Anti-GMO groups seek review of RP policy on Bt corn

Part two

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety aims to protect biological diversity from potential risks posed by genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) produced through modern biotechnology.

There are several documented cases of biotech disasters such as the StarLink maize case where the company was forced to settle and compensate farmers for their losses while resulting in the pullout of at least 300 food products at an undisclosed cost to food manufacturers.

In the Philippines, one of the first Asian countries to embrace genetically-engineered technology, a similar problem is emerging.

Norwegian scientist Dr. Terje Traviik who conducted an independent research on the effects of transgenic crops in the country said he noted increased levels of three antibodies from the blood samples of at least 39 farmers exposed to a Bacillus thuringienses (Bt) corn or maize field in South Cotabato last year where Monsanto Philippines is promoting the commercial production of the commodity.

The farmers reportedly experienced coughing, cold, fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea, weakness of the body and vomiting during the flowering stage of the Bt corn.

Traviik said further studies are required to determine a cause-and-effect link between the production of antibodies against Bt toxin and the diseases that the farmers claimed to have experienced.

Traviik and anti-GMO advocates in the country contend that while his study is not conclusive, it should be enough for the government to reconsider its policy of allowing the commercialization of Bt corn.

Environmental groups insist that companies will continue their recklessness where there is no absolute liability.

The protocol seeks to establish an advanced informed agreement to make sure that countries are given information necessary to make informed decisions before agreeing to the entry of such organisms into their territory.

Unfortunately the Philippines still hasn’t taken the final step to ratify the Cartagena Protocol despite endorsements from various agencies under the executive branch.

"The ingredients for similar scandals like the StarLink, the Mexico corn contamination are close at hand if the Philippine government does not do its share by putting the brakes on the release of GMOs in its own backyard. The Senate must immediately ratify the protocol to protect public interests as GMOs start to flood our country," said Beau Baconguis, campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

One of the critical issues being discussed by countries that already ratified the Cartagena Protocol is the development of liability rules.

The "polluter pays" is an accepted principle of international law. The protocol proposes that companies that cause genetic pollution should pay to clean up the damage.

Greenpeace said an international liability regime is required, bounding both the exporter and importer to pay for damages if they occur.

Currently, individual countries do not yet have the capacity to assess, make informed decisions and adequately control the importation, transit and possible environmental release of GMOs.

At an international meeting on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety held last month in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Greenpeace insisted that countries that ratified the protocol should reaffirm their sovereign rights to refuse imports and transit of GMOs as well as their collective right to call for a moratorium on transboundary movements of GMOs.

At the heart of the discussions was that countries should now be compliant with Article 18 of the protocol which states that two years after the signing of the protocol in 2000, there should already be a clear definition of the requirements for documentation for GMOs and food, feed and processing (FFPs), and, Article 27 which states that after four years, countries should adopt rules on the "liability and redress" regime.

The global debate however, is delaying compliance with Articles 18 and 27.

Among others, Article 18 states that each country imposes documentation requirements of transboundary movements of GMOs. For instance, GMOs intended for introduction into the environment of importing countries within the scope of the protocol should include information on the identity and relevant traits and characteristics of these GMOs.

It should also state measures to ensure safe handling, storage, transport, and use; the contract point for further information and the name and address of the importers and exporter; and a declaration that the movement conforms with the requirements of the protocol.

Another pressing requirement is for the immediate establishment and enforcement of common standards for transboundary movements of GMOs.

Article 27 on other hand, calls for the establishment of a liability and redress regime. It is largely based on the polluter pays principle of the Rio Declaration which is clear that the polluter bears the cost of pollution, "with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment."

Among others, it calls for a broader definition of damage to include loss of life or personal injury or disease; damage to, impaired use of, or loss of property; loss on income derived from an economic interest in any use of the environment, incurred as result of impairment of the environment.

Moreover, the costs will be to the extent that the harm was caused directly or indirectly by GMOs during or following a transboundary movement, and damage due from the production, culturing, handling, storage, use, destruction, disposal, or release of any such GMO.

Rabid anti-GMO groups are insisting that liability should be absolute and unlimited. They stressed that exporters have the choice not to introduce GMO to international commerce.

Thus, they should be held liable for the full consequences resulting from their decision to export, and regardless of extraneous factors, such as armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection, or a natural phenomenon of unforseeable and inevitable character.

They said any limitation on liability is tantamount to providing subsidy to the producer. They pointed out that unlike damage due by oil or hazardous waste, there are no limits on damage to environments of nations exposed to GMO shipped by producers, they can in fact multiply as genetically engineered organisms reproduce and spread.

Furthermore, individuals or groups, local, regional and national governments have the right to bring claims while farmers, will be exempt from liability.

Greenpeace is recommending that a compensation fund be raised and managed by the protocol secretariat.

Specifically, contributions to the fund should be levied based on the monetary value of exports/imports of GMOs. If exporters are located in a country that has not ratified the protocol, the importing country would levy contributions to the compensation fund.

Importing countries could refuse any imports of GMOs until a final comprehensive liability and redress regime is adopted and implemented.

(To be continued)