The quest for a biosafe biosphere

Abstract

Last year, the South Pacific island of Palau became the 50th country to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, part of the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Protocol, which now has 87 signatories, is this century's first international environmental treaty. Yet the agreement is not without some critics, including the US. While the treaty became international law 90 days after Palau ratified, it is unlikely to have any real impact if a leading agricultural exporter such as the US opposes it. Since 1994, when the first genetically modified tomatoes became available to the American public, dozens of food crops and animals have been modified for various purposes, such as higher yields, nutritional improvement, and resistance to diseases and pests. These genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) have found support from parties wishing to enhance the world's food supply and create new markets – both laudable goals. Even so, a growing number of skeptics question the wisdom of creating new organisms that may have unexpected interactions with other species and the environment. Earlier this year, a pilot study by the Union for Concerned Scientists (Cambridge, MA) found that non-GE corn, soy, and canola in the US is severely contaminated by DNA sequences from GE crops. For many scientists it is clear that interdisciplinary scientific studies are essential to evaluate the environmental benefits and risks posed by GEOs. Many people agree that caution should be shown, meaningful risk-assessment strategies developed, and legislation passed to prevent out-of-control development and use of GEOs. The Cartagena Protocol aims to protect the environment from the risks posed by GEOs. The overriding concept of the Protocol was first announced in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: to promote, by the application of the “precautionary principles”, safety to human health and biodiversity in the use of organisms. The Declaration states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. The law establishes regulations for safe transfer, handling, and use of GEOs, with focus on cross-border movement, but does not ban them or require any country to allow or decline imports. Rather, it establishes procedures for information disclosure prior to import, to assure that sound decisions are made. The most rigorous procedures deal with GEOs that will be intentionally introduced into the environment, but relaxed approaches are available for some agricultural commodities, such as GE corn and soybeans. The Protocol empowers governments to limit imports based on risk assessments – export controls require documentation as well – and establishes an online Biosafety Clearinghouse for global information on GEOs. So what does all this mean? Where, for instance, does the US stand? It cannot become a party to the Protocol, because it has signed but not ratified the CBD. At a recent CBD meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the US participated as an active observer, promising to work to “advance…environmental and trade policy objectives”. The US looks unlikely to sign the Cartagena agreement in the short term; along with major GEO exporters Canada, Australia, and Argentina, it claims such crops are safe, can increase yields, and resist destructive pests. The European Union takes the opposite view, however, and has tough rules that go beyond the Cartagena requirements on traceability and labeling of GEOs in foods and animal feed. The good news is that Washington is not ignoring the Cartagena Protocol and the CBD. The US is working with the Bio-safety Clearinghouse and the Global Environmental Facility to help other countries develop their own websites and databases, and is helping nations establish science-based regulatory systems. The US, Mexico, and Canada have a Trilateral Arrangement on GEOs that matches the Cartagena Protocol's environmental objectives, while maintaining trade flows. Typically cautious about rushing into a commitment the State Department feels is overly vague, the US has expressed two views: a commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and to protecting, preserving, and restoring important ecosystems and species, but also a firm belief “that agricultural biotechnology offers tremendous potential for addressing pressing global concerns”. Meanwhile, the US and European countries are squabbling over European consumer preferences against GEOs. Last year, Washington retaliated against the European Union's biotech policy, which the US says is not justified scientifically. It filed a World Trade Organization suit, claiming American farmers were losing some $300 million a year in sales. In April, the EU passed food labeling regulations requiring warnings of genetically engineered ingredients. It may soon lift its unofficial 5-year ban on new GE crops and products – an engineered corn known as Bt-11 is expected to be approved in the next few months. The ultimate test will be whether the EU allows new GE seeds onto European farms. So stay tuned…and pass those square tomatoes, please. Douglass F Rohrman