|
Although it is the only international instrument that deals exclusively
with LMOs (also commonly known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)),
the Cartagena Protocol runs in parallel with a number of international
instruments and standard-setting processes that address different aspects
of biosafety. These include the International Plant Protection Convention,
the Codex Alimentarius
Commission and several World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, such
as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to
Trade Agreements. All these various international agreements are intended
to guide implementation at the national or regional level and also be
mutually complementary. However, improving coordination and avoiding
potential conflicts remains a challenge (Box 2)
Box 2: GMOs generate international
controversy |
The request by the US, Canada and Argentina for a WTO panel
against the EU concerning Measures Affecting the Approval
and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291/23, 19 August
2003) can be regarded as an illustration of the potential
conflict between these diverse approaches to biosafety. In
this case, the three states allege that the EU de facto moratorium
on the approval of LMOs or GMOs poses an unjustifiable trade
barrier in violation of the WTO Agreements. The EU moratorium
has been in place since June 1999, when the Danish, Greek,
French, Italian and Luxembourg delegations, later joined by
Austria, submitted a declaration urging the need for rules
on labelling and traceability of GMOs and GMO-derived products
stating that, until the adoption of such rules, in accordance
with the preventive and precautionary approaches, they would
take steps to have any new authorizations suspended. The European
Commission described the request for the WTO panel as “legally
unwarranted, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful,”
arguing that the EU measures are justified under international
law, citing the recently adopted Codex Alimentarius principles
for risk analysis of genetically-modified foods and the precautionary
approach provided for in the Cartagena Protocol. Civil society
groups also attacked the decision to commence a trade dispute,
accusing the countries concerned of trying to force genetically-modified
foods onto European consumers
|
| Source: ICTSD 2003 |
|
