Over 600 Scientists Sign Declaration Supporting Biotechnology
At a press briefing in Montreal on January 22, Dr. C.S. Prakash released a declaration signed by over 600 scientists around the world supporting the need for biotechnology. In announcing the scientists´ declaration, Dr. Prakash, Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University (Atlanta, Georgia), said that it was critical for scientists to make their voices heard in the on-going debate over crops and foods produced through biotechnology. The potential for this technology, and some already realized benefits in improving the nutritional value of foods and increasing food security, could be curtailed as a result of unscientific attacks on this valuable tool, he noted. The declaration, Dr. Prakash said, was expected to gain momentum - in just three days since it was sent out and posted to scientists, many of the hundreds who responded are sending out the petition to their own contact lists.
The declaration noted that "recombinant DNA techniques constitute powerful and safe means for the modification of organisms and can contribute substantially in enhancing quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment." It also pointed out that introducing new or different genes into crop plants through biotechnology "does not inherently pose new heightened risks relative to the modification of organisms by more traditional methods."
The briefing, sponsored by International Consumers for Civil Society (ICCS), coincided with the Montreal meeting of over 130 countries to devise a Biosafety Protocol affecting the movement and use of biotechnology products across country borders.
A letter from a coalition of 160 leading Canadian scientists expressing strong support for crop biotechnology was also unveiled at the press conference. Dr. Gord Surgeoner, president of the non-profit Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, introduced their letter.
ICCS, an international coalition of 22 non-profit groups around the world, is a Non-Governmental-Organization (NGO) at the Biosafety Protocol Meeting, as are two member groups, Consumer Alert and Competitive Enterprise Institute, both located in Washington, D.C.
The briefing was covered on several television stations, including TV5, On TV, and CFCF Television. Canadian newspapers, The Gazette,The Ottawa Citizen, and La Presse, noted the scientists´ declaration and letter.
First Impressions
Frigid weather, icy winds, and slippery sidewalks confine much of the action in Montreal relating to the Biosafety Protocol behind closed and preferably double doors. At the registration center in the downtown UN building, delegates and Non-Governmental-Organizations (NGOs) were offered Army surplus padded jackets, warm gloves, and boots to use in venturing outdoors. To go between the conference center and near-by hotels, Montreal's extensive system of underground passageways offers the less hardy of the delegates a welcome alternative to facing the bracing outdoor air.
At the registration desk for NGOs before the week-end, action is slow, with only an occasional person appearing. Procedures are simple. Those groups that had pre-registered simply ask for their badges, provide no identification, and initial their names. A lost registration? No problem - simply tell the registrant the name of your organization and your name, no identification required, and - voilà - you are a bona fide NGO.
Confrontational politics as was practiced by protesters against the World Trade Organization in Seattle is absent in Montreal, due to several factors. First, protesters in Montreal are supporters of the Biosafety Protocol - they want unscientifically based restrictions on the transport and use of crops and foods produced by means of biotechnology. So, they are not interested in stopping the talks - they are happy with the extreme approach in the draft Protocol. The negotiations seem to be strong-armed by the EU - that suits the protesters who approve the EU's unscientific approach to a host of issues. Second, biotechnology is the one issue at issue in Montreal, while protesters brought up a myriad of issues in Seattle - many having nothing at all to do with trade. Third, the intensely cold weather in Montreal keeps most people, including potential protesters, off the streets.
The real confrontations in Montreal are taking place, not between violent protesters and the police, as was the case in Seattle, but between and among countries. (see related articles.)
Anti-Biotech Protesters Go "Underground"
Below-zero temperatures and blustery winds in Montreal kept anti-biotechnology activists mostly underground on Saturday, January 22, except for a gathering of several hundred protesters on the streets outside the building where the Biosafety Protocol is being negotiated. Carrying placards with both English and French versions of slogans, the demonstrators, somewhat hampered by ski jackets, mufflers and mittens, face masks, etc., shook their "Stop GMOs" or "Arrêtez OMGs" signs for the TV cameras.
