companies promised. Argentina is the second largest world producer of GM crops, but millions of people in this country go to bed hungry each night.

Large biotech companies like Monsanto are driven to control agriculture markets. In 2003, Monsanto was the world leader in GM crops. Seeds with Monsanto traits accounted for more than 90 percent of the global area planted with herbicide tolerant or insect resistant crops. According to the company's 2003 annual report, their Roundup herbicide is the world's bestselling herbicide. At the same time, the company is suing hundreds of farmers in the US and Canada in an attempt to prevent them from saving their seeds, a tradition and right since the beginning of agriculture. The biotech industry's dream of the large-scale introduction of GM crops around the globe would further exacerbate the ecological vulnerability already associated with monoculture agriculture. Ten years later, it can be concluded that GM crops are leading us down a dangerous path to unsustainable agriculture.
Fortunately, however, there are viable and practical alternatives to GM crops that are almost invariably cheaper, more accessible, more productive in marginal environments and more culturally and socially acceptable. The failure of biotech companies in the last decade and the growing global opposition should catalyze a shift of focus towards alternative, reliable agricultural techniques that are less costly than the multi-billion dollar modern biotechnology industry.

The executive summary of the report is reproduced below. The full report can be downloaded at:
http://www.foei.org/publications/gmo/index.html .

Top

Trilateral agreement: a pre-emptive strike by exporting countries. Third World Network Information Service, March 13, 2004

At the initiative of the US, Canada and Argentina, two meetings of exporting countries were held in March and June 2003 to seek agreement on documentation requirements for LMO-FFPs (living modified organisms for food, feed or processing). This "Article 18 (2)(a)" issue (on handling, transport, packaging and identification of GM commodities) has been one of the most difficult issues in the Biosafety Protocol negotiations.

The work of these two meetings concerned specific elements for a common approach on bilateral arrangements with importing countries, assigning responsibility for provision of documentation accompanying a shipment, resolution of issues and adventitious (accidental) presence. The outputs from the meetings are a proposed framework and model arrangement for bilateral agreements between exporter and importer countries. The stated intention is for these exporting countries to make similar deals with importing countries in order to facilitate GMO trade now that the Protocol is in force, and to influence decisions at the MOPs.

The Protocol recognises that major exporters such as the US are unlikely to ratify the agreement. It does allow bilateral and regional agreements with non-Parties which have to be consistent with the objectives of the Protocol, do not result in a lower level of protection, and have to be deposited with the Biosafety Clearing House.

New Zealand, Brazil, Chile, Australia and Uruguay are also a part of this initiative. Canada has also approached 'priority' importing countries to agree to bilateral arrangements with it. Japan, China, South Korea, Mexico and Egypt have been approached.

Mexico has already signed a trilateral agreement with the US and Canada.

The agreement reached between these exporting countries on the "Proposed Framework for Bilateral Arrangements" and the "Model Bilateral Arrangements to Implement Article 18.2(a) of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety" basically envisage that documentation for LMO-FFPs ("may contain" LMOs) is only triggered in transboundary movements of LMO-FFPs which are authorised in or sold from a country of export, except where an exporter or importer may have contractually defined, in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the importing country, that a shipment of 95% non-GMO content is a "non-LMO shipment", and for shipments which the exporting country does not have in commerce any LMO of that species.

These exporter countries had difficulty in agreeing on whether adventitious presence, for example, an unintended presence of a GMO that has not been approved for commodity shipments may trigger the same documentation requirements. It was decided at these meetings that this has to be dealt with in the specifics of any bilateral arrangement.

This can clearly be seen as moves to undermine the Protocol, pre-empt the negotiations at the MOPs and other meetings on this issue, and to dictate national law. It shifts the burden of monitoring, identification and testing on the importing countries.

Setting a threshold level of 5 % for triggering identification, when none has been discussed in the meetings of the Protocol, and interpreting the "may contain" requirement in this manner, is nothing short of an attempt to globalise these rules, before the Parties to the Protocol can decide themselves. Already, a meeting was held for Latin American countries, with the participation of the US and Canada, in early February (just before MOP 1) in Argentina to discuss the framework and model arrangements and the trilateral agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico, among other issues.

