Free Trade or Biodiversity?

Greenpeace International, January 2000

Will a country have the right to say no to genetically modified organisms entering its territory in order to protect both biodiversity and human health?

The Biosafety Protocol and its parent, the Biodiversity Convention, have a common goal: to protect biodiversity. Following the collapse of negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol in Colombia in February 1999, one of the most controversial subjects to resolve is whether a country will have the right to refuse applications for genetically engineered crops and products to enter its national territory.

Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and some European countries like France, Greece, Denmark, Italy and Norway believe they should retain the right to ban GMOs which may pose threats to their environment, or human health.

Predictably, the world’s largest exporter of genetically engineered (GE) crops, the US, argues, on the other hand that any rejection of an import is against the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and would seriously curtail its biotechnology industry. In a coalition with other major grain exporting countries such as Canada and Australia, the US demanded at the negotiations in Cartagena, Colombia that GE crops, the largest category of GMOs, should be excluded from the Protocol and its notification and consent procedures.

US and Canada’s foiled attempts at trade negotiations in Seattle

In November 1999, the US and Canada attempted to undermine the Biosafety Protocol by proposing that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules should 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. 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 GE food where they have concerns about the environment.

EU environment ministers and the head of the UN environment programme made known their opposition to this approach at the international trade negotiations in Seattle, USA. Due to the collapse of these negotiations, this particular attempt failed but it is likely that the US and Canada will try to use future agriculture and international trade negotiations, as well as other fora (such as the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation rules) to force trade in GMOs to be paramount to biodiversity considerations.

The move to ban GMOs

The following countries have so far rejected imports of North American-approved transgenic crops:

Austria, Luxembourg: banned Novartis’ Bt-maize (February 1997); Norway: banned Novartis’ Bt-maize and all other GE crops containing antibiotic resistance marker genes (October 1997).

France: halted all GE crops for commercial cultivation except Novartis’, Monsanto’s and AgrEvo’s GE maize (November 1997) and all GE crops which have wild relatives in Europe (July 1998). France also banned 2 GE oilseed rapes (November 1998).

Greece: banned AgrEvo’s GE oilseed rape (October 1998).

India: The Indian High Court provisionally banned field trials of GE crops (February 1999).

Switzerland: did not allow field trials of AgrEvo’s GE maize (April 1999); Brazil’s 6^th Federal Court suspends the commercialisation of Monsanto’s GE soy until environmental assessments have been carried out (June/August 1999).

Portugal: suspended the cultivation of two GE maize varieties (December 1999).

US threatens EU over bans and labelling

At the heart of the Biosafety Protocol discussions is the basis on which a country can refuse to allow GMOs into its territory. Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the 15 EU countries have decided on the need for labelling of GMOs and GMO products. Brazil also requires labelling and Japan and Hong Kong are currently considering proposals. The US has been threatening the European Union with WTO action over the EU’s labelling regime for GMOs. It is also making threats about the bans by a number of EU countries on imports and cultivation of certain GMOs. The US considers the bans and labelling in these cases as infringements of international free trade rules.

The EU stated in December 1999 that traceability should be ensured under the Protocol. .

Greenpeace demands:

• The WTO must adhere to Biosafety Protocol rules, rather than the other way round.
  
• Countries which have ratified the Protocol (i.e"parties" ) must have unambiguous rights to ban the imports of all GMOs and all products deriving from GMOs (e.g. corn starch from genetically modified maize, soy flour from genetically modified soy);
  
• Parties receiving imports of GMOs must give their explicit consent before a GMO can be exported there. The same must apply to transit countries;
  
• No exports or imports should take place to or from non-member countries (i.e. non-Parties) to the Protocol to ensure that all countries that want to trade in GMOs commit to apply as a minimum the safety standards under the Protocol.

top / home