WASHINGTON -- As agricultural and environmental officials convene in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, today for the first meeting on a new international treaty to reduce the potential risks of the trade and production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), international green groups are pressing their view that the technology poses a serious threat to biodiversity, small farmers, and human health.

In a 50-page report issued on the opening day of the five-day conference on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) charged that promoters of GMO technology have failed to deliver on their promises that GM crops would benefit both consumers and poor farmers and prove benign to the environment in which they were introduced.

"Contrary to the promises made by the biotech corporations, the reality of the last ten years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured, that they are neither cheaper nor higher quality and that they are not the magical solution to solve world hunger," according to the report, entitled "Genetically Modified Crops: A Decade of Failure."

The conference, which comes on the heels of a three-week meeting, also in Kuala Lumpur, of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), will review ways to implement the 2000 Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that has been ratified by 82 nations. The treaty--designed to ensure that GMOs, or "living modified organisms," (LMOs), are used in ways that are safe to the natural environment and human health--entered into force last September.

The just-concluded meeting agreed to step up efforts to slow the loss of global biological diversity, in part by ensuring that countries and local communities that harbor great diversity are adequately compensated by pharmaceutical and other kinds of companies trying to take commercial advantage of new life forms.

Governments also pledged to make greater efforts to protect unique ecosystems in their territory. National parks and reserves currently cover some 12 percent of the Earth's surface, but researchers say just over $3 billion a year is currently being spent on protecting them from colonization and unsustainable commercial exploitation, such as mining or logging.

This week's meeting also has a focus on biodiversity, because many environmental groups see the development and dissemination of GM crops as a potential threat to the diversity of traditional food crops and to various forms of life--from other plants to insects to birds and other animals--whose survival depends on them.

They fear that the commercial pressure on farmers to plant GM crops will make if much harder for farmers to preserve local species, and that GM crops may also contaminate other plants, including weeds, essentially creating new species that may also pose a threat to traditional crops.

The future of GMOs has become a major point of contention between the United States, where GM agriculture is most widespread, and Europe, which has until now favored a much more cautious approach to the technology. Last month Washington, which is home to the world's largest biotechnology companies, filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union (EU) for its ban on GMO products.

Washington has long insisted there is no scientific evidence that GMO products represent any significant threat to human health or the environment.

As ratified, the Biosafety Protocol generally supports the EU's more-conservative approach. Under its provisions, countries that export GMOs are required to provide detailed documentation to recipient countries before shipping to them, so recipients can decide whether or not to assume the risks of contamination. The Protocol also requires that all exporters of GMOs that are released into the environment take measures to prevent their spread into surrounding areas.

A major gap, however, and a key focus of this week's meeting, is how to assess liability in cases where the Protocol's provisions are violated.

Environmental groups argue that corporations or exporters should be strictly liable for damages caused by contamination. "The world urgently needs liability laws to make polluters pay for the genetic contamination they make," said FoEI's Juan Lopez, who is attending this week's meeting. "The process to make such laws possible should be agreed here this week."

Earlier this month, CBD Executive Secretary Hamdallah Zedan predicted that the question of liability will be "extremely difficult." The United States, Australia, and other big agricultural exporters strongly oppose mandatory sanctions. "We say (to them), 'are there risks?' They say, 'no.' Then we say, 'Why don't you want to have liability?'"

The new report, however, goes much further in denouncing the technology altogether. Echoing recent findings by the London-based Independent Science Panel (ISP), it charges that the major biotech companies that have sought to profit most from the technology, notably Monsanto, have proven consistently wrong regarding the claims they make about GM crops' safety, commercial potential, and products.

GM crops have largely failed to deliver on the promise of sharp increases in yields and significant reductions in the use of herbicides and pesticides, even as evidence that transgenic contamination has grown steadily. Indeed, organic farmers in Canada are suing Monsanto and Aventis for contaminating their crops, in what will no doubt be a landmark case on the technology's future.

At the same time, consumer resistance to GMOs has risen steadily throughout much of the world, including in the United States itself, according to FoEI.

Copyright © 2004 OneWorld.net

###