Free-Market NGOs Distribute Letter and Scientists' Declaration to Delegates
A declaration supporting agricultural biotechnology and signed by over 600 scientists from around the world was distributed on Tuesday, January 24, to delegates to the Biosafety Protocol meeting in Montreal. The declaration was sent with a letter urging delegates to consider the benefits of biotechnology and the risks of severe restrictions on this technology that could be set through the Protocol. In Montreal today, representatives from over 130 countries are convening to discuss the international Biosafety Protocol, which sets the rules for transboundary shipments and use of genetically modified foodstuffs.
The letter to delegates was signed by Dr. C. S. Prakash, Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University, the author of the scientists’ declaration, and three Non-Governmental-Organizations (NGOs) the non-profit groups, International Consumers for Civil Society, Consumer Alert, and Competitive Enterprise Institute. The text of the letter follows:
"As the Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (ExCOP 1) resumes today to negotiate the terms of a Biosafety Protocol, we Non-Governmental Organization representatives urge delegates to consider the very real threat that a Protocol not grounded in sound scientific principles could pose to the environment and to the well- being of human populations around the world.
Perhaps the most substantial threat comes from inclusion in the draft Protocol of the "precautionary approach" to environmental and human health regulation: to wit, "Lack of full scientific certainty or scientific consensus regarding the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism shall not prevent the Party of import from prohibiting the import of the living modified organism in question ..." (UNEP/CBD/ExCOP/1/L.2/Rev.1, p.32). Such a precautionary approach which demands that new technologies be proved absolutely safe before they can be used necessarily ignores the very real dangers of going without the new technologies. A more progressive approach would balance the risk of introducing new biotechnologies against the much more pressing risks of hunger and poverty.
Living Modified Organisms that is, those developed with recombinant DNA techniques and other advanced biotechnologies offer one of the best hopes for increasing the productivity and affordability of crop plants and for making medicines more affordable and easier to distribute. In many areas, this potential has already been demonstrated. And, contrary to the claim of anti-biotechnology activists, LMOs can even advance environmental goals because they require less pesticide and herbicide use and because they allow more food to be grown with less land. Adherence to a precautionary approach is unlikely to make new food technologies safer. It could, however, create its own risks by postponing the time when the benefits of LMOs reach farmers and consumers.
There is no scientific reason to believe that the use of recombinant DNA techniques or other advanced bio-technologies inherently poses new or more dangerous threats to biodiversity, to other aspects of environmental quality, or to human health, than do traditional methods of plant breeding or cell culture. By using science-based risk assessment and risk management guidelines enshrined in such other international agreements as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards agreement, the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, and the International Plant Protection Convention, nations and regulatory bodies can effectively manage the legitimate risks posed by both LMOs and organisms modified with more traditional methods. If an unscientific Protocol is allowed to trump these other international obligations, governments will be permitted to base public policies not on science, but on baseless fears and emotionalism.
Attached below, you will find a declaration signed by more than 600 scientists from around the world in support of using agricultural biotechnology. We urge you to consider this declaration and the importance of new biotechnologies as the negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol commence."
NGO representatives from Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, and International Consumers for Civil Society waited in corridors for delegates to emerge from lengthy meetings to hand copies of the letter to them and ask them to review the materials.
On the First Day . . . of Official Negotiations
After four days of informal meetings, the two major negotiating blocs (the European Union and the Miami Group of major agricultural exporting nations) were still separated by vast differences in their positions on many issues. During negotiations on Sunday and Monday, however, the position of the European Union appeared to be softening on one contentious issue: the treatment of commodities intended for processing in other countries.
Under the draft text of the Protocol, every shipment of a genetically-engineered product that is capable of reproducing (both seeds intended for planting as well as commodities intended for processing) would have to be approved by the importing country’s government on a case-by-case basis. Of course, this would wreak havoc on the relatively efficient commodity transportation network in the US and other major grain exporting nations. The EU and many developing nations, argue that portions of such shipments do, quite frequently, get diverted into use as seeds. Instead of insisting upon a more rational, risk-based approval system for all products, however, the Miami Group has been trying to carve out an exemption for commodities, so that they can be made subject to expedited import approvals.
For nearly a year, the EU has resisted such a move, but by Monday morning, EU negotiators seemed to be giving ground. The EU hinted that it would work with Miami Group nations to draft appropriate language that would create an alternative procedure for approving raw, genetically-engineered organisms that are intended for processing into foods and animal feeds. The various other negotiating blocs seem to be going along with the EU’s move, but each of them stressed a desire to develop an approval system for commodities that, while quicker, is as cautious as that for other products. Although the Miami Group is excited about the possibility of reaching an agreement on what it considers to be a major issue, it should be cautious in proceeding. More on this issue as the negotiations progress.
Convention Official Urges Agreement on Protocol Credibility of Convention as a Whole at Stake, Zedan Says
Opening up the official negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, Hamdallah Zedan, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, said that the stakes are high for a successful conclusion of the Protocol. ". . . A failure to reach consensus on a Protocol on Biosafety might have incalculable consequences for the Convention as a whole," Zedan said on Monday.
Zedan noted that over the last several days, "an atmosphere of cautious optimism pervaded the informal consultations . . ." He also said that there is need to meet the high expectations of the ‘international community’ in delivering the Protocol it "expects and deserves."
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.