CASE NUMBER:  570
CASE MNEMONIC:  BIOTECH
CASE NAME:  Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD
 
 

In February of 1999, members of 174 nations of the world came together in Cartegena, Colombia, to negotiate a Biosafety Protocol.  This summit represents the first attempt to come to an understanding concerning rules, regulations, and restrictions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Although the United States could not participate as a voting member, their presence and influence led to the unraveling of the whole meeting.

The United States exports more than $50 billion in agricultural products annually, many of which are genetically engineered.  In fact, the U.S. exports 80% of the worlds genetically engineered products.  Because of this obvious vested interest the U.S. has in issues related to genetic engineering, it decided to be an observer at the Biosafety Protocol summit, since it could not be an active participant.  This summit was supposed to deal with the increasing fears towards genetically engineered products and resolve how to protect public health, the environment, and possibly how to use trade restrictions as a means of accomplishing these goals.   However, the U.S. used its influence and power to undermine the intentions of this meeting.  Eventually, because of the rise of an insurgent power, a minority led by the U.S., the summit ended in chaos with a vote to suspend the negotiations.  The Biosafety Protocol was an important document and vital to the security and welfare of all the people in the world and the United States chose to side with big business and sacrifice safety for less restrictive trade barriers.

The inequity shared between industries and the environment was first truly addressed at the Convention on Biological Diversity drawn up at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.   "The overall approach of the convention requires Parties to take precautionary actions to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" (Fogel 1994).  This convention, although a step in the right direction, was nonetheless merely a new forum in which issues could be discussed.  Actual enforcement capability was still lacking.   

The first binding agreement the convention tried to create was the Biosafety Protocol of 1999.  The Biosafety Protocol to the CBD was negotiated in Cartagena, Colombia from February 14-23.  Delegates from 174 nations gathered to discuss how to regulate trade in genetically engineered products including potatoes, cotton and grains.   This summit, backed by the UN, represents the first global attempt to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and to seriously evaluate public health and environmental issues related to this new, burgeoning industry.  As we shift to a more biotechnically oriented society, our approach to regulations and the accountability factor needs to be readdressed.  "The Biosafety Protocol...would regulate the shipment between countries of organisms that have been altered by genetic engineering...The treaty is aimed at reducing the risk of harmful ecological effects from introducing genes from different species into plants, animals or microorganisms" (Pollack 1999).  The summit began as an attempt to focus more on environmental and safety issues than trade concerns.  As each conflict arose, the members tried to keep in perspective their broad goals and many problems were dealt with through compromise.  One major concern dealt with defining living modified organisms (LMOs).  Some delegates wanted to restrict the definition to pertain to the actual organisms themselves, while others wanted a broader interpretation including the organisms and their products.  After much deliberation, the narrower view of LMOs was finally incorporated into the protocol.   Many issues were brought to the table and negotiated through to a successful conclusion.  The summit seemed to be moving in the right direction, finally it looked like progress could be made.

Then the ghost member, the observer, the country with no voting power and supposedly no say in the matter arrived.  The United States showed up.  According to the Biotech Industry Organization, the U.S. exports more than $50 billion of agricultural products each year, an increasing amount of which are genetically engineered.  Already 25% of corn, 35% of soy beans, and 45% of cotton are genetically manipulated.  With these numbers growing rapidly, it is easy to understand why the U.S. felt it had a stake in the Biosafety Protocol proceedings.  "American companies [along with the U.S. government] are alarmed about draft language they say could undermine the global economy and severely disrupt world trade" (Weiss 1999).   Because the United States never ratified the 1992 biological diversity treaty, they were supposed to be excluded from this negotiation.  Even though it could not participate directly, the U.S. was not deterred from trying to prevent a broad, restrictive protocol from being adopted.  The U.S. managed to gain the support of such other large agricultural exporters as Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.  Since these nations were directly involved in the negotiations, the U.S. managed to indirectly find a path of influence. 

