Genetically Modified Foods : Areas of Concern

Suman Sahai

The application of genetic engineering or genetic modification to agriculture and food production has raised a swarm of controversies in Europe, Japan and to some extent the US. Whereas it is undeniably true that GM technology has the potential to address problem areas in agriculture, it is not being used by its dominant practitioners, the private corporations to produce either more or better food.

Does India need GM technology?

When assessing the relevance of a new technology. It is crucial to ask whether this technology really brings significant gains or whether alternative or conventional approaches can solve the problems more efficiently or more cheaply.

Post harvest losses

In India, where post harvest losses run from 15 % to as high as 30 %, we need to ask if we should invest in GM technology to increase food production. Should we not instead invest scarce resources into improving post harvest technologies to minimise losses. Should we not be investing in better storage, better transportation, value addition and processing and increasing the shelf life of perishable foods ?

Research focus

If we choose the GM approach then research priorities must be clearly set. The target must be food crops of relevance to small farmers and those crops where conventional breeding has not been successful. An obvious example is pulses. GM research on this crop would make sense but GM research targeted at brinjals , as is the case in a premier research institution in Delhi, makes a mockery of the social responsibility of science. Public money must be conscientiously and carefully spent to achieve the maximum public good.

And finally, in focusing the direction of GM research, it would be important and meaningful to consult with researchers and with small farmers, specially women. This will help to identify the needs of farming communities.

Bt disease resistance

Is the Bt route of disease resistance the best approach ? It is known that insects are quickly developing resistance to the Bt toxin. So now it is recommended to grow Bt crops with large refuges where vulnerability of the pest can be maintained. Is this really a viable approach for us in India where every inch of arable land is needed to produce food? Can we afford to divert land to maintain this artificially constructed method of disease resistance ?

Should we not invest in developing bio -control agents, bio pesticides and sophisticated Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques ? Promising results are coming in from work on bio-intensive IPM systems using biopesticides and closely related synthetic analogues. Spinosad, developed by Dow Agrosciences is a bioinsecticide developed from the fermentation of a fungus species

Despite its promise, there are real and credible concerns about GM crops. These exist at various levels.

Direction of GM research

GM technology is today fully controlled by six multinational corporations through patents and trade secrets. Corporate research is not targeted towards the needs of small farmers or towards helping to alleviate hunger and poverty .The bulk of the research in the private sector is aimed at commercial agriculture, not food production. Round Up Ready varieties of soybean; Bt corn ; Bt cotton, and the flavr savr tomato.

Making GM research more responsible

If the direction of privately funded research is not satisfactory, in what way should it be improved?

1 Research funds and new technologies must address hunger and the crop needs of small farmers.

2 Private and public sector partnerships should be forged. These structures must target food crops for developing countries because we have seen that the private sector on its own has not paid any attention to crops relevant to the poor.

3 Private corporations should be called to share GM technology with responsible scientists for use in developing countries. It is an atrocious situation that six corporations are sitting on and controlling a technology with the potential for alleviating hunger and yet they do not apply this technology towards these goals.

4 New collaborations should be struck between diverse players like public research institutions, international institutions , NGOs and Industry to spread the benefits of new research.

Safety and sustainability of food production using GM technology

Concerns about safety are expressed in two areas, human health and environmental safety. A third area of concern in this context, of special relevance to developing countries, is its impact on sustainable food production and self reliance of farmers. Our experience of the Green revolution shows that with the introduction of new technology, like high yielding varieties, small farmers tend to get marginalised. GM crops will also tend to marginalise small farmers.

In addition, GM technology will establish the dominance of corporations, if the kind of IPR regimes and seed patent demands are acceeded to. This will result in seed production and ultimately food production being controlled by corporations, posing a great threat to self reliance in developing countries and their ability to feed themselves.

Finally, the introduction of GM crops will strike at sustainable food production by increasing genetic erosion in the field, unless we take very determined steps to counter this effect. Our efforts will have to be directed to developing multi-strategy agricultural technologies that are based on genetic diversity and environmental sound practices.

