After a controversial entry into cotton, international corporations
promoting Genetically Modified crops are trying to expand their reach
into food. The promised benefits would appear compelling in an era of
food shortages and low productivity, but the uncertainty about their
wider impact on human health and the environment underscores the need
for strong biosafety regulations. Progress in strengthening biosafety
has been slow. That has not, however, prevented the unregula ted spread
of GM crops. Countries such as Brazil have been presented with a fait
accompli, forcing them to regularise their cultivation. Considering the
absence of data from long-term studies, the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety was evolved five years ago to help member countries monitor
transboundary movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). But the
protocol has not made much headway in realising its goal of creating a
legally binding instrument for liability and redress, in situations
where use of GMOs results in potential harm to people or the
environment. At the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol held in Bonn
from May 12 to 16, progress on the issue was limited to laying out a
road map to 2010, when the liability and redress instrument will be
discussed. This tardy pace stands in contrast to the aggressive global
promotion of GM crops.
The recent finding of the Japan-based UN University Institute of
Advanced Studies that the 100 countries participating in the Cartagena
Protocol do not have the training necessary for implementing biosafety
regulations underscores the scale of the problem. Genetic modification
of crops relies on introducing genes from unrelated organisms into a
crop species to produce traits such as pest resistance, which cannot
conceivably be produced through traditional breeding methods. Cotton
spliced with a toxin-producing bacterial gene to resist the bollworm
pest is an example. But the hidden environmental effects of such
manipulation — as for instance the contamination of wild species — are
cause for deep concern; a significant body of research records the
unintended flow of engineered genes to wild species, raising serious
biodiversity concerns. In the area of health, the effects of
genetically modified food remain to be fully assessed. Consumer
confidence in such food is understandably low, and in several
countries, notably in Europe, these foods are voluntarily kept off
store-shelves. The resistance of GM companies to food-labelling has
only added to the deep distrust. Given the contentious aspects, the
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has before it little evidence on
the basis of which it could approve GM food crops. Checks are also
called for against the sale of unlabelled imported food.
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/11/stories/2008061153320800.htm
Copyright
© 2008, The Hindu.
