Fear of biotechnology is alive and well at the United Nations. And that fear could cause serious problems for North American farmers.
The problem dates back to the 1992 “Earth Summit,” which among other things produced a statement calling for “advanced informed agreement” on the use of “any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology.”
Now, negotiators from a host of countries are busy preparing to transform that general statement into a detailed UN “biosafety protocol.”
Their target is to have a signed agreement by the end of next year.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
But Bill Leask, vice-president of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, warns that the way the biosafety protocol is shaping up, “it could effectively shut down the research and development of genetically modified crops in Canada and elsewhere.”
In an interview in Agbiotech Bulletin, Leask explained that one problem is that the negotiators are leaning to a broad definition of “living modified organism” that includes such commodities as wheat and canola.
Even though the commodity may be destined for consumption by humans or animals (i.e., not for seeding or reproduction), it would thus be subject to new restrictions.
Leask said most of the new traits being developed for crops affect things like herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, but do not change nutritional composition.
But if the UN working group follows its current tendency, each trait, or combination of traits, would count as a separate “living modified organism” that would have to be approved by each importing country.
It would be impractical to have separate storage and handling facilities for every trait, so Canada would either lose markets or Canadian farmers would lose many benefits of biotechnology.
Leask has been participating in the United Nations talks, representing the International Association of Plant Breeders and as an adviser to the Canadian delegation, but he said the talks are dominated by officials from environment ministries.
His suggestion is that commodity groups must make sure their needs are communicated to their national delegations before it’s too late.
That sounds like an eminently sensible suggestion which deserves a quick response. The influence of paranoid anti-technology lobby groups needs to be countered.
Existing regulatory processes have worked well for genetically modified products. Like pesticides and animal-health products, biotechnology is a tool producers need to feed the world.