It is also very dangerous, as the US has stated that it is open to the possibility that agreement may be reached with an importing country that would not require such formal documentation. This may mean that such arrangements and agreements may not be subject to the Protocol requirement that they do not result in a lower level of protection than that provided for by the Protocol. It may also mean that such agreements and arrangements between the US and a Party may not be notified to the Biosafety Clearing House.

Trilateral agreement-win, win, and a loss for Mexico

In October 2003, Mexico signed a trilateral agreement with the US and Canada on documentation requirements for LMO-FFPs. Mexico is a Party to the Protocol, while the other 2 countries are not.

Incidentally, the Coordinator of International Affairs of the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food of Mexico who signed the agreement, and who has been called up by the Mexican Congress to explain this issue, seemed to have out-manoeuvred other Latin American and Caribbean countries, to become a member of the Compliance Committee.

The trilateral agreement is basically the framework model arrangement plus the agreement that adventitious presence of LMOs in a non-LMO shipment should not be a trigger for the "may contain" documentation.

During the MOP, the US and Canada publicly announced this trilateral agreement in side-events. According to the US official, the definition of adventitious is that the contamination is accidental or inadvertent, that it is low-level contamination, and that the contamination could not have been avoided. However this is still being discussed, and as yet, there is no definition or guideline for what this means. In effect this could mean that 100% contamination by another GMO would still not trigger identification requirements, as long as it is classified as 'adventitious'.

A threshold for contamination has also been set at 5%. As long as the shipment is 95 % GMO free, and has been contractually defined as a non-GMO shipment and does not conflict with the regulations of the importing country, identification requirements are not triggered. In other words, up to 5 % contamination is accepted as no contamination, and if the contamination is adventitious, the identification requirements are also not triggered.

According to the Canadian official, all exports from the US of soya and corn, of which a large percentage is genetically engineered in the US, will be labelled as "may contain" LMOs. For Canada, all exports of corn, soya and canola will be labelled as "may contain" LMOs, as genetically engineered varieties of these crops are grown in Canada. Only a small percentage (e. g. 2% of soya in Canada) will not be labelled as "may contain" LMOs, as these are identity preserved organic crops.

Already, conventional varieties of canola are known to have been widely contaminated in Canada, as oilseed rape (canola) is an open pollinated crop.

The declaration "may contain" will simply be placed on all shipments of these seeds, as part of the commercial invoice. Already, MOP 1 has gone further in its clarification of these issues, by acknowledging that national laws may require more detailed 'stand alone' documents, by urging countries to require that the documentation includes the common, scientific, and commercial names, the transformation event code or its unique identifier code, and by encouraging all countries to require their exporters of LMO-FFPs to declare unambiguously that their intentional shipments contain LMOs, their identity and any unique identification.

Will this now be an issue for the Compliance Committee?

There will be no monitoring or enforcement of the trilateral agreement by the authorities; instead everything will be left to the commercial buyers and sellers to implement.

The announcement of the side event indicated that it was organised jointly by the US, Canada and Mexico. However, Mexico distanced itself from the side-event, and later organised its own side-event. All this has also reflected on the internal dilemmas and lack of consensus within the Mexican government itself on this issue.

Mexico has the most to lose from this agreement. Already, as the centre of origin and diversity for maize, local varieties of maize have been contaminated by transgenes. This happened most likely because of the planting of GM maize that was imported for food, feed and processing. Mexico had a ban on the import of GM maize for planting, but as experience has shown, this is an artificial and unworkable distinction for biosafety.

Now, with this trilateral agreement, Mexico has further increased her burden of monitoring and testing, and will be faced with the impossible task of biosafety regulation, as the authorities will not be able to do proper biosafety assessments on all GMOs approved or otherwise in Mexico, Canada or the US that will be slipping through her borders. There are no permissible thresholds for biosafety.

How will Mexico comply with the biosafety laws of other countries that she exports to?

Mexico has exposed herself to further contamination even of unapproved, experimental and illegal GMOs from Canada and the US, and this may well be seen as an attempt to legitimise the maize contamination in Mexico, as well as further contamination events that are likely to occur.