The negotiations began by focusing on the environment but the U.S. managed to redirect the focus to trade issues.  First, negotiators for the developed world, led by the U.S., succeeded in watering down the initial protocol to exclude food crops and many other products.  Then, the U.S. brought about a stalemate, creating a larger gap between those favoring a restrictive protocol and those fearful of such an agreement by emphasizing negative economic affects.  This movement from biosafety to biotrade and the exclusions of products this switch entailed were victories for the United States, but at what cost?  The U.S. led a small minority and destroyed a possible global treaty in order to maintain and try to expand its own economy while barriers are low.  The United States should have been a leader, promoting the noble intentions of the Biosafety negotiations.  There must be uniform practices and at least minimum standards for testing in order to carefully regulate and control the genetic engineering industry that is on the verge of exploding.   

CHOCOLAT Chocolate Substitutes                                                CANOLA Canola and Genetics Trade                                        DOLLY Dolly the Sheep and Genetic Engineering Products

Sandra H. Gulbicki
04/14/99
 

DISagree and Suspended

"Despite years of preparatory negotiations, however, philosophical rifts loom between the handful of countries ready and eager to ship genetically engineered products around the world and the many other countries that remain wary of the biotechnology revolution" (Weiss 1999).

Despite thorough debate and argumentation, and although all the participants agree that regulation is necessary, delegates were unable to agree on a final protocol.  Instead, they decided to suspend the meeting until further notice.   Thus concluding the 6th session of the BSWG.

Delegates from 174 nations met in Colombia to discuss this Protocol.

Suspended.  This protocol would have been an addendum to an international agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity.  The main areas of contention were domestic and international regulations especially on imports.

USDA, EPA, FDA laws, regulations and rules http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm#usdalaw

N/A

Temperate.  The Protocol deals mainly with agricultural products.

The fact that 174 nations came together to discuss creating a Biosafety Protocol illustrates that genetic engineering and its regulation is an increasingly important issue in society today.  However, the United States chose to enter into this summit as a ghost party with no voting power and turn the focus of events from agriculture and the environment to trade.  As countries were nearing an agreement, a Protocol that embodied a compromise between the platforms, the U.S. quickly caused division and began to push apart the loosely bound rift.  It did so by introducing and emphasizing the negative effects regulations on genetically engineered products could have on trade and international economies.  By turning the members' attention to trade, new disputes arose that could not be settled and the summit ended with a vote to suspend negotiations.  

REGSTD, REGBAN

The goals of the Conference on Biological Diversity focused on maintaining standards and promoting conservation.  The Biosafety Protocol, an outgrowth of this conference, deals more with the regulation of genetically modified organisms.   

DIRect

The Biosafety Protocol would have called for actually rules and regulations pertaining to the monitoring and trade of genetically modified organisms.   The goal of creating this Protocol was to thoroughly analyze how genetically modified organisms affect the environment and the public's health.  When these factors could be satisfactorily determined, standards, restrictions and procedures could be established and now, for the first time ever, enforced.  

The Biosafety Protocol first encompassed all living modified organisms (LMOs) and their products, then it was constricted to only the LMOs.  It also began as a Protocol to include food, clothing, and other products that contained anything genetically altered.  However, eventually it was narrowed down to incorporate only agricultural products, potatoes, cotton and grains being the focal points.  The Protocol dealt mainly with these products and their relation to trade and trade issues.   

Although the Protocol would not have directly impacted agricultural processes, it would have altered them indirectly.  If trade restrictions are placed on genetically modified organisms, especially in corn, cotton and grain crops, the agricultural industry will either have to find a way to efficiently deal with these restrictions or alter the processes they currently use.  Either way, trade regulations would affect the agricultural industry and its process of incorporating or not incorporating genetically modified organisms into its products.

FOOD.  The Biosafety Protocol deals with agricultural products that use living modified organisms.   

