Trade Rules Set On Food Genetics;

Compromise Gained On Labeling Issue

John Burgess / Washington Post 30jan00

MONTREAL, Jan. 29 -- The United States today accepted under pressure a new international trade agreement that could speed the labeling of genetically engineered foods on the world market, a move that puts new pressure on U.S. farmers to separate the increasingly controversial foods from the overall supply.

The pact, adopted by delegates of 140 countries after being endorsed by the United States, would allow a country to ban the import of a genetically modified food without full scientific proof that it was unsafe.

The United States pioneered the use of genetics in agriculture and is the world's leading producer of genetically altered food. The United States and a small group of food exporters had resisted the new regulations, but after five days of contentious negotiating agreed to endorse the package. In return, other nations agreed to put off for at least two years from the pact's implementation proposals to track and regulate global shipments of the gene-altered foods.

The United States could point to numerous concessions it had won. However, many conference participants thought that over the long term the accord would legitimize notions that bioengineered foods are specialized products that must be treated differently than foods that are not altered. This could speed the spread of labeling.

Many consumers, given the choice, prefer non-engineered foods. Europe has required consumer labeling in stores; in the United States the practice has remained voluntary and rare. If consumer resistance to genetically altered foods increases-and international environmental groups are waging well-financed campaigns to try to make that happen-U.S. farmers that have embraced the technology may have to and cotton planted in the United States was of genetically altered varieties, and much of the crop was exported.

In the 1990s many foreign countries, encouraged by environmental groups, began taking exception to shipments of gene-altered foods. People in the biotech industry express dismay at the reception the technology has received, saying the opposition is based on ignorance and political manipulation.

Today's agreement is an elaboration of a Convention on Biodiversity that came from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. The United States never ratified the original convention and was not a formal participant in the Montreal talks. As the world's largest food exporter, however, U.S. cooperation was needed and the Clinton administration has said it will abide by the negotiated protocol.

Under terms of the agreement, a biosafety clearing house will operate to help countries share technical data on new engineered products. The rights of nations to regulate the import of the products was affirmed.

The United States did not oppose provisions that require prior notification to nations being sent genetically engineered seeds and living organisms intended for introduction into the environment-this information already is provided under other agreements. Scientists say these products need special care and can have detrimental effects if not properly cultivated.

The big fight centered on a notification system for foods produced from engineered seeds and exported. Most of the world wanted such a system, but U.S. negotiators countered that such notification would tie up international trade in red tape at the cost of billions of dollars and to no purpose.

Compromise language reached by U.S. and European negotiators provided for the group to put this question off for two years. U.S. negotiators sold the delay on the logic that if market forces move the industry toward a system of segregation within the two-year period, the United States would be unlikely to fight incorporating the system into the an had been feared while others said it was premature to drawn any such conclusions.

"I hope we will all be a little patient, and allow good science to work its way to good data and good discussions," Dr. Adrianna Hewings, who represented the Department of Agriculture at the meeting, said in a concluding statement.

The department is the primary federal regulator of genetically engineered crops.

Many of the researchers emphasized that their results were preliminary, with many studies still far from complete. Some presented data suggesting that pollen from different varieties differ in their toxicity, with one genetic variety of corn known as 176 posing a much greater threat than other more common varieties. In addition, researchers presented evidence that suggests that Bt corn pollen might not travel as far away from fields as had been feared.

"The worst-case scenario is not true," said Dr. Stuart Weiss, a researcher at Stanford University.

Dr. Richard Hellmich, a research entomologist at Iowa State University, was among the most positive about the safety of the corn. He said that "research today had no bias to it" and that "there was a lot of information presented that was positive about Bt corn."

But others noted that data presented showed that within and nearby cornfields, plants like milkweed, which monarch caterpillars eat, do get a heavy dusting of toxin-producing pollen. What remains unknown, researchers agreed, was where monarchs were really coming from and what proportion were likely to be growing up on plants with harmful amounts of pollen.

Some researchers expressed concern that so many studies, still far from completion and none peer-reviewed or published, should be given such a public airing, in particular in a forum orchestrated by the industry whose products safety has been brought into question. The industry group sponsoring the event includes the Monsanto Company, Novartis A.G. of Switzerland, Pioneer Hi-Bred, which is owned by the DuPont Compay, and other makers of genetically engineered seed.

"We felt it was dirty pool and the fox was guarding the chicken coop," said Dr. Lincoln Brower, a monarch expert at Sweet Briar College in Virginia. "It was not conclusive."