New Straits Times » Features

Earth Matters: An eye on GM infiltration

Sarah Sabaratnam

March 02^nd 2004

WHEN the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into force on Sept 11, (CPB) last year, it sent out an important message to the world: Genetically Modified Organisms are inherently different. They carry special risks and hazards to human health and the environment and thus, need to be regulated by an international regime.

"Indeed there is still no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs," writes Lim Li Ching from Third World Network in her paper Genetic Engineering Dangers and Impacts: Lessons from Real Life.

Which is why two of the important issues discussed when Parties to the CPB met for the first time last week in Kuala Lumpur were identification of GMOs traded from one country to another, and the need for a system of liability and redress.

Basically, identification deals with the issues of labelling GM food meant for export and import.

A liability and redress mechanism, if fairly implemented, will allow you to sue a biotech company should you one day find that GM food has affected your health or environment adversely. However, if there is no labelling, how would you trace your sickness to the GM food you ate, and to the biotech company selling it?

Article 18 of the CPB allows each Party to take the necessary measures within their country to require that any Living Modified Organisms (GMOs are known as LMOs in international treaties) for food, feed and processing coming into their country, be accompanied by documentation that states that the consignment "may contain" LMOs.

This is to ensure that they can be handled, transported and packaged safely in order to prevent their escape into the environment where they can contaminate crops and varieties in the wild. Any LMO consignment meant for introduction to the environment (such as seeds) should also be labelled clearly.

This will help countries that do not want to grow genetically engineered crops to avoid its accidental release into the environment.

A huge problem presents itself at this juncture. So many LMOs are being moved around that even non-LMO consignments are contaminated with LMOs. This contamination — even at very low levels — can end up escaping into the environment (as you will learn further down).

The other issue concerning imports is the need for a legally binding regime on liability and redress. Such a regime will allow countries or their farmers to be compensated if they experience any form of damage that may be caused by LMOs.

Just like any technology (cars, electrical appliances) purchased comes with a warranty, the liability and redress scheme will allow for compensation in the event that LMOs, already acknowledged to be risky, prove to be dangerous to human health or to the environment.

Article 29 of the CPB requires parties to begin crafting the liability and redress regime at the first Meeting of Parties and to complete the process in four years.

Kristin Dawkins and Josh Dubois in their paper Towards a Liability and Compensation Regime Under the Biosafety Protocol maintain that previous international environmental agreements have incorporated liability provisions, and LMOs should not be exempted from such a regime.

"The Space Objects Convention addresses liability for damage caused by the launching of spacecraft. The liability problems surrounding spacecraft are similar to those which surround GMOs: in both instances, new technology gives rise to the potential for widespread, unanticipated environmental damage," they write. They also cite the example of the Basel Convention which deals with the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

Friends of the Earth International (the world's largest coalition of environmental NGOs) called for a strong, legally binding regime on liability and redress to be crafted as soon as possible.

"Damage derived from the contamination of GM crops is already occurring today ...Mexico, a centre of origin for corn has been found to be contaminated by GM maize, even though GM maize was not legalised for cultivation. Moreover, the introduction into the environment of new GM crops, like biopharmaceutical crops in the United States, raises huge concerns. GM crops for non-food uses (non-edible crops) containing drugs and industrial chemicals have been released into the environment, and already a couple of incidents of contamination have been identified in the US."

Imagine accidentally having your edible crops contaminated with crops genetically engineered to produce industrial chemicals!

Mexican Silvia Riberio, researcher and programme manager for the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (etc Group) said the socio-economic impact on Mexico, if the contaminated corn were to pose health and environmental consequences, would be severe.

"Maize is the economic basis of most farmers in Mexico. It is also the staple food of Mexicans. Almost everything we eat is based on maize. Nobody knows what will happen."

The etc Group did a study in nine states in Mexico and found crops there contaminated. Their study came after official studies by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that two states were contaminated.

This is why commodities that may have even the tiniest bit of LMOs in them must be labelled as containing them. Studies have shown that even negligible levels of LMOs in non LMO consignments, can end up in the environment.

The New Zealand experience is a telling one.

In the year 2000, New Zealand authorities detected the presence of genetically modified corn in a routine test of seeds imported from the US.

The New Zealand producer had purchased "certified-GM-free" seeds from organic farms in the US. Then in 2003, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry confirmed a Japanese finding that corn produced in New Zealand had been contaminated with GM material. (GM corn has not been authorised for cultivation in New Zealand).

The level of contamination was found to be at 0.05 per cent — less than five seeds in every 10,000.

This means that for every 75,000 (non GM) corn plants planted per hectare in New Zealand, there were 37 GM plants. New Zealand had 775 ha planted with corn, putting the number of GM corn in the country’s 98 fields, on both the North and South islands, at 28,675.

"If you have a genetically engineered organism, it can expand in the environment and it may do so exponentially, predicting when it may do so is impossible. What looks like small numbers becomes big numbers," says Professor Jack Heinemann, director of the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology who spoke on New Zealand’s experience at the Third World Network Seminar on Biosafety recently.

Given that contamination has been proven to take place so easily, despite stringent measures taken by countries like New Zealand, means that a liability and redress regime is indeed needed — and urgently — not to mention more detailed monitoring of food coming into a country.

"You have to think of the Precautionary Principle," says Juan Lopez Villar of Friends of the Earth International. "You have to do something before the damage happens. Liability plays a key role in prevention of any damage."

Scientist Arpad Pusztai, formerly head of protein chemistry at the Rowett Research Institute in Britain says that lack of immediate scientific evidence does not mean that the threat to health is not there.

"It took a long time to link a high fat diet to heart disease. You need to keep records for four generations. That is how long it takes to trace a sickness back to its original source," he said.

Thankfully, governments aware of the potential threat of GM food and crops made a strong stand on the issues of liability and identification at the conclusions of the First Meeting of Parties last week.

Although there is still no international liability regime for damage caused by GMOs, thanks to efforts by delegates from Ethiopia, Malaysia and Colombia, in four years’ time, there will be one.

A Working Group with a strong and clear mandate to work out international rules and procedures for liability and redress by 2007 has been created.

With regards to identification, the parties opted for stronger requirements which require exporters to provide clear and detailed information about the LMOs a consignment contains. Importing countries have the right to refuse the shipment if this information is not provided.

"(This) ...is an important step forward for protecting consumers, farmers and the environment from the dangers of GMOs," said Juan Lopez.

Hamdallah Zedan, the Protocol’s executive secretary was also pleased at the outcome of the negotiations. "The rigorous system for handling, transporting, packaging and identifying GMOs is in the best interests of everyone — developed and developing countries, consumers and industry, and all those who care deeply about our natural environment," he said.

Now that the meetings are over, it’s up to each individual country to put the necessary mechanisms in place to monitor everything that comes into their country. But like the New Zealand experience shows, even with such strict monitoring system in place, LMOs can slip right by.

Parties really need to get back to the drawing board, working with independent scientists and experts and get a proper monitoring system in place, one that will not overlook even the tiniest bit of contamination. Where something has not proven to be a hundred per cent safe, one can’t afford not to be cautious.