By IPS Correspondents
BRUSSELS, Jan 24 2000 (IPS)

It is unclear if any agreement can be reached at the transboundary trade of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Montreal, as the European Union (EU) insists food safety and labelling concerns be taken into consideration, while others, like the United States, prefer a trade-friendly agenda.

Negotiators from over 130 countries started talks Jan 24 in Montreal, Canada on a deal under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity in an attempt to conclude an international biosafety protocol to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of Living Modified Organisms or LMOs (also referred to as GMOs.

At present, no binding international agreements on transboundary movement of GMOs exist. Some EU nations, in addition to countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, want to retain the right to ban GMOs if the authorities there think they may pose a threat to their environment or human health.

“In environmental terms, the protocol will provide the tools to deal with import of LMOs that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity. And, this is especially important for developing countries that do not yet have adequate mechanisms to deal with such organisms,” said EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom in Brussels last week.

She described the need to conclude the long-delayed talks as an “absolute priority” and that the protocol should be based on the so-called precautionary principle, under which the EU can keep goods off its market if it has evidence – but not necessarily scientific proof – that they pose a danger to consumer health.

“European consumers have repeatedly stressed the link between consumer acceptance of biotechnology and rigorous and transparent control of GMOs,” said David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, on Jan 21.

“I believe that an appropriate labelling system of genetically modified food is one of the cornerstones in resolving the current controversy concerning the application of biotechnology to food,” he added.

The EU bloc has explicitly introduced in its legal framework the right to information for the consumers, in particular about GMOs. A 1998 EU survey showed that 86 percent of the European consumers, increasingly worried by food crises such as the “mad cow” disease or the more recent dioxin contamination, demand labelling of GMO-food.

However, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of genetically engineered (GE) crops, is not willing to bring food safety issues on the negotiating table.

Isi Siddique, adviser to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, told the Montreal conference, which began Jan 20, that “We (U.S.) are against any attempt to expand the agenda” of the talks.

Earlier this month, the U.S. warned the EU that the biosafety protocol should “not become an agreement that deals with other issues, for example food safety.”

U.S. officials also reportedly want the protocol to be “consistent” with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, while, in the words of Wallstrom, “the mutual supportiveness of the trade related aspects of the protocol and the WTO rules needs to be clarified.”

“It would not be acceptable to subordinate the protocol to the WTO,” Wallstrom said last week in Brussels, before travelling to Montreal. The biosafety protocol discussions include the basis on which a country can refuse to allow GMOs into its territory and consequently must take into consideration free trade rules enforced by the WTO.

In November 1999, the US and Canada proposed that WTO rules deal with biotechnology. “Their clear aim was to direct exports and imports of GE food to be regulated by international trade rules rather than environmental protection rules,” said international environmental watchdog group Greenpeace in a January publication.

“Since the WTO rules are heavily weighted to promote trade rather than protect the environment, this would mean that countries would find it extremely difficult to refuse imports of genetically engineered food where they have concerns about the environment,” said the publication.

In Europe, genetically modified food can only be placed on the market after it has been scientifically evaluated and when it is considered to be safe for human health and the environment.

The current European legislation also says that, in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain, and where possible risks to health or the environment are unacceptable, measures should be based on the so-called precautionary principle.

The EU’s executive arm, the European Commission (EC), is still in the process of defining the precautionary principle and clarifying when and how it can be applied to protect the public – while avoiding its use for trade protectionist purposes.

Under EC rules, European companies must clearly label foods containing more than one percent of genetically modified organisms.

According to Greenpeace, the United States has been threatening the European Union with WTO action over the EU’s labelling regime for GMOs because it considers the labelling as an infringement of international free trade rules.

Talks on the biosafety protocol broke down in February 1999 in Cartagena, Colombia as the U.S.-led “Miami Group,” of grain exporting countries (which includes Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile and Uruguay) refused to accept demands for labelling of GMOs amid concerns that it constrained free trade.

“At the end of those (Cartagena) negotiations, the EU presented a compromise to which 140 countries agreed, but that was blocked by the six LMO exporting countries roofed under the so- called Miami Group, including the United Sates,” said Wallstrom.

According to Michael Khoo of Greenpeace, “Canada and the US have torpedoed every attempt to get a strong Biosafety Protocol.”

“Government representatives gathering in Montreal have their last chance to find a solution and we urge them not to fail. Industrialised countries like European Union member states have a responsibility to make it happen,” said Khoo in a Jan 20 statement from Montreal.

Excerpt: