Competing interests have different takes on what transpired at a United Nations meeting on biodiversity in Brazil.
Environmental activists say supporters of the terminator gene were dealt an Arnold Schwarzenegger-sized blow at the eighth gathering of the Convention on Biological Diversity held in March.
“They had a crushing defeat,” said Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an organization that assesses how new technologies affect rural societies.
He said representatives of 188 countries were presented with a proposal by Canada, Australia and New Zealand to allow for the case-by-case assessment of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, or GURTs.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
The proposal, which Mooney contends would have paved the way for global field-testing of a genetic modification technique that can render seeds sterile after harvest, had the consensus approval of a sub-group of the convention that met in Spain a few months ago.
“We went there expecting to lose. We honestly did,” said Mooney.
“I’ve been involved in UN meetings for 40 years and I know what it means when you’ve got a consensus document on the table.”
But in a startling turn of events, the delegates attending the convention dismissed the proposal and reinstated an old clause that Mooney said amounts to a moratorium on terminator technology.
“By consensus decision all governments have reaffirmed the moratorium on a genetic engineering technology that threatens the lives and livelihoods of 1.4 billion people who depend on farmer-saved seed,” he said.
Denise Dewar, executive director of plant biotechnology with CropLife Canada, said that is a gross misinterpretation of the current language in the international treaty on sustainable development.
The relevant clause in the document states, “products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing.”
“That’s what the activists are terming a ban. We wouldn’t read it that way,” said Dewar.
The document said there must be adequate laboratory and greenhouse data before there can be field testing of crops containing GURTs.
Dewar also objects to Mooney’s contention that the failure to get the case-by-case assessment clause incorporated into the agreement was a huge blow to promoters of GURTs.
She said it will have absolutely no impact on a country like Canada that has already adopted a case-by-case approach in its regulations.
Dewar said GURT-type plants will be subject to the same rigorous regulatory process as other GM crops, adding that to date there have been no field trials or commercial applications for field trials of GURT-type plants in Canada.
When asked how the existing text of the convention amounts to a moratorium, Mooney acknowledged that the language in the document is “terribly weak” but said it will still force Canada, Australia and New Zealand to steer clear of field testing GURTs.
“It’s not so much what the words say precisely as it is how they are interpreted by everybody.”
He said the mood of the conference in Brazil was anti-terminator.
There were large protests on the streets and delegates sporting stickers that said, “case-by-case = coffin-by-coffin.”
Most importantly, everyone attending the meeting in Brazil, including the chair of the conference, referred to the existing language as a moratorium, said Mooney.
“Certainly now in the minds of governments, unlike any other time before, it is very clear field trials are not allowed. It is very clear there is a moratorium no matter what the language is,” he said.
Dewar said that is a distortion of the facts, as are the attempts by activists to convince producers that GURT is an anti-farmer technology.
“There is no intention of taking away the ability for farmers to save their own seed,” she said.