Greenpeace , one of the major sponsors of the demonstrations, and its allies had sandwiched the demonstrations between workshops and evening lectures by "ìnternational speakers" or self-designated "free lance scholars." The organizations had plastered college campuses with placards announcing its `day of events´ featuring such noted experts on biotechnology as Daniel Pinard, gourmet journalist, Maude Barlow, political activist, and lawyer-activist with the Third World Network, Chee Yoke Ling. Of course, Jeremy Rifkin, whom one pundit has described as "making his living from opposing the future," was the speaker-luminary at the evening event. Rifkin´s speech drew an overflow crowd of mostly college-age attendees. (One young man who was turned away was disgruntled, "But I'm an activist! I should be let in!")
While Greenpeace and others touted the expertise of their speakers on the scientific issues, it is notable that not one prominent scientist currently involved in biotechnology research appeared on their program. The Greenpeace event occurred, of course, the same day that the declaration of over 600 scientists supporting biotechnology was released by and endorsed by prominent scientific and food safety experts.
Mayor Players in the Negotiations
The major players in the negotiations are the five blocs of countries that represent the different negotiation positions.
- The Miami Group: this bloc contains some of the major agricultural exporting countries, Australia, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Uruguay, and the US, which have a particularly high stake in the free flow of agricultural commodities. The bloc's position includes limiting the scope of the protocol by excluding commodities from portions of the Biosafety Protocol. The countries also want to uphold obligations of countries under other international agreements, especially the World Trade Organization's agreements, already signed by most parties to the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. The US has not ratified the Convention on Biodiversity, which is the parent body of the Biosafety Protocol, so it does not have a vote in the negotiations.
- European Union: the EU has been the scene of much of the anti-biotechnology protests and publicity. Not surprisingly, the rules and regulations have been tightened there and politicians are not willing to stick their necks out for food biotechnology. They would like to see the same restrictive attitude adopted on the international level. The EU also supported in earlier negotiations the trumping of the Biosafety Protocol over international trade agreements.
- The Like-Minded Group: this bloc includes most of the developing countries, and has been promoting the most far-reaching scope for the Biosafety Protocol. Its representatives want to include genetically engineered organisms intended for agricultural use, commodities generated from those organisms, and processed goods produced from those commodities. The bloc is the primary advocate of "capacity building" requirements, which would require either First World governments or the biotech industry to pay for training bureaucrats and building a regulatory apparatus. Despite the very different economic and political agendas of this large group of countries, the members stayed together during earlier negotiations.
- Compromise Group: Switzerland, Japan, Norway, and Mexico have formed a loose coalition among countries that have covered the so-called "middle-ground" during the earlier negotiations. Their position -- although they don't always have common goals -- on the various contentious issues has been in flux; they want negotiations to be completed and some agreement reached.
- Central and Eastern Europe: this group of Eastern and Central European countries that are not members of the European Union also includes the Russian Federation that formed an independent group during earlier rounds of negotiations. Some of these countries are being pressured by the EU, especially those that would like to join. Like the Compromise Group, this bloc is primarily interested in reaching some resolution, and its positions have remained flexible.
THE END IS NEAR: Biosafety Protocol Negotiations Are Likely to End on Friday with a Final Resolution or Complete Collapse -- by Gregory Conko
After three days in Montreal, the indoor atmosphere seems to be as icy as the outdoor temperatures. Negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol began in a tenuous position, and they've gone down hill from there. This Protocol is being negotiated under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, and it has occupied nearly all the Convention's time and resources for nearly five years. The parties are tired and more than a little angry with their opponents for what is seen to be an unwillingness to compromise.
Many observers thought for sure that some resolution on the Biosafety Protocol would be possible at negotiations held last February in Cartagena, Columbia. But delegates from the Miami Group of major grain exporting nations held a firm position there against passing what they thought was an unreasonable document, and negotiations were put off for a year. Following that failed round of negotiations in Cartagena, meeting chairman Juan Mayr Maldonado (who is also the Environment Minister of Columbia) held brief consultation sessions in July and September, during which the negotiating parties expressed a desire to resolve the outstanding issues and to complete work on the Protocol. This alleged desire notwithstanding, the positions of the Miami Group and the European Union on several key issues have not changed much over the past 11 months.
UN custom requires the parties to a major agreement to reach consensus (not just a majority) before negotiations are completed and the agreement signed. That's how a group of only five nations can indefinitely prevent the Protocol from being resolved. In order to facilitate some resolution, a series of "informal" meetings devoted to consultation among and between the various negotiating blocs were held on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to see if any compromise could be arranged prior to the start of the formal meetings on Monday.