Human health concerns

i. Antibiotic markers. There is great concern about the potential damage to human health that could be caused by the resistance induced by antibiotic markers that are used in breeding GM crops. Although there is little evidence so far that ingestion of antibiotic markers is harmful, it must be said that consumption of GM foods is a very new phenomenon and it is theoretically possible that the effects, if there are any, have not shown up yet. What is more, nobody is testing for negative effects, nor are there any testing procedures available for testing the long term effects of eating GM foods containing antibiotic marker genes.

In the public interest, it would be wise to act according to the Precautionary Principle in this case and ban the use of antibiotic markers.

ii. Allergenicity/ toxicity. Other concerns for human health relate to the fears that these novel foods could be allergenic and/ or toxic. Such fears have been raised primarily by the brazil nut episode . Allergic reactions known against brazil nuts was transferred into soybean when a brazil nut gene was used to produce a GM soybean variety ..

Environmental concerns

Horizontal gene transfer. Concerns have been expressed about genetic pollution by genes being transferred to related crops through pollen. Horizontal gene transfer through pollen is known . It happens between oilseed rape and its relative, the wild radish, between wheat and rye and between different varieties of oilseed rape, like low erucic acid and high erucic acid varieties. However data on pollen/ gene transfer for crops of relevance to developing countries are not available. To formulate guidelines for our field trials, it is important that we compile baseline data for the crops that are important for, tested under our climatic conditions.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF GM FOODS

1.Human toxicity and allergenicity tests for novel proteins that are expected to be expressed should become an integral part of testing GM crops.

2.Information concerning potential allergens and toxins should be compiled and made available to researchers , regulators and to the public.

3.To the extent possible , unless there are overwhelming benefits of some kind, genes/ proteins that are known to cause allergies, should be avoided.

4. Clear and precise labeling of GM foods should be made mandatory, both at the level of farm produce as also when these are used in other processed products.

5. On the basis of the precautionary principle, and to assuage public fears, antibiotic markers should be replaced by alternatives that exist.

6.Stringent pre-release assessment should be conducted in order to minimise the possibility of environmental damage.

7. Safety tests for GM variety. It is important to routinely evaluate the out come of genetic modification on human health and the environment. Once the transgenic line is created, it must be critically assessed agronomically, physiologically and in all the other ways that new varieties are tested after conventional breeding.

8. Radical review of guidelines. The risk assessment and regulatory guidelines that are in place today are vague and/ or defective. Benbrook (2000) has pointed out that most studies on risk assessment were done after the guidelines were in place. The US " Substantial Equivalence " theory was put in place in the mid eighties, much before most of the important risk concerns had actually been studied.

An analysis on how field tests are actually conducted show that they are often shoddy and inadequate. Mostly, experiments are done for just one or at best a few seasons of field trials. An Indian scientist recently defended his field tests saying he had conducted pollen transfer studies for one year, for crops that means one single study! Pollen transfer studies will have to be conducted longitudinally over several seasons for each crop, before we can begin to understand the dynamics of pollen / horizontal gene transfer.

Also, conclusions about large scale releases are often extrapolated from small scale, controlled field studies . This is dangerous since controlled studies can not predict the complex interactions arising out of large scale release and cultivation.

9. Protecting Centres of Diversity

Regions that are centres of origin of particular crop plants or where genetic diversity of those plants is found or where wild relatives of crop plants are known to occur, must be treated with the utmost caution. Related species and wild relatives will be the natural recipients of the foreign genes contained in transgenic crops. Since genes can not be recalled once they are released into the environment and we do not understand the consequences of foreign gene transfer yet, it is best to avoid release of transgenics in areas where its wild relatives are found.

POLICY CONCERNS RELATED TO GM TECHNOLOGY

Transparency

The purveyors of GM technologies and products are quite rightly accused of non-transparency in their operations. The serious objection ( as against the ill informed terminator scare ) to Monsanto's cotton trials in India was because of the complete lack of transparency about what exactly Monsanto was doing . The public and the local farmers had no idea and information was difficult to get.

