www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Europe may be on a collision course with its major trading partners as
debate heats up over a treaty to regulate the global flow of genetically
modified (GMO) foods, largely rejected by Europeans, March 2006 btory by
Jeremy Smith.

The European Union's sceptical stance on GMO?s has long poisoned relations
with biotech-friendly countries like the United States, Canada and
Argentina, where many consumers shrug off claims the products pose health or
environmental risks.

And the EU may have lost moral ground after its GMO import policy was
criticised last month at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in a case filed
against it by the three major GMO growers.

But that has not changed the view of most Europeans who shun GMO maize,
soybeans and other crops as "Frankenstein Foods", leading retailers to keep
them off shelves.

From the WTO, the biotech battleground now shifts to a UN treaty, the
Cartagena Protocol, which came into force in 2003 and aims for transparency
and control in world GMO trade.

The protocol obliges exporters to provide more information about GMO
products like maize and soybeans to recipient countries to help them decide
whether to accept them.

Under its provisions, a nation may reject GMO imports or donations - even
without scientific proof - if it fears they pose a danger to traditional
crops, undermine local cultures or cut the value of biodiversity to
indigenous communities.

As of early March, 132 countries had signed the protocol.

But the United States, where companies like Monsanto are large producers of
GMO seed, has not signed and looks unlikely to do so anytime soon.

Along with major GMO exporters Canada, Australia and Argentina, the United
States says GMO crops are safe, can increase yields and resist destructive
pests.

Europe, more cautious on biotechnology, thinks differently and has
introduced tough rules on GMO traceability and labelling in food and animal
feed that go beyond the Cartagena provisions.

Diplomats say developing nations, mostly those in Asia and Africa that need
food aid, are caught between the two powers.

Although many African nations are prone to food shortages, countries like
Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique have voiced concerns about accepting biotech
maize donations.

Slow progress

Negotiations on the treaty's implementation and enforcement have moved very
slowly, with the next meetings set for Curitiba in southern Brazil starting
next week. Key issues to be debated will be economic liability and
documentation of GMO shipments.

Little progress is expected on liability, where discussions have focused
recently on areas like handling and transport of GMO cargoes, defining
"damages", and how far any responsibility should lie with the exporting or
importing country.

"We are not saying 'no' to liability, but are concerned that there still
appears to be a push for an all-encompassing, unworkable and unmanageable
regime under the protocol," said Michael Leader at CropLife International, a
Brussels-based federation representing the global plant science industry.

"A lot still needs to be spelled out," said Leader, CropLife's international
regulatory policy manager for agricultural biotechnology.

The Brazil meeting instead should focus on paperwork and labelling
requirements. These are a big concern for biotech companies, which complain
they would face hefty extra costs for testing export cargoes for the
presence of gene-altered grains. "Documentation is the big issue, the key
thing to trigger the whole protocol, for whether it works or not - and
whether countries have the right to know what's being imported," said Adrian
Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.

So far, shipments of GMO?s destined for use in industrial processing, food
and animal feed, must be labelled as "may contain GMO?s". Green groups are
very keen to tighten this requirement, as are some Third World importers in
Africa.

Biotech companies do not agree, saying the wording is already tough enough
and anything more might hamper trade.

Other unresolved areas are the threshold for the percentage content of GMO
material that may exist by chance in a non-GMO cargo and compliance, where
the EU is believed to want legal and financial penalties for anyone flouting
the treaty's provisions.

[www.planetark.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail