Treaty is Imminent for Genetically Engineered Foods

The Republic of Palau–a 9-year-old confederation of some 300 Pacific islands–has fewer than 20,000 inhabitants and a land area only about 2.5 times the size of Washington, D.C. Yet this tiny nation southeast of the Philippines made big history last week when its government became the 50th to ratify the United Nations’ Cartagena Protocol, a pending treaty on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Fifty was the minimum number of ratifying countries needed to trigger the 90-day countdown that ushers this treaty into law.

GMOs, in this treaty, are plants and animals into which scientists have inserted foreign genes for specific, desired traits–such as cold tolerance, insect resistance, drug production, or immunity to common pesticides. This high-tech approach is different from conventional plant or animal breeding for desired traits, in which individuals of a species are repeatedly crossed to bring out what the breeder is looking for in a domestic animal or crop plant.

In contrast, GMOs are usually designed to carry one or more genes from a totally unrelated species. For instance, in designing cold-tolerant tomatoes, some crop developers have put into the fruit’s cells an antifreeze gene from flounder. Ordinarily, crossing such species would be impossible, and even crosses of related species can yield infertile offspring–like the mule from the mating of a horse and donkey. Unlike the mule, however, GMOs remain fertile.

The new treaty, when it goes into force next September, will require that documentation accompany all shipments of GMOs to and through nations that ratified the treaty, which so far doesn’t include the United States. The treaty will also limit the terms under which signatory nations can discriminate against imports of GMOs. Essentially, it will prevent nations from banning imports of them as long as exporting nations can demonstrate that the novel goods pose no risk of environmental harm.

Seeds of discontent

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity Protocol takes the first part of its cumbersome name from Cartagena, Colombia, the venue where the international treaty’s formal language was hammered out in 1999. Concern over international trade in GMO seeds–which are the edible product of many crops–proved the big issue during that meeting, and most final terms of the treaty were settled at a follow-up meeting the next year in Canada (SN: 2/5/00, p. 84: Available to subscribers at Treaty Nears on Gene-Altered Exports).

Worries over the safety of some seeds arose from studies demonstrating that foreign genes in crop plants don’t always stay put. Pollen from such plants might carry inserted genes from modified soybeans, for instance, into a field of wild soybean plants or an unmodified crop. The unintentionally broadcast genes could come to dominate in future generations of the wild or supposedly normal crop plants and thus reduce genetic diversity in the species.

Despite some people’s fear of that scenario, developed nations including the United States, Canada, and Australia have embraced GMOs. In the United States at present, up to one-third of all corn and 75 percent of all planted soybeans are GMOs. Harvested seeds from those plants usually aren’t even segregated from the yields of unmodified plants in shipments headed to market within the United States. Trying to label all GMOs seeds and keep them separate from unmodified products in international shipments could prove costly, U.S. negotiators to the Cartagena Protocol argued.

In most cases, genetically modified products pose no risk to nations through and to which they’re shipped because the seeds are destined for eating, not planting, the U.S. negotiators asserted. Critics countered, however, that in some poor nations, people might divert some modified seeds for planting rather than consumption. Also, some GMOs might be unintentionally sown in the wilds of such countries, the critics assert.

To avoid that risk, some developers of genetically modified crops have patented sterile, so-called “terminator” seeds for their products, eliminating the chance of unintended germination of plants and spread of foreign genes. To date, the U.S. State Department notes, this terminator-seed technology “has not been fully developed or implemented anywhere in the world.” Nevertheless, it’s already controversial in its own right. That’s because it would limit the use of genetically modified crops–often, the highest yielding ones–to growers who can afford high licensing fees.

Even terminator genes won’t stop foreign genes from spreading beyond modified crops if the route is via pollen, some environmental scientists point out. They say that unusual genes in pollen may poison wildlife. For example, they point out the documented poisoning of monarch butterflies by the windblown pollen of genetically modified corn that produces its own pesticide.

The treaty’s aims

Although most of negotiations over the Cartagena Protocol have focused on possible risks associated with genetically modified seeds, the treaty will, in fact, govern international trade in everything from engineered tomatoes to cattle to fruit trees.

Indeed, scientists have recently reported getting bananas and potatoes to make certain vaccines. The idea is that these pharmaceutical foods could be harvested at low cost in developing countries and fed to people as a way to immunize them against disease. However, some ecologists have argued that if vaccine genes in these plants were to spread to wild plants and unmodified crops, many people’s food might eventually end up inappropriately, and potentially dangerously, laced with drugs.

Some people given a vaccine-making potato as medicine might also be tempted to plant the tuber or part of it. The new treaty would encourage substantial education campaigns to reinforce the need for limiting or banning such unregulated and potentially dangerous proliferation of GMOs.

At present, many nations lack the scientific expertise or infrastructure to assess their ability to manage GMOs safely. Under the treaty, some $38 million will help poor countries develop the skills to weigh potential risks and benefits of importing modified crops.

In addition, a new Biosafety Clearinghouse will collect and disseminate scientific information on potential and documented risks associated with particular GMOs. Where insufficient information exists, the treaty allows nations to take a precautionary approach and ban a genetically modified product.

Despite their potential risks, GMOs offer great benefits to developing countries, according to the U.N. Environment Programme. Certain GMOs reduce the need for precious resources, such as water, fertilizer, or pesticides. Others offer greater yields than conventional crops.

“It is vital that developing countries and countries with economies in transition have the human resources and institutions they need for promoting biosafety,” notes Hamdallah Zedan, executive secretary of the U.N. office that will administer the Cartagena Protocol. He says that the new treaty should go a long way toward providing that.

Perhaps reflecting Zedan’s hope, both small nations–such as the Marshall Islands, Cuba, Fiji, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Bhutan–and the European Union have ratified the Cartagena Protocol. Notably absent, so far, from the list of signatories are the leading exporters of GMOs: Canada, Australia, and the United States.