U.S. exports more than $50 billion of agricultural products annually:  25% of the corn acreage, 38% of the soy bean acreage, and 45% of the cotton acreage is genetically engineered

80% of the world's genetically engineered products are exported by the U.S.

HIGH.  Trade regulations would greatly impact both the U.S. agricultural industries as well as U.S. export/import industries.  By standardizing procedures and creating an enforceable protocol, accountability is heightened, safety is increased and long term impacts can be determined and more efficiently dealt with.  However, these new regulations would encourage a substantial amount of change in agricultural processes and products and in export/import procedures.   These trade restrictions would also definitely impact every other country in the world, just on varying levels. 

Non-Durable Manufacturing:  FOOD  

Case Exporter:        Every nation in the world

Case Importer:        Every nation in the world

Leading Exporters:  United States, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay,                                 Canada
 

The Biosafety Protocol would not have led to any environmental problems.  In fact, one of its objectives was to ensure environmental conservation and the more thorough observation of genetically modified organisms.  It would have been a Protocol that encouraged research in order to more effectively and efficiently dealt with genetically engineered products and the affects they have on people and the environment. 

However, genetic engineering in general is said to cause biodiversity loss in the sense that it may lead to a reduction in the variety of the gene pool.

The Biosafety Protocol would have definitely affected the environment, however, its impact on the environment would not have been as great as its impact on trade.  The Protocol was to be regulatory though, and set standards and apply rules that would impact both realms: trade and the environment. 

Genetically modified organisms which produce genetically engineered products, are synthetic alternatives for crops that used to be naturally cultivated.  However, instead of this producing a positive environmental outcome, many environmentalists are concerned about the impact genetically modified organisms have on the environment.  The purpose of this Protocol was to determine the extent of this impact and create a way to enforce regulations. 

At the summit in Colombia, "governments discussed the risks that biotechnology may pose for biological diversity and human health [and] its socio-economic implications for developing countries." (UNEP Press Release).  There were many issues of contention during this summit, however, one of extreme importance was how the release of GMOs and LMOs into the environment would affect public health.  The scientific advisor for Greenpeace in England, Ian Taylor, comments that, "there is a huge domain of scientific uncertainty about the impact of these things [genetically engineered products]."  Many citizens, of every nation, fear that genetically modified organisms especially those that are introduced to food products, will have harmful longterm effects.  Until very recently there was no scientific data to back up this fear, but just recently, a Scottish toxicologist has received some publicity for his studies in this area.  "He added insect-resistant genes and proteins to potatoes and fed them to rats.  The animals suffered damaged immune systems, growth problems, and shrunken brains" (Varrengia, 1999).  Although his employer, a large agricultural corporation, refused to support his research as credible, other scientists have come to his defense.  His employer, acting much as the U.S. did when going to observe at the Cartegena summit, feared the negative publicity and possible backlash of this man's findings and shut him down.

Genetically modified organisms and genetically engineered products have a great impact on our culture as the gap between the scientifically and humanitarian oriented views grows increasingly wider.    

The fact that 174 nations came together to discuss a protocol proves that genetic engineering is an important global concern and regulations and standards are becoming more and more necessary.  "Officials...suspended talks...when they were unable to finalize the text of a legally binding protocol on reducing risks related to the transboundary movement of living modified organisms" (UNEP Press Release).  The international community was attempting to negotiate a protocol that would force exporters to make sure recipient countries have the technology required to deal with these organisms and importers to be aware of what the products they are buying contain.  Although there is some domestic legislation, "there are no binding international agreements covering LMOs that cross national borders because of trade or accidental release" (UNEP Press Release).  This is a concern that the Biosafety Protocol was to address had it not been stifled by the U.S.-led minority. 