Who will be liable for this? Will there and can there be redress?

Top

Europe urged to reject modified rice.Source: Friends of the Earth Europe, Belgium. Coalition against BAYER-Dangers, Germany. Press Release, Mar 22, 2004 .

Worlds staple food at risk from multinationals

European Governments are being urged to reject a Genetically Modified (GM) rice in order to protect the world's largest staple food from falling into the hands of multinational companies.

Member states have only until Sunday 28th March to object to an application by German-based Bayer Cropscience to import into the EU a GM rice that has been modified to resist the companies own herbicide, glufosinate ammonium. It is the first time that a company asks for the authorisation of GM rice in Europe. Both Friends of the Earth Europe and the German "Coalition against Bayer Dangers" (CBG) claim that an EU approval of the rice will send a dangerous signal to developing countries and could lead to the eventual corporate take-over of one of the world's most important foods. Currently 2.5 billion people depend on rice as a staple food.

As well as the dangers to the world's food supply Friends of the Earth and CBG are concerned that

-  Long term studies to examine the potential for more serious health effects were not carried out

-  Feeding studies on broilers conducted by Bayer were judged by the UK authorities to be of "limited capacity" to identify adverse effects, while in a pig feeding study a difference in response (increased weight gain) was observed in pigs who ate the GM rice

-  Bayer does not provide any information on the likelihood of imported rice being spilled and the effects this might be have on the 5 southern EU member states that currently grow rice (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal and France).

Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth: "This genetically modified rice not only poses a health risk to European consumers but could also endanger the livelihoods of millions of people outside the EU. Europe has a strong moral obligation to take this into account when they assess this rice."

"Allowing the import of GM rice into Europe will give the green light to multinationals to promote this unsustainable form of farming in developing countries. Allowing the worlds most important staple food to fall into the hands of companies like Bayer is a dangerous and unprecedented move."

Philipp Mimkes of CBG: "Agricultural biotechnology has so far been a complete disaster for Bayer. This application for genetically modified rice will become another chapter in their book of failures. It's time that Bayer quit producing genetically engineered food."

Geert Ritsema, GMO campaign coordinator Friends of the Earth Europe, mobile: +31-6-290 05 908, office: +32-2-542 0182

Philipp Mimkes, Coalition against BAYER-dangers / Germany; +49-(0)211-333 911, CBGnetwork@aol.com www.CBGnetwork.org (English and German)

Briefing about the food safety and environmental risks of Bayer's GMO rice

Legal requirements

The GMO Directive 2001/18 requires that member states and the Commission "ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs" .

And recital 11 states that: "Placing on the market also covers import. Products containing and/or consisting of GMOs covered by this Directive cannot be imported into the Community if they do not comply with its provisions."

I think that, at this stage, it will be difficult for us to muster legal arguments to show that the EU should not 'export' environmental damage by importing produce from a crop known to damage the environment. For now I would stick to the moral argument, but I am talking to Pete and Phil about investigating this further.

Food safety considerations

Friends of the Earth believes that there are several serious concerns about the safety of LLrice62 for use in human food.

- The genetic analysis of the impact of the inserted genes on the rice indicated the possibility of an alteration in the plant metabolism as a result of the genetic modification; at the very least this was not ruled out by Bayer.

- No examination of the GM rice was done to make sure that unanticipated changes to its metabolism had not occurred

- Changes were observed in known compositional compounds of rice, including a substantial increase in the amount of existing allergenic compounds.

- One of the feeding studies conducted by Bayer was judged by the UK authorities to be of "limited capacity" to identify adverse effects, while in the other a difference in response (increased weight gain) was observed for consumption of the GM rice.

- Long term studies to examine potential for more serious health effects were not carried out.

Taken together, Friends of the Earth considers that the evidence suggests that unexpected changes could have occurred in the GM rice which could affect its nutritional value and safety for human consumption.

Rice is a staple food for 2.5 billion people. For many of those people, including citizens of the EU, it can make up a large proportion of the diet. The US Government has stated that when assessing GM foods for its own livestock, regulators should take particular care because "a single plant product may constitute a significant portion of the animal diet...
Therefore, a change in nutrient or toxicant composition ... may be a very significant change in the animal diet" (emphasis added)[1]. If this argument is valid for US cattle, what about the humans around the world who could end up eating GM rice as the mainstay of their diet?

