Anti-GMO advocates are on a head-on collision with the world’s biggest economy, the US which leads countries pushing for GMO trading. Last year, the US, Canada and Argentina, major GMO crop exporting countries formed the so-called Miami + Group to undermine efforts to put flesh into the Biosafety Protocol.
The other members of the Miami + Group include Australia, Chile, Uruguay, New Zealand and Brazil.
The Miami + Group intends to push for the adoption of bilaterial or regional agreements to pressure ratifying countries to adopt minimal biosafety standards for GMO imports and to accept the resulting genetic contamination.
The US is also spearheading a World Trade Organization (WTO) assault against Europe’s de facto moratorium on GMO crops. Arguably, the biggest global economic giant, the US government has the financial arsenal to enhance biosafety research and engage actively in promoting the GMO acceptance in Asia and Africa.
In 2003, US and Canada convinced Mexico, the center of origin and diversity for corn, to join the Miami + Group. The agreement with Mexico allows maize shipments with as much as five percent of GMOs into the country without any indication that a shipment actually contains GMOs.
The agreement stunned ratifying countries of the Biosafety Protocol because it is confirmed that maize in Mexico has already been contaminated by GMO crop imports.
International anti-GMO environmental group Greenpeace said that the agreement would have not prevented the genetic contamination already experienced by Mexico.
Opponents of the trilateral agreement among US, Canada and Argentina, pointed out that the group’s primary objective is to avoid any disruption of commodity trade.
Greenpeace noted that in Section 1 of the agreement, it states that the importer is responsible for receiving the invoice and maintaining it after entry.
"This is obviously an attempt by GMO exporting countries to shift responsibility to the importing countries that do not have the capacity to do so or do not have access to comprehensive and detailed information," Beau Baconguis, Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner said.
Another section of the agreement allows exporting GMO countries to simply label in their products "may contain," documentation for all transboundary movements of commodities intended for food or feed, or for processing.
Countries that ratified the Biosafety Protocol insist the provision is improper. They said that for importing countries to have a clear basis for assessing biosafety threats of any particular shipment, and to develop adequate monitoring measures, exporters should disclose all pertinent documents or information.
And even as the "may contain" provision is being contested, the agreement already noted cases where such requirement could be waived.
For instance, "shipments for which the exploring country does not have in commerce any GMO of that species" are exempted.
Greenpeace is objecting to this because the exemption disregards the fact that large acreages in a country may be devoted to the production of GMO crops that are not yet traded, yet may be illegally harvested and exported.
Another exemption could be made "when the exporter and importer have defined a non-GMO shipment," provided that such a shipment achieves a minimum of 95 percent non-GMO content.
The environmental group said this scientifically arbitrary five percent threshold does not at all reflect biological reality, nor does it accord with the most stringent regulations with which industry will comply at the international level. Industry must meet a 0.9 percent threshold for approved varieties for import into the European Union. There is a 0 percent threshold for unapproved varieties.
Another provision of the agreement being criticized is that there is no requirement for scientific follow-up.
Greenpeace said the vague language used in the agreement demonstrates how weak the trilateral agreement is on the scientific follow-up and the lack of commitment to biosafety in general.
The agreement states that "the participants intend to maintain a continuous exchange of scientific information and to address issues on agricultural biotechnology that may arise among three nations utilizing the expertise of scientific personnel."
Ratifying countries of the Biosafety Protocol clearly, have a lot of work to do if their objectives are to be realized and not overtaken by the aggressive strides being made by the Miami + Group.
Recently, the ratifying countries’ concerns were bolstered with emerging super power China, the world’s largest importer of GMO, announcing it will also ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Analysts believe that China’s ratification of the Protocol will have deeper implications on the global trade of GMOs.
China last year was reported to have imported more than 20 million metric tons of soya. It is suspected that more than 70 percent of the imported soya is genetically modified, as bulk of these were from the US, Brazil and Argentina.
Chinese representatives in the recent meeting of ratifying countries in Kuala Lumpur noted that they are aware of the Mexican maize contamination by imported GM maize from the US, and would not want the same to be replicated in China which is the center of origin and biodiversity of soya.
China’s ratification of the Biosafety Protocol will have a considerable bearing since it is one of the world’s biggest importers of GMOs.
The other countries would do well to rally more support for a heavyweight country like China to push for the critical provisions of the Protocol, especially in urging the immediate creation of a liability and redress system that will spell out penalties and compensation for countries whose biodiversity were damaged by the shipment of GMOs into their shores.