It is necessary to create open and transparent systems. The debate on the risks and benefits should be publicly conducted. Reasonable data should be accessible to the public that wants to satisfy itself about the safety or desirability of a particular crop.

Field trails of GM crops must be conducted by independent experts, not the party interested in releasing the variety.

Equity

A great deal of legitimate criticism is leveled at corporations for the extraordinary greed displayed by them in attempting to extract the maximum possible profit regardless of the cost to farmers. Launching the concept of the 'Terminator' technology to induce seed sterility as an instrument of complete control on the farmers seed has caused the kind of public outcry that such a notion of greed deserves. The use of sterile seed technologies as an instrument of control must be banned.

'Variety' not 'Sequence' protection

The kind of protection that plant breeders and companies are asking for on new plant varieties should be limited to Plant Breeder's Rights and not to patents or even to the trade secrets that are being increasingly applied to gene constructs.

Benefit sharing

Very often farmer varieties and land races form the basis of high yielding varieties and of GM crops.The profits that are derived from a GM crop must be shared with the farming communities whose land races and varieties have been used as basis materials.

Exemption from IPR regimes for poor farmers

If the purveyors of this technology would make special exemptions from Intellectual Property Protections for the really poor farmers in the world, it would go a long way in gaining acceptance for GM technology.

Improving access to the new technology.

Access to new technologies must be improved by forging new partnerships between the private and public sector and a willingness on the part of the corporate sector to share the fruits of basic research. Monsanto's announcement of sharing the 'working plan' of the rice genome is a welcome step in this direction.

Conclusion

GM technology applied to the field of agriculture has inherent potential. Unfortunately the science has been derailed by corporate greed so that suspicion and rejection instead of curiosity and enthusiasm greets this exciting if still immature technology. Instead of its application to the needs of the poor and hungry , GM technology is now viewed as an unsafe and unnecessary tool which will oppress rather than help farmers as it rakes in money for the corporations.

The fact is that this technology has been pushed far too prematurely on to the market place. Much more research is needed to clean up the science and make the technology pro- poor. Data for crops relevant to developing countries who should be but are not, the greatest beneficiaries of these new food production technologies is very inadequate. This must change. GM technology will only be an acceptable technology for developing countries if the science is made safer and if there is a commitment to transparency and equity in the practice of this technology.

THE STORY OF GOLDEN RICE

Suman Sahai

One of the most promising developments in the controversial field of genetic engineering is the success obtained in breeding a nutritionally enriched rice variety now popularly being referred to as 'golden rice'. This golden rice is a genetically modified rice which contains genes that produce high levels of beta carotene and related compounds . Beta carotene is contained in yellow fruits like carrots ( from which it gets its name ) and mangoes and in vegetables like spinach. Beta carotene and other related compounds are converted in the human body to the crucially needed vitamin A.

Unfortunately, many in the developing world that do not have access to fruits and vegetables, suffer from chronic vitamin A deficiency which results in night blindness. Night blindness plagues millions of undernourished people in Asia, including India , crippling their lives. According to the WHO, vitamin A deficiency hits the poor in 96 countriesof the world, resulting in over five lakh blind children every year. This blindness is irreversible, these children will never see.

The significance of this red- gold rice containing carotenoid genes obtained from the daffodil flower is the potential it offers to counter vitamin A deficiency and prevent the severely debilitating condition of night blindness. This promising rice variety contains enough precursors of vitamin A in one average portion of rice as to prevent night blindness through ordinary dietary intake.

The creators of golden rice are Ingo Potrykus of the Technical University, Zurich and Peter Beyer of the University Freiburg . The research effort spanning ten years and costing several million dollars was financed by the Rockefeller Institute. If this golden rice, currently still in the laboratory stage , is a success in the field , it would be a path breaking success, showing the way that GM technology should go. At present there is great resistance to genetically modified crops in the west, specially in Europe. Public ire is aimed at the gigantic Life Science corporations like Monsanto who have used this new technology exclusively for commercial agriculture, totally neglecting the food and hunger aspect. They have no agenda either, to work on crops that would help alleviate hunger . Yet they milk the slogan of GM technology ending world hunger , to promote their proprietary technologies and gain acceptance for essentially corporate oriented research..

When they have a GM variety, the corporations seek to control seed production by rigid intellectual property rights and the reprehensible‘ terminator‘ or sterile seed technology. In the public mind GM technology (controlled as it is by MNCs) is geared to maximise corporate profits and establish monoploies in global agriculture . With these goals GM technology is rightly damned as an anti-poor, pro-corporate technology which will do nothing for small farmers nor for increasing food production. Golden rice and other projects like that can show how GM technology can be used for public good.

The story of golden rice is however not as straight forward as it might appear. It is not just that this particular rice variety must prove to be viable in the field, it must also be a safe product . Above all , it must be affordable and accessible to the poor who need it most. In the laboratory, after the research part was done and the the rice had incorporated and expressed the pro- vitamin A genes to satisfaction , the question needed to be addressed about its marketing and promotion. At this point , the dark and inconvenient fact emerged that in the work of breeding this exciting golden coloured rice, the scientists at the Zurich Institute and the University of Freiburg had actually infringed over 100 major and minor patents ! This points to the utterly ridiculous position in which this technology, touted as the answer to solving the problem of hunger in the world, finds itself. Any step taken in almost any direction with any crop is likely to infringe one or the other patent, held by the large corporations , for essentially basic processes involved in the science of genetic modification or genetic engineering. A very serious concern emerges at this stage . Is the stranglehold of the corporations over this technology so complete that no research is possible in future without paying expensive patent licensing fees ?

At this point, the story of golden rice takes a curious turn. There are two versions. One version says that Rockefeller Foundation which financed this research was clueless about the nature and number of patents this research was going to infringe. This it was purported was because the Rockefeller Foundation had such a weak legal wing (they are after all scientists and science administrators, not a law firm ) , that they could not anticipate this piquant situation nor prepare a strategy to circumvent it. So, it is said , Rockefeller Foundation and the researchers found themselves in a situation where they had the rice they wanted but could not put it on the market until they had paid license fees for the several patented methods that they had used. License fees they could not afford.

The other version is more adventurous , with shades of bravado that will appeal to those in science who are disgusted with the greed of Monsanto and other corporations trying to corner GM technology. According to this version, Ingo Potrykus and his group were fully aware of what they were doing and went ahead with their research, knowingly infringing the patents. Their gamble, it is said, was simple. This rice variety, an obviously pro-poor piece of research, developed with the purpose of targeting one of the most widespread problems of malnutrition, would be a test case to see how far the Life Science corporations would go to defend their patents and block research aimed at helping the poor. If they did indeed block the commercialisation of the golden rice with its promise to help cure blindness in millions of the world´s poor, they would be seen as greedy monsters, attracting universal condemnation and perhaps a permanent place in the dog house. In short, afraid of the anticipated public opprobrium, they would not dare block the golden rice.

The story as it so happens, has an unusual ending. There is a knight in shining armour ( many suspect a wolf in sheeps clothing !) who has stepped forward to rescue golden rice from the clutches of greedy fingered corporations wanting to cash in on patents. Astra-Zeneca, one of the maligned Life Science corporations controlling GM technology (together with others like Monsanto and Novartis ) has offered to buy all rights over golden rice. The inventors of golden rice have reached an agreement with Astra Zeneca and Greenovation and are working with other agencies across the world to make this rice available for humanitarian purposes in the developing world. Greenovation for its part is a Freiburg based biotechnology company that develops and out-licenses university research projects to the life science industry.

The deal is that Astra Zeneca will pay all the license fees owed to patent holders and make golden rice available to developing countries without demanding patent royalties. It will also assist in conducting appropriate nutritional and safety tests that will be needed and will work with regulatory agencies to get clearances. Rockefeller Foundation and Zeneca have invited several agencies throughout the world but specially in Asia to participate in making golden rice a success story that could help farmers in developing countries.

