Consumers around the world concerned about risks posed by genetically modified (GMO) foods got little comfort on Friday from the close of the latest United Nations meeting on biosafety in Brazil.
Participating countries failed to make significant ground on the contentious issue of when to strengthen labelling restrictions on the movement of genetically modified foods across national borders despite negotiations into the early hours of the morning in the week-long UN meeting.
Nearly all 132 countries that had signed on to the so-called Cartagena Protocol, which took effect in 2003 and aims for greater transparency in trade of GMO foods like soybeans and corn, had appeared ready to agree on a proposal floated by Brazil earlier this week.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva backed the plan presented to the UN meeting by his Environment Minister Marina Silva for countries that signed on to the treaty to adopt tougher labelling rules by 2010.
In the end, Mexico objected to a key part of the new text of the treaty and forced a compromise that essentially leaves open the implementation of stronger language on labelling.
"Mexico wants a Biosafety Clearing House which will allow importers to look at all the GMOs grown in a country and decide whether to import. We are beyond the language 'contains' or 'may contain GMOs'," the head of the Mexican delegation Marco Meraz told Reuters on the sidelines of the plenary session.
And it was and will be these seemingly simple phrases that negotiations struggle with for years. The direction of the treaty is to have exporters eventually document exactly what kind of GMO is contain in a shipment. The next biosafety meeting will be in 2008.
Under the protocol as it exists today, cargoes are only required to carry the terms "may contain GMOs" and list the possible types that may be within. This will continue at least until 2012 and beyond in the absence of a change in the treaty.
"It has been unbelievable," Beneeikt Haerlin, Greenpeace's biosafety delegate, said. "How can one country take the whole world hostage and high jack international trade negotiations?"
The outcome, however, should ease concerns for now of most of the world's major GMO exporters - the United States, Argentina, Canada and Australia - who did not sign the treaty, saying it would drive up costs and potentially hurt their exports.
The United States with other GMO exporters has already brought the European Community, whose citizens largely reject transgenic foods, to the WTO for dragging it's feet on clearance of GMO imports.
But many poorer countries, especially in Africa, want tougher labelling requirements because they don't have the resources or capacity to inspect every cargo for GMOs.
"We want complete labelling, exactly what type of GMO is shipped. This will allow us to make an informed decision on whether to import or not," head of the African group of countries at the meeting and Ethiopia's delegate, Tewolde Gebre Egziabher, said.
He said that without tougher labelling requirements in the protocol, the protocol could become less relevant over time. Exporter countries that have not signed the treaty are still not obliged to comply although most of them already do to varying degrees.
"In Canada or the United States they can trace a supermarket product back to the field or ranch where it was grown if there is a problem. There is no good reason a greater traceability can't be applied to GMOs," Shikongo Taukondjo Sem of the Namibian delegation said.
Comments
Comments are closed.