Indian Farmers & the Next Round of WTO Negotiations for nytas@ursula; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:41:53 -0500 Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit "http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/05172524.htm" THE HINDU, Monday, January 17, 2000 Genetically-modified food By Suman Sahai WHATEVER MAY have happened in Seattle, it would be unwise to think that the WTO agenda has been derailed. The next round of negotiations are starting now in Geneva. On the agenda are discussions on agriculture, services and implementation issues arising from the Uruguay Round. In addition to these subjects, contentious issues such as labour and environment will remain on the agenda, so will market access and biotechnology. Biotechnology is a subject which has not attracted much attention in the WTO context in India or in other developing countries. Specifically, this relates to trade in genetically-modified crops. Genetically-modified (GM) or genetically-engineered crops are those which contain a foreign gene. Geneticists today can cut out a gene from anywhere, not even necessarily another plant, and put it into any crop. This way traits that are not present in the particular crop can be brought in from anywhere: another plant, an animal or even a bacteria. In the case of transgenic Bt cotton, the gene that can provide protection against the dreaded cotton pest bollworm is brought in from a bacterium found in the soil. Transgenic or GM plants are being made in both food and cash crops. The most prominent are corn, soyabean, cotton, rape- seed, tomato and tobacco. The U.S. is the main producer of transgenic or GM crops followed by Canada, Australia and Argentina and to a smaller extent, Japan. There are a lot of fears about GM foods chiefly relating to the safety aspects, both for the environment and for human health. It is feared that novel genes and genetic constructs could escape into the environment and create monster plants such as weeds that cannot be destroyed or new, recombinant pathogens such as bacteria and viruses for which there are no cures. There are fears that antibiotic genes used as markers in GM crops could have adverse effects on human health. Scientific evidence at present is thin that such side effects have actually happened or are likely to happen. However, there is a consensus in the scientific community and the informed public that the precautionary principle must be applied. It is felt that the technology itself needs improvement and that the safety aspect will have to be tested far more rigorously before it can be declared that GM crops are indeed a safe source of food. The push to include GM food trade in the WTO comes from the so- called Life Science corporations such as Monsanto and Novartis who have made very large investments in this sector. Money has been spent on buying up smaller competing firms, on field testing, on obtaining licenses and clearances and on promotions and sales pitches for farmers. Farmers for their part have planted huge areas with GM crops. If they cannot sell their produce because of consumer aversion, they will vent their spleen on their Government. No wonder then that the American Government, pushed by the Life Science industry, needs to find markets for these controversial, frightening foods that no one seems to want. It is in this context that the Americans are attempting to force open markets for their GM foods using the WTO as a platform. In a speech before Seattle, the American President, Mr. Bill Clinton, himself took a stand on biotechnology products and lobbied for the U.S. position. ``America leads the world in agricultural products developed with biotechnology,'' he pronounced and added ``We are committed to ensuring the safety of our food and environment through strong and transparent, science- based domestic (not international!) regulatory systems.... In Seattle we will continue to insist that market access for agricultural biotechnology products be based on strong science.'' At present there are four major players in the WTO on the biotechnology issue, each of whom has taken divergent approaches. The European Union favors a clarification of the Agreement on Sanitary on Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement); Canada has proposed the establishment of a working group ``with a fact- finding mission to consider the adequacy and effectiveness of existing rules as well as the capacity of WTO members to implement these rules effectively''; Japan seeks ``an appropriate forum to address new issues, including GM organisms as a sub- group of an independent negotiating group on agriculture''; and the United States wants ``transparent, predictable, timely and science-based'' approval systems for genetically-modified crop varieties to be among the objectives of the agricultural negotiations. Both Japan and the E.U. support the ``precautionary principle'' and take a cautious approach to genetically-engineered products. The U.S. and Canada are aggressive about opening markets for their genetically-modified crops because both are large producers and are having difficulties getting buyers. Both favour a less stringent approach to GM foods and are keen to see it in the WTO without further delay. The U.S. is against setting up a Working Group on Biotechnology because it finds the proposed mandate too broad, and fears that the deliberations could slow down market opening for GM products. Instead, it has proposed that trade in agricultural biotechnology products should be made part of the negotiations on agriculture. As a matter of fact, the majority of WTO members are against creating a Working Group on Biotechnology but for different reasons. Most developing countries feel that GM organisms should be discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity and not in the WTO. During discussions in the WTO, developing countries have not yet made any proposals on biotechnology. Most of them are in favour of stringent rules for trans-boundary movements of GM organisms in the Biosafety Protocol talks that are slated to resume this month. Developing countries are seeking provisions that would protect their regulations on GM imports, from WTO challenges. India has nothing to gain from becoming a dumping ground for unwanted GM foods. Therefore it should strongly oppose the setting up of a Working Group on Biotechnology or allowing it to be included in the Agreement on Agriculture. On the basis of good science from the best laboratories and quoting the evidence of some of the top scientists in the field, India should make the case that a lot more work needs to be done on the safety and public interest concerns related to GM crops. That there are still credible concerns on the safety of the technology per se and that efforts must be made to clean up the technology. That today it would be irresponsible to engage in the international trade of GM products about which there are such grave public concerns. India itself will also have to do a lot of homework on this new and controversial area. At first it needs to draw up a clear-cut domestic policy. It should decide its priority areas for research and place emphasis on crops relevant to India. It must flesh out a strong Biosafety Protocol and push for international acceptance for this and for compulsory labelling of GM foods. In addition, it should craft sensitive and just Intellectual Property legislation, which will protect our scientists and our consumers. We should satisfy ourselves on the basis of scientific evidence about the long-term safety of these crops for human health and for the environment. And, most of all, we should carry out an awareness generation programme and gain public acceptance for this technology and these foods in our country. Finally, we should propose that discussions related to the international trade of GM foods should be under the aegis of a somewhat more competent authority, for example the Science and Technology Commission of the U.N. The WTO has neither the skill nor the competence to evaluate the safety aspects of biotechnology products. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytas-02.04.00-07:41:52-27209