In turn, Zeneca has acquired the complete rights over this rice for commercialisation the developed world. It believes that there is a large market for golden rice among health conscious western consumers. Its strategy is to market this rice in the affluent north as a nutritionally enhanced food with tremendous health benefits. Given the craze for neutraceuticals ( the new generation food and health supplements ) sweeping the markets of the industrial nations, this does not appear to be an unwise move. In any case, Zeneca expects to earn enough from western markets to more than offset costs incurred from paying patent license fees.

The way the story of golden rice has unfolded, has lessons for the future of genetically modified crops and GM technology per se. It shows for instance that if this technology would address the needs of resource poor farmers in developing countries and contribute to producing either more food or more nutritional food, the technology would be more acceptable. The targetting of vitamin A deficiency is the kind of goal GM technology should set itself. Goals that can not be reached by conventional breeding and those that will truly help in some way to alleviate poverty and malnutrition .

GM FOODS IN WTO : INDIA’S POSITION

Suman Sahai

Negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture , part of the built in agenda of the WTO are scheduled to commence sometime in March this year . India has a great interest in this negotiation for the obvious reasons of our vulnerability in food. Apart from the need to protect our agriculture sector and the livelihood base of small farmers, India must also take a view on the new and emerging issues in agriculture, particularly biotechnology.

The last is a subject which has not attracted much attention in India or for that matter in other developing countries. In the context of the WTO specifically, this issue deals with trade in genetically modified crops. Genetically Modified or Genetically Engineered crops are those foods or crops, which contain a foreign gene. Genetic engineers 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 cotton , the gene that can provide protection against the dreaded cotton pest bollworm , is brought in from a kind of bacterium found in the soil.

Transgenic plants are being made in both food and cash crops. The food crops include cereals, fruits and vegetables. The most prominent food crops are corn, soybean, potato, mustard and tomato. The main cash crops that are being grown are cotton and tobacco. The US is the main producer of transgenic or GM crops followed by Canada, Australia and Argentine and to a smaller extent, Japan.

There are a lot of apprehensions associated with 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 like weeds that can not be destroyed or new, recombinant pathogens like bacteria and virus. Scientific evidence is thin that this has happened or is likely to happen. However, even if the fears are unwarranted, this new technology undoubtedly needs to be tested and appraised cautiously before it is accepted as a safe source of food.

Consumer groups in countries like the US, UK , Canada and Australia have demanded that all GM foods and processed foods made from GM crops should be clearly labeled so that the consumer can decide whether h/she wants to buy these products. The most resistant to mandatory labeling is the United States which still does not labeled processed foods. A major conflict has arisen between the EU and the US on trade in GM foods specially with reference to labeling of these foods.

Large investments have been made by the so called Life Science corporations like Monsanto and Novartis on this technology. Money has been spent on buying up smaller competing firms, on field testing, on obtaining licences and clearances and on promotions and sales pitches for farmers. Farmers on the other hand have planted large numbers of acres with GM crops . If they can not sell their produce because of hostile public reaction, they will vent their spleen on their government. No wonder then that the American government pushed by the gene technology corporates need to find markets for these controversial, frightening foods that nobody seems to want.

It is in this context that the Americans have been pushing for international trade in GM foods using the WTO as a platform where they have been attempting to force the inclusion of this new subject. The strategy to introduce biotechnology products like GM foods is to first set up a Working Group to discuss the subject and then its possible implementation framework. In the WTO, normally once a working group is set up, the subject is certain to be included in the final trade agenda. If that were allowed to happen, GM foods could be dumped as part of food imports in countries like India, without our even knowing . Given the resistance of American and European consumers to GM foods,American resistance to labeling, developing countries could end up being unwilling consumers of GM foods , with no choice in the matter.

In the WTO, there are four major players , each of who have taken divergent approaches on introducing GM foods and products. Japan and the EU support the ‘precautionary principle’ and take a cautious approach to genetically engineered products. The United States 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.

Some discussions took place in Seattle on biotechnology but these will have to be resumed since the talks collapsed. The place where biotechnology will return to the agenda is the negotiation on agriculture. India will need to tackle the situation with sophistication , not losing track of what constitutes its national interest.

Once the negotiations on Agriculture start again, India should strongly oppose the setting up of a Working Group in Biotechnology in the WTO. It would in any case be too premature considering we have scarcely done any homework on this new and controversial area. Our government departments are largely unprepared and uninformed about the ramifications of this rather technical subject. People concerned with the negotiations should start collecting information and preparing a well thought out India position. As a first step we should draw up and articulate our domestic policy and identify our priority areas.

We should craft sensitive and just Intellectual Property legislation, which will protect our scientists and our farming communities. 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 program and gain public acceptance for this technology and these foods should we decide to adopt them.

WTO :INDIA SHOULD BLOCK TRADE IN GM FOODS

Suman Sahai

Whatever may have happened in Seattle, it would be unwise to think that the WTO agenda itself had been derailed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American president, the director general of WTO and the heads of the Quad nations, USA, EU, Japan and Canada have already started separate initiatives for immediately reviving the negotiations. It can be fully expected that contentious issues like labour and environment will remain on the agenda for discussion so will market access and biotechnology.

The last is a subject which has not attracted much attention in India or for that matter in other developing countries. In the context of the WTO specifically, this issue deals with trade in genetically modified crops. Genetically Modified or Genetically Engineered crops are those foods or crops, which contain a foreign gene. Genetic engineers 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 cotton , the gene that can provide protection against the dreaded cotton pest bollworm , is brought in from a kind of bacterium found in the soil.

Transgenic plants are being made in both food and cash crops. The food crops include cereals, fruits and vegetables. The most prominent food crops are corn, soybean, potato, mustard and tomato. The main cash crops that are being grown are cotton and tobacco. The US is the main producer of transgenic or GM crops followed by Canada, Australia and Argentine and to a smaller extent, Japan.

There are a lot of apprehensions associated with 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 like weeds that can not be destroyed or new, recombinant pathogens like bacteria and virus. Scientific evidence is thin that this has happened or is likely to happen. However, even if the fears are unwarranted, this new technology undoubtedly needs to be tested and appraised cautiously before it is accepted as a safe source of food.

Consumer groups in countries like the US, UK , Canada and Australia have demanded that all GM foods and processed foods made from GM crops should be clearly labeled so that the consumer can decide whether h/she wants to buy these products. The most resistant to mandatory labeling is the United States which still does not labeled processed foods. A major conflict has arisen between the EU and the US on trade in GM foods specially with reference to labeling of these foods.

The public perception of GM foods is highly negative. A near hysterical resistance is building up in Britain against these so called “Frankenstein foods “. Everybody from Prince Charles and the ex- Beatle Paul McCartney have chimed in against GM foods. Europeans ,conservative and deeply suspicious of the science of genetics have rejected genetic engineering in a resolute way. Rather strong views against GM foods are now being heard across the Atlantic in America. This makes the American government and the multinational industries pushing GM technology , very nervous indeed.

Large investments have been made by the so called Life Science corporations like Monsanto and Novartis on this technology. Money has been spent on buying up smaller competing firms, on field testing, on obtaining licences and clearances and on promotions and sales pitches for farmers. Farmers on the other hand have planted large numbers of acres with GM crops . If they can not sell their produce because of hostile public reaction, they will vent their spleen on their government. No wonder then that the American government pushed by the gene technology corporates need to find markets for these controversial, frightening foods that nobody seems to want.

It is in this context that the Americans are pushing for international trade in GM foods. Using the WTO as a platform, they are attempting to force the inclusion of this new subject . No less a person than the American president plugged for GM foods. In a speech before Seattle, Bill Clinton took a strong stand on biotechnology products and made the US position clear , “ America leads the world in agricultural products developed with biotechnology……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.” (Italics mine).

The strategy to introduce biotechnology products like GM foods is to first set up a Working Group to discuss the subject and then its possible implementation framework. In the WTO, normally once a working group is set up, the subject is certain to be included in the final trade agenda. If that were allowed to happen, GM foods could be dumped as part of food imports in countries like India, without our even knowing . Given the American resistance to labeling, developing countries could end up being unwilling consumers of GM foods , with no choice in the matter.

