As the 3rd Meeting of Parties
to the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (the Biosafety Protocol) kicks off
today, the plant science industry urges governments to
finally take a decision on a global documentation system for
agricultural biotech products, but warns that unnecessary
and costly requirements could severely restrict
international trade.
“We hope that the 132 Parties
to the Protocol recognize that current documentation systems
used for international trade of these products works well.
Going beyond this to require exporters to specify which
biotech material is present and in what exact quantity,
for each individual shipment is simply unworkable in today’s
highly efficient agriculture bulk handling system. It would
not provide information that could be used to benefit
biodiversity or advance any of the aims of the Protocol,”
stated Christian Verschueren, Director General,
CropLife International.
“Biotech crops have been
proven to be safe, both for the environment and human
consumption. Any decisions regarding their passage across
international borders should be based in science, not fear.
New documentation regulations would create confusion, delays
and impose costs across a variety of sectors, and ignore our
vast experience and scientific understanding of these
products,” he continued.
“Most importantly, they would
serve to prevent the millions of farmers around the world,
as well as the industry groups, researchers and governments,
who want to benefit from this technology, from doing so.”
A study released last year by
the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy
Council* showed that, while most of the additional costs of
detailed documentation requirements would be borne by the
handful of large countries that import the largest volume of
food and feed grains, a disproportionate share of those
costs would fall on consumers in smaller developing and
least developed countries.
An updated study released last
week and focusing on two countries – China and Brazil –
showed that the Biosafety Protocol acts exactly like a
tariff for importing countries, keeping trade down and
forcing prices up. Costs would also rise for exporting
countries, which would need to establish costly identity
preservation systems. Both studies can be accessed at
www.agritrade.org.
“Perhaps governments might
consider how they dedicate the spend of taxpayers money, and
avoid diverting limited resources from the protection of
biodiversity to the establishment of unnecessary
requirements based on hypothetical risks?” continued
Verschueren.
“Implementation of the
Biosafety Protocol should focus first on helping countries
build their own regulatory and scientific capacities to use,
control and import biotech products.”
The Biosafety Protocol, which
will be discussed in Curitiba, Brazil this week, is an
international treaty under the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity and seeks to protect the world's biodioversity
from any risks presented by biotechnology.
The Protocol calls on Parties to take measures to
implement a global documentation system for shipments of
biotech products under Article 18.2. Currently, an
exporter of biotech crops destined for food, feed or
processing must indicate that an export cargo “may
contain” LMOs. Parties will debate proposals to
increase requirements to specify which LMOs are present,
and, in what proportions, for each individual vessel.
This will require vast changes in the way commodities
are produced, harvested, transported and shipped, with
cost implications for farmers, the biotech industry,
export/shipping companies and consumers, and without any
apparent benefits for biodiversity.