The Cartagena Protocol On Biosafety to the Convention On Biological Diversity notes that there are "limited capabilities of many countries, particularly developing countries, to cope with the nature and scale of known and potential risks associated with living modified organisms". The decisions by the European Union with respect to this GM rice will therefore be extremely influential in countries with limited resources to undertake their own regulatory review. The EU authorities must take the assessment of this rice extremely seriously - and ensure that it is completely safe for consumption as a large proportion of the diet - because this assessment will affect people not just in the EU, but around the world.

Environmental impacts

No information on whether GM rice could escape into the EU environment

Bayer's application is for import of the GM rice but not cultivation. Rice is grown in 5 southern EU member states - Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and France. Although gene flow to crop rice or weedy red rice is possible in such areas[2],[3],[4], Bayer said in its application that it considered this risk to be only 'theoretical', because LLRICE62 is not intended to be grown in Europe (Page 43 of notification). However, nowhere in its application has Bayer provided data to show that grains will not be imported into regions where rice is grown and that it cannot escape. Bayer did not provide any information on the proportion of imported rice that may contain viable rice and whether or where spillages of imported rice have occurred in the past.

Environmental impacts in third countries.

One of the key concerns raised by the UK authorities with respect to herbicide tolerant crops (and the subject of four years of field trials in the UK) was the impact of the changed herbicide regime on wildlife that makes use of agricultural areas. In the United States, around half of natural wetlands have been lost in the last century and rice fields
provide a vital food resource for wetland birds as a result. The weed seeds and invertebrates of rice fields are known to be important food sources for wetland birds. If the use of herbicide tolerant rice reduces such biodiversity, in the same way as has been shown for GM beet crops and spring oilseed rape in the UK trials, then the production of Liberty link rice in the US could have serious impacts on wild birds in the United States and other countries where the crop is grown.

Resistance to the herbicide may develop rapidly.

One of the key weeds that rice farmers need to control is weedy rice. Liberty Link rice has been promoted in the United States as a means of controlling weedy rice in particular. However, cultivated and weedy rice are so closely related that they can easily cross breed. Recent research from China, designed to replicate the occurrence of wild rice in the field, found transgene escape to wild rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.) occurring at the rate of 1.21 and 2.19 % in the field[5]. A recent study modelling commercial production of glufosinate tolerant rice in Latin America predicted that the development of herbicide resistant weedy rice populations would occur within 3 to 8 years[6]. This will mean that farmers will have to use more herbicides to control these herbicide resistant weed populations.

Impacts on centres of agricultural biodiversity

Dispersal of transgenes into wild rice, non GM rice and traditional varieties of rice would be of particular concern in those areas which are centres of agricultural biodiversity, such as India. The importance of protecting such world resources cannot be over stated; rice gets its resistance to two of Asia's four main rice diseases from a single sample of rice that came from central India[7].

1 Guest, G. 1992. Response to FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology
2 OECD (1999) Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No.14. Consensus document on the biology of Oryza sativa (rice). ENV/JM/MONO(99)26
3 Messegeur, J. et al (2001) Field assessments of gene flow from transgenic to cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.) using a herbicide resistance gene as tracer marker. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103: 1151-1159.
4 Zhang, N., Linscombe, S. & Oard, J. (2003) Out-crossing frequency and genetic analysis of hybrids between transgenic glufosinate herbicide-resistant rice and the weed, red rice. Euphytica 130: 35-45.
5 Chen LJ et al. (2004) Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives Annals of Botany 93 (1): 67-73
6 Madsen KH, Valverde BE, Jensen JE (2002) Risk assessment of herbicide-resistant crops: A Latin American perspective using rice (Oryza sativa) as a model Weed 16 (1): 215-223
7 World Resources Institute http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/agrigene.html

Top

[Home] - [About this site] - [What's new] - [Publications] - [Site Map] -
[Terms and Definitions] - [FAQs] - [Links to relevant sites] - [Contact us]