Consider this. The way that negotiations have proceeded in the Agreement on Agriculture, we have significantly lost our ability to protect our farmers against imports and our discretion for providing subsidies for production have been eroded. We seem to be moving towards zero duty in agriculture ( we are already committed on rice ) . Once we have to dismantle quantitative import restraints , the specter of every ton of safe and unsafe GM food landing in India begins to look real. In fact , there are reasons to fear that GM corn was part of a consignment of American corn that we imported recently. We did not import this consciously and slipping GM corn into a consignment in this way is clearly unethical. This however is what we have to gear on a large scale if trade in GM foods and other biotechnology goods becomes part of the WTO trade regime.

India should strongly oppose the setting up of a Working Group in Biotechnology in the WTO. It would in any case be too premature considering we have scarcely done any homework on this new and controversial area. At first we should firmly draw up and then articulate our domestic policy, we should decide on our priority areas, we must flesh out a strong and rational biosafety protocol and push for international acceptance of biosafety and labeling. We should craft sensitive and just Intellectual Property legislation, which will protect our scientists and our communities. 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 program and gain public acceptance for this technology and these foods.

At present there are four major players , each of who have taken divergent approaches on introducing GM foods and products into the WTO. The European Union favours 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 EU support the ‘precautionary principle’ and take a cautious approach to genetically engineered products. Japan goes further and proposes that the biotechnology sub-group consider, among other items, whether ‘the relevant WTO Agreements, such as SPS, Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and TRIPs ... are capable of responding to (GMO-related) matters’.

The EU advocates a clarification of SPS rules - which require trade restrictions to be based on sound science, so as to give WTO members more leeway in rejecting GM products on the basis of scientific uncertainty. The SPS Agreement already recognises that temporary trade restrictions may be taken to protect human, animal or plant health/life even 'where scientific evidence is insufficient', but these measures must be based on ‘available pertinent information’ and, to make them permanent, members must carry out a ‘more objective assessment of risk [... ] within a reasonable period of time.’ A reference to the precautionary principle would undoubtedly lessen the degree of scientific proof needed to justify trade restrictions, as well as extend the ‘reasonable period of time’ during which scientific evidence must be presented to maintain provisional measures.

The United States 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. To make their case for dispensing with EU guidelines , they claim that the European Union’s approval system for new varieties has ‘broken down’ - it is, indeed, likely that no new varieties will be approved until 2002 - and that the EU’s existing and planned labeling requirements for foods that contain genetic modification are both unnecessary and technically unfeasible on a commercial scale.

The US is opposed to opening up the SPS Agreement for discussion, saying that renegotiations or fresh interpretation of its provisions would weaken rather than strengthen it. The US also finds the proposed working group's mandate too broad, and fears that the group's deliberations could slow down market opening for genetically-engineered products. Instead, the US has proposed that the objectives for the agriculture negotiations should include addressing disciplines to ensure trade in agricultural biotechnology products is based on transparent, predictable and timely processes.

The Cairns Group will meet just prior to the Seattle Ministerial to try and develop a common stand on biotechnology. This will be a difficult task as the group’s 15 members have widely divergent approaches to GMOs at the national level.

Developing countries have not made proposals on biotechnology, but most of them are in favour of stringent rules for trans-boundary movements of genetically modified organisms in the Biosafety Protocol. In those negotiations, they are seeking provisions that would protect their regulations on GMO imports from WTO challenges, while the so-called Miami Group (consisting of the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay) is pushing for a treaty narrowly-focused on biodiversity conservation and containing the fewest possible trade restrictions .

Informal discussions in Geneva during the first week of November revealed that the majority of WTO Members were against creating a WTO working group on biotechnology and WTO rules. Most developing countries said that genetically modified organisms should be discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity and not in the WTO. The US appeared to have overcome its objections to a WTO working group, which was generally supported by the Miami Group, while the EU and Brazil declined to take a position. The US proposal to include timely approval processes for GMOs in the agriculture negotiation objectives was not discussed.