US gives way on complex trade rules for genetically modified products

The US has been forced to make concessions in tough negotiations for new rules on trade in genetically modified products but …

The US has been forced to make concessions in tough negotiations for new rules on trade in genetically modified products but has succeeded in putting off a decision on labelling shipments of them.

The agreement was adopted by 140 countries in Montreal at the weekend after five days of hard bargaining. The president of the conference, Mr Juan Mayr, said that "the adoption of this protocol represents a victory for the environment". The biosafety protocol implements the Convention on Bio diversity agreed at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro environment summit.

The US, which is the biggest user and exporter of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), did not sign the convention but has agreed to endorse the new protocol.

This follows pressure from the EU and other countries which limit or ban the import of food products containing GMOs. The EU Commissioner for the Environment, Ms Margot Wallstrom, described the protocol as "a victory for all of us". She said that "this is about the right to choose for consumers". "Protocol or no protocol, if the European Union, for example, continues to block imports of North American products, we won't avoid a trade war," said Mr Willy de Greef, a risk assessment official for the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, Novartis, which also makes genetically altered seeds.

READ MORE

But US officials are also claiming a success from the negotiations. "The agreement that we achieved is a very substantial improvement over the agreement we started with," according to the US negotiator, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr Frank Loy.

The US is a pioneer in biotechnology and last year about half of the American soybean crop and one-third of the corn had genes incorporated which reduce the need for herbicides and repel insects.

Observers say that the new rules are complex and may be subject to legal challenge. As argued by the EU and its allies, however, the protocol continues to allow a country to ban imports of a genetically modified product if it feels there is not enough scientific evidence showing that the product is safe. The US had wanted such trade to be governed by World Trade Organisation rules that would require scientific evidence before an import ban could be imposed.

Last year negotiations in Cartagena, Colombia, on the protocol collapsed when the US and its five allies - Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - objected to a proposal from the EU and its allies that would have required exporters of GMOs to obtain prior permission from the importing country.

The US does not object to advance notification to countries receiving genetically engineered seeds and living organisms to be introduced into the environment.

But the US, as the biggest exporter, has objected to a notification for foods produced from such seeds, claiming that this would disrupt international trade.

Under a compromise in Montreal, a binding decision on this has been put off for two years but the US has indicated it would be ready to accept prior notification if market forces make this a clear trend.

The labelling of such products in food stores will continue to be governed by domestic legislation.

Labelling is common in the EU but is rare in the US where the Food and Drug Administration has accepted GMOs without seeking conclusive scientific evidence about their possible health risk.