The most blatant violation of human rights in this case concerns the issue of labeling.  Organisms and products have been genetically engineered for over 20 years now, but there are very few domestic regulations and no international agreements that are binding.  As it stands presently, genetically engineered products do not have to be labeled as such.  The right of the consumer to be informed and make a choice is being neglected.    The Biosafety Protocol could have led to some progress and could have possibly been a stepping stone for a resolution, however, the few powerful agricultural giants, led by the U.S. stopped it dead in its tracks in order to safeguard their own trade interests.   

Primary Sources

Committee on Life Sciences and Health of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET).   "Biotechnology for the 21st century:  Realizing the Promise."   (June 1993, for the FY 1994 Budget). http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Federal_Biotech/biotech94.fccset.html

Conference of the Parties.  "The Second Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity."  (6-17 November 1995).  http://warp.nal.usda.gov/bic/Federal_Biotech/biodiversity.treaty/biocorp2.html

Convention on Biological Diversity.   "Convention Text:  Article I. Objectives." http://www.biodiv.org/convtext/cbd0002.htm

Convention on Biological Diversity.  "Report of the Sixth Session of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety and the First Extraordinary Session of the CBD Conference of the Parties."  (14-23 February 1999). http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/vol09/enb09117e.html

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).  "Biosafety at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention on Biological Diversity (ICCBD)."  (November 1993).  http://warp.nal.usda.gov/bic/Federal_Biotech/biodiversity.treaty/iccbd1.2.html

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).  "Consideration of the Need for, and Modalities of A Protocol on Biosafety."  (December 1995). http://warp.nal.usda.gov/bic/Federal_Biotech/biodiversity.treaty/iccbd2.3.html

Biosafety Protocol

Anonymous.  "Science and Technology:   Genetically Modified Free Trade."  The Economist.  London, February 20, 1999.

Convention on Biological Diversity.   "Biotechnology and the Convention of Biological Diversity."  by Cathleen Fogel and Isabelle Meister.  (October 1994).  http://www.warp.nal.usda.gov/bic/Federal_Biotech/biodiversity.treaty/biosafe.ngo.html

Pollack, Andrew.  "Setting Rules for Biotechnology Trade."  New York Times.  New York, February 15, 1999.

Pollack, Andrew.  "Biotechnology Treaty Stalls as U.S. and Developing Nations Quarrel."  New York Times.  New York, February 23, 1999.

UNEP Press Release.  "Governements Postpone adoption of Biosafety Treaty."  (23 February 1999).  http://www.biodiv.org/press/pr2-99-BSWG6.html

Verrengia, Joseph.  "Biosafety Protocol Provides Juicy Debate on Genes." Charleston Newspapers.  1999.

Weiss, Rick.  "U.S. 'Observers' Lobby Against Trade Curbs on Biotechnology; Accord Would be First to Target Genetically Engineered Products."  Washington Post.  Washington, DC, February 13, 1999.  

Genetic Engineering:   Ethical/Humanitarian Approach

Appleyard, Bryan.  Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in the Genetic Future.    New York:  Viking, 1998.

Ho, Mae-Wan.  Genetic Engineering--Dream or Nightmare?  The Brave New    World of Bad Science and Big Business.   United Kingdom:  Gateway Books, 1998.

Roleff, Tamara.  Biomedical Eithics: Opposing Viewpoints.  San Diego,              California:   Greenhaven Press, 1998.

Genetic Engineering:  Scientific Approach

Barash, David.  "DNA and Destiny."  New York Times.  New York, November 16, 1998.

Callahan, Daniel.  "Biotechnology and Ethics:   A Blueprint for the Future." http://www.biotech.nwu.edu/nsf/callahan.html

Flowers, Edward.  "The Ethics and Economics of patenting the human genome."  Journal of Business Ethics.   Dordrecht, November 1998.

Isaacson, Walter.  "The Biotech Century."   New York Times.  New York, January 11, 1999.

Wingerson, Lois.  Unnatural Selection: The Promise and the Power of Human Gene Research.  New York:  Bantam Books, 1998.