The main contentious issues in Montreal this week and next are concerns over the scope of the Protocol (What exactly is to be considered a "Living Modified Organism" for the purposes of this agreement, and will there be a partial exemption carved out for one or more categories?), socioeconomic considerations (Will countries be permitted to keep their populations poor in order to justify trade barriers?), "capacity building" (How much money will the developing nations be able to extort from industrialized ones to ensure their participation?), the relationship between the Biosafety Protocol and other multilateral agreements (Will the extremely vague language of the Protocol relieve countries of their obligations under other treaties?), and that old reliable Precautionary Principle. Each of these issues has its own back-story and frustrating turns, but of the bunch, the final two bear further discussion here.
Much ink has already been spilled on the not-so-hidden meaning of the Precautionary Principle-the demand by technophobes that any new innovation be proved absolutely safe before it can be used. But within the boundaries of the Biosafety Protocol, the Precautionary Principle story has a special plot twist.
Most of the negotiating blocs, led by the European Union, support the Precautionary Principle. The biotechnology industry and the six pro-biotech governments of the Miami Group, however, are holding a firm line against its inclusion in the final draft of the Protocol: they had that term excised from the draft text in prior negotiations, and they mean to see that it stays out. They're in favor of sound science, they claim, and the Precautionary Principle just won't do. They fought to replace that old canard with what they argue is a less ambiguous concept. It's called the "precautionary approach."
There are two specific references in the negotiating draft to the precautionary approach, and later sections explain what it meas. "Lack of full scientific certainty or scientific consensus regarding the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism shall not prevent the [importing country] from prohibiting the import …" Call it what you like, but this new canard looks and quacks like a duck. Whether or not the Miami Group wins a final victory on this issue, consumers will be the ultimate losers.
On the other hand, the Miami Group's desire to insert a "savings clause" into the Protocol-which would maintain each country's obligations under other international agreements-could work to the benefit of consumers. Advocates of a strong Biosafety Protocol, especially the European Union and the Like Minded Group of developing nations, want the Protocol to take precedence over other international agreements. While many of those other agreements aren't much better, even the reasonably good trade rules established under the GATT and World Trade Organization would be superceded by a strong Protocol.
Under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreements written into the WTO, for example, nations have to justify regulations that restrict trade on the basis of some scientific evaluation of a legitimate risk. The system isn't perfect, but it does make it harder for nations to impose regulatory restrictions that are thinly disguised protectionist barriers to trade. Including a savings clause in the final Protocol would, in turn, put some limit on the types of restrictions nations could erect by allowing the WTO to enforce obligations under the SPS. Naturally, interested parties waited with great anticipation to learn the outcome of last week's informal negotiations.
Speculation had it that Canada would be the Miami Group's weak link. There's a strong anti-biotech movement in this country, so there's a lot of political pressure to give in and resolve the differences that now prevent completion of the Biosafety Protocol. It could also be seen as a black mark on Canada's reputation if the talks they host end in failure.
Early reports, however, have put an end to such speculation. Canada and the rest of the Miami Group have held a firm position on the most important issues. So much so, in fact, that European Union representatives have taken to pronouncing to all the world that Canada, because of its commitment to other treaty obligations, is trying to sabotage the proceedings.
By Sunday morning, the parties were no closer to resolving any of the key issues, and it appeared as though next week's negotiations may be just as unproductive. One rumor has it, though, that the EU negotiators are lobbying delegates from the rest of the negotiating blocs to reach a compromise agreement that can be passed and signed without approval of the Miami Group nations. Such a move would be a substantial, and nearly unprecedented, breach of UN customs.
According to one observer, a rift of that magnitude could doom, not just the Protocol, but the entire Convention on Biodiversity. It wouldn't bind the major exporters of genetically engineered food products, so it would do little good in resolving any complaints. Consequently, it would highlight the Convention on Biodiversity's ineffectiveness for spending a full five years negotiating a meaningless agreement. Perhaps this is too much to ask from the world's diplomats, but one can hope.
Stay tuned to see how things end.
Gregory Conko is Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an ICCS member organization.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.