New York Times | By ANDREW POLLACK | June 14, 2003
A new global treaty that imposes restrictions on exports of genetically modified seeds, animals and crops is set to take effect, injecting a new element into already heated international disputes over agricultural biotechnology.
The treaty, known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, was agreed upon by more than 130 nations in January 2000 but could not take effect until formally ratified by 50 nations. The 50th, Palau, just gave its endorsement, so the protocol will go into effect in 90 days, on Sept. 11, the United Nations Environment Program said yesterday.
The treaty allows countries to bar imports of genetically engineered seeds, microbes, animals or crops that they deem a threat to their environments. It also requires international shipments of genetically engineered grains to be labeled.
The United States reluctantly agreed to the treaty in 2000 after intense negotiations pitting it and a handful of other crop-exporting nations against everyone else. While Washington has not ratified the protocol, American exporters to countries that are parties to the agreement will have to abide by the rules, a senior State Department official said.
This official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the effect of the treaty would depend on the rules for carrying it out, which have not been written yet. He and others said that many countries were already putting into place their own rules regulating imports or requiring labeling of genetically modified products, making the treaty less significant than it otherwise might have been.
The United States recently filed suit at the World Trade Organization challenging the European Union's de facto moratorium on approval of new genetically modified crops, arguing it is not based on sound science. The new treaty contains language that could bolster Europe's case, at least morally. It allows countries to bar imports of genetically modified products even if there is not enough information to prove scientifically that the products are dangerous.
Recognizing a potential conflict with W.T.O. rules, the framers of the biosafety treaty were careful to state that it neither supersedes nor is subordinate to other agreements.
L. Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, said the new treaty would have little effect over all and none on Washington's case against Europe. "There's no way you can possibly read it or construe it that would allow a trumping of W.T.O. obligations," he said.
Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes genetically modified foods, said the treaty bolstered opponents of biotechnology because it establishes that genetically modified foods should be treated differently from other foods.New York Times:
