|
Internationally, there has been an exceptional amount of controversy about safety, development and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Whether the technology is considered good or bad depends on the eyes of the perceiver.
The grain producing nations such as the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Uruguay and Chile (referred to as the Miami Group) are largely in favour of GMOs and have argued that the WTO guidelines should take precedence over the precautionary principle advocated by the European nations. The precautionary principle states that importation of GMOs can be banned by a nation, based on potential harm, even though there is no scientific proof that a particular GMO can be harmful. These countries have held that the WTO rulings should be upheld and countries should not be allowed to discriminate against GMO imports, if no scientific evidence exists to show that these are deleterious to the health or to the environment.
The developing world sees itself as standing to lose the most in the face of northern biotechnology companies' influence on agriculture and the increasing cost of agriculture, and have been hence arguing for the strongest possible environmental health rights under the Biosafety Protocol. Further, there is resebtment that the genes that are planted for by the multinationals, originated from plants from many developing countries and have not been compensated
The countries such as Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, an Switzerland see themselves as a compromise group. After much deliberation, and international biosafety protocol (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) has been drafted at the recently concluded meeting of the CBD to be held in Nairobi, 15-26 May 2000. This represents a compromise position between the view of the European group and the Miami group. In this protocol it is agreed that governments will signal whether or not they are willing to accept imports of agricultural commodities that include GMOs by communicating via an internet-based Biosafety Clearing House. In addition, the shipments of GMOs are to be clearly labelled. Stricter Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) procedures will apply to seeds and live fish. It was also agreed that WTO and the protocol will be mutually supportive and the protocol is not to affect the rights and obligations of the governments under any existing international agreements. Pharmaceuticals are not covered in this agreement. |
|
Several of theses countries have different approaches to consumer protection and legislation for the use of Genetically Modified foods/crops. A few of these are given for information.
Britain-Has remained somewhat conservative, asking for more trials to be done, more committees to be set up to look at all the factors involved and more time to study the results of the deliberatins.
Japan-set us an advisory committee drawn from the food industry, consumer groups, academia, medical and food standard organizations. Based on the recommendations received by the government from this committee, the following foods have been allowed onto the market: certain types of GM potatoes, sugar beet, rapeseed, corn soybeans, tomatoes and cotton. Where a food contains more that 5% GM ingredients, the label must indicate that the food contain GM inputs. This requirement comes into effect in 2001.
Australia & New Zealand-presently awaiting an assessment of the cost to the consumer of the additional labelling requirement.
United States-a labelling law has been proposed if foods contain more than 0.1% GM ingredients. All data on GM foods/crops is currently under review by the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drugs Administration, and the National Academy of Science.
The European Union-An European Union Scientific Advisory Committee has been established to examine the issues. One type of GM tomato (Astre Zenea) has been classified as safe use in the EU.
|
