US. Sidetracks Pact to Control Gene Splicing

ANDREW POLLACK / New York Times 25feb1999

CARTAGENA, Colombia, Feb 24 — Attempts to forge the world's first global treaty to regulate trade in genetically modified products failed this morning when the United Stales and five other big agricultural exporters rejected a proposal that had the support of the rest of the roughly 130 nations taking part In the talks.

The treaty would have requited that exporters of genetically altered plants. seeds or Whet organisms obtain approval in advance from the importing nation the talks broke down over the question of whether this requirement would also apply to commodities like wheat and corn

Proponents of the treaty, especial European and many developing nations, have resisted genetically modified products, worried that not enough is known about the possible effects on human health and the environment But Washington and its allies have argued that such regulations would entangle the world's food trade in red tape.

From 25 percent to 45 percent of crops like corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States are genetically modified. according to United States industry estimates, and American negotiators feared that the proposal would have blocked or stalled some of the $50 billion in annual farm exports

Bleary-eyed delegates from many nations, who have been negotiating day and night for more than a week, expressed fury at the United States, accusing it of intransigence and of putting the interests of its world-leading farming and biotechnology industries above the environment.

"It's five nations against the world," said Dr Joseph M Gopo, the delegate from Zimbabwe, referring to Washington and its allies. which actually number six "There could he no greater injustice than that." he said The Untied States, he added. "is holding the world at ransom " The allies are Canada, Australia. Chile. Argentina and Uruguay

The delegates agreed to suspend the talks and resume them no later than May 2000 The United States had urged this, saying there were too many unresolved issues to achieve a consensus by the deadline, which was Tuesday. Such agreements are generally done by consensus, not by an explicit vote

''It would be much better to get a sound instrument it year hence than to get a flawed instrument today," said Rafe Pomerance, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State But delegates from some other nations feared the process would now lose momentum.

Even without a treaty, countries can limit the import of genetically engineered seeds or foods under their own law, subject to challenge under world trading rules. Some countries, particularly in Europe, are doing this. The treaty was mainly meant to help developing countries, which now lack the expertise and the legislation to regulate biotechnology

The United States has often taken a stance different from much of the rest of the world on trade and environmental matters It has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity reached at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 because some senators fear that American interests would be jeopardized. The current talks on the Biosafety Protocol are an outgrowth of the biodiversity treaty

The Biosafety Protocol would require exporters of genetically modified organisms, such as seeds into which new trails have been added by gene-splicing, to obtain prior approval from the importing country. Some scientists worry, for instance, that if a plant were given genes allowing it to produce a drug, insects could be exposed, with unknown results. Some fear that a gene conferring insect resistance or drought tolerance on a crop could spread to weeds, creating super weeds.

Washington and its allies were willing to have seeds covered by the treaty But they argued that commodities meant for eating and processing did not enter the environment.

Developing nations and the European Union argued. that commodities should be included because they have seeds that can he planted Also, there is much more concern in these countries than in the United States about possible health effects from eating genetically modified food.

Some developing nations even wanted the treaty to cover products made from genetic engineering such as cornflakes made from modified corn, or blue jeans made from altered cotton, but this was dropped from the final draft

Another point of dispute that could not be resolved was that Washington wanted World Trade Organization rules to take precedence over the Biosafety Protocol, to prevent other nations from using biosafety as an excuse to erect trade harriers. The developing nations and Europe wanted the Biosafety Protocol to be equal to or take precedence over W.T.O rules.

Michael Williams, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said this was the first environmental treaty he could remember in at least 20 years in which an agreement was not reached by the self-imposed deadline.

But officials here said the big stakes involved for industry made this difficult "It's the first time that you have really possibly a legally binding instrument dealing with made and the environment at the same time," said Veit Koester, a Danish environmental official who headed the working group that drew tip the draft of the treaty

It perhaps complicated things that the industry involved was biotechnology, in which the United States holds firm lead there have been a rising number of disputes in recent years between developing and developed nations over the control of genetic resources, the raw material for biotechnology, which some analysts predict will he to the next century what oil and metal were to this one Washington had opposed starting the biosafety negotiations three years ago, and many people at this meeting thought its real intention was to torpedo the treaty

"The last two years of negotiation have been a constant attempt to delay, not negotiate, block," said Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network, a Malaysia-based group working on environmental and development issues. "They've always said 'No. no, no,' and they delayed and they diluted," she said.

Still, the United States could have been isolated since it was not a party to the biodiversity convention But it strengthened its hand by aligning with Canada, Australia and three agricultural exporters from the developing world — Argentina, Chile and Uruguay Without the support of such manor exporters, any protocol would have been difficult to enforce.

Mr. Pomerance, the American negotiator, said Washington did want a treaty but a workable one and had been compromising. But he added "There were two compromises we were not prepared to make. One is to tie up trade in the world's food sup ply the second is to allow this regime, without a lot of deliberation to undermine the WTO trading regime.

Both the United States Government and the biotechnology industry would have something to gain from a treaty, were it not too onerous A treaty could have helped assuage public fears about biotechnology, which are much greater elsewhere in the world than in the United States And having a unified global regulatory scheme would be easier for companies than having each nation adopt its own rules.

The European Union and individual countries have restricted the planting and importing of genetic ally modified crops Some consumer groups are calling for a moratorium on genetic engineering of food and crops.

But the food and biotechnology industries and the United States Government asserted that genetic engineering had not been shown to he a big threat to biodiversity, especially compared with the destruction of tropical forests to create farmland. They also said that environmental groups and developing nations were trying to expand the treaty to deal with human health and the social and economic effects of biotechnology.

"They are trying to get this protocol to develop issues that are really important but not part of the protocol," said Joyce Groom, a spokes-woman for the Global Industry Coalition, which represents 2,200 companies from 130 countries.

Environmental groups had complained in the last few days that the protocol had been watered down to the point of near insignificance But in the end, some said that even the weakened treaty would have been better than none.

"The environment's the loser, always," said Beth Burrows, president of the Edmonds Institute, a nonprofit organization in Edmonds, Wash , that deals with biosafety issues "There was no moral high ground here," she added. "There was no scientific high ground here. It was just cheap power politics."