Biotech food talks reach crucial stage in Montreal
Date: 31-Jan-00
Country: CANADA
Heading into the last 24 hours of negotiations, countries have made
progress in a number of difficult areas in the proposed Biosafety
Protocol, but differences remained over such issues as the relationship
of the proposed protocol to the World Trade Organisation and the
evidence needed to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
"I don't want to be excessively upbeat about this," Frank Loy, U.S.
undersecretary of state for global affairs, said just moments after
praising the atmosphere of the talks. "We're a long way from having an
agreement."
Environmental aides from nearly 140 countries have been in Montreal this
week trying to finish negotiations that began five years ago. A similar
effort failed last year in Cartagena, Colombia.
At stake in the talks are trade rules for genetically modified crops and
other GMOs used in research and the making of drugs.
BENEFITS CITED
Supporters say the genetic engineering of crops offers many benefits,
such as reduced pesticide use and increased food output. Opponents fear
the new crops could have unanticipated harmful effects on human health
and the environment.
The United States is the world's largest producer and exporter of
genetically modified crops. About one-third of U.S. corn and one-half of
U.S. soybeans are genetically modified.
Because the Senate has not ratified the 1992 U.N. Convention on
Biological Diversity, the United States does not have a formal vote in
the biosafety talks.
It has relied on other members of the Miami Group of farm exporting
nations - Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - to protect
its interests.
The chairman of the negotiations, Colombian Environmental Minister Juan
Myar, began an afternoon plenary session on Thursday by urging
participants to stand and join hands.
"We have resolved many of the main issues," Myar said. "I am very
excited today." He implored the group to use its "best energy" to finish
the protocol.
But after Myar polled the negotiating groups, it was clear a potentially
deal-threatening difference remained over the protocol's relationship to
the WTO.
The Miami Group wants a "savings clause" in the protocol to make clear
it does not take precedence over the trade organisation's rules. The
European Union has resisted that language, saying it would make the
protocol subordinate to the WTO.
BANS WITHOUT EVIDENCE?
In another key area, the Miami Group remained strongly opposed to a
provision that could allow countries to prohibit imports of GMOs without
compelling scientific evidence.
European Commission Environmental Minister Margot Wallstrom told
reporters the protocol must allow countries to take preventive action
when there is scientific uncertainty about potential adverse affects.
"You cannot take action based on just fear," Wallstrom acknowledged.
"But sometimes you don't have a complete scientific picture."
The United States supports precaution in environmental and food safety
regulations, but the approach advocated by the EU is too one-sided, Loy
said. It would allow countries to focus on the potential negative
affects of GMOs without considering potential benefits, he said.
In another area, the Miami Group appeared close to a compromise with the
Like-Minded Group of developing countries on shipments of genetically
modified commodities intended for food, feed and processing.
SEEDS AS SPECIAL CASE
The Miami Group has argued that commodities should not be subject to the
same shipping notification requirements as other GMOs, like seeds,
intended for introduction into the environment.
The compromise would require governments to post information about new
GMO approvals through a Biosafety Clearing House. Developing countries
would then be allowed a 270-day period to evaluate the safety of the new
GMO.
One still unresolved issue is whether any advance notice would be
required on first shipments of new GMOs. The Miami Gr
