GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND
THE ENVIRONMENT:
COORDINATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
The international dimension
46. Trade in GMOs and GMO products between WTO members
is subject to GATT rules on non-discrimination between importing
countries and between domenstic and imported products. Exceptions
are granted by Article XX in order to protect human, animal or
plant life or health (XX(b)); and to conserve exhaustible natural
resources (where measures are taken in conjunction with domestic
restrictions) including environmental and biological resources
(XX(g)). Article XX(b) is given practical meaning by the WTO Sanitary
and Pytosanitary (SPS) agreement which recognises the right of
states to take relevant measures based on scientific principles
and not maintained without scientific evidence. Measures may be
provisionally adopted on available evidence (the precautionary
principle) but additional information must be sought to determine
the level of risk and the measure reviewed within a reasonable
time. The DTI said that for the purposes of the SPS the EU regulatory
system constituted 'sound science' and therefore no trade restriction
could be imposed on a GMO or its products approved under that
system. The situation in respect of article XX(g) was "less
clear cut" there being no further set of rules to guide implementation.[89]
The DETR wrote that while the Government was of the view that
segregation would have been the better way to introduce GM crops
into the UK, it was satisfied with the safety assessment carried
out on the relevant products and that therefore any attempt to
impose segregation as a condition of import would not be defensible
under WTO rules.[90]
47. In this light we share Ministers' disappointment
at the collapse of negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol to the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity in February 1999 in the
face of opposition from the grain exporting countries, members
of the 'Miami Group'. We regard the 'advanced informed agreement'
of those receiving shipments of GMOs (or live modified organisms
(LMOs) as the protocol described them) as important to address
the inevitable variations in the capacity of regulatory regimes
around the world. Furthermore as we have seen in the UK voluntary
restraint by industry can be negotiated to avoid 'legal entanglement'
this will not be the case everywhere. There is a pressing need
for multilateral rules to address the issues and concerns of GM
products. Given that 'prior informed consent' already operates
with apparent success with regard to transboundary movements of
chemicals we regret that short-sighted self-interest has over-ruled
a precautionary approach with respect to GMOs.
48. In line with our conclusions on the negotiation
of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment we welcome UK and
EU resistance to the subordination of the Protocol to the GATT.
De facto subordination of multilateral environmental agreements
is enough of a difficulty without enshrining a precautionary approach
to free trade protection in legal text. We believe that the
explicit subordination of a multilateral environmental agreement,
such as the Biosafety Protocol, to international trade rules would
be a deeply unfortunate precedent to set. We recommend that the
Government must make every effort to revive the negotiations on
the Protocol and bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.
To complement work on multilateral rules on biotechnology we believe
that the UK should take the lead in establishing an international
scientific effort on the environmental, and other, implications
of biotechnology and genetic modification subject in the same
way that climate change has been approached.
49. Another aspect of the international dimension
relates to evidence we heard from Sir Robert May that biotechnology
may have a significant contribution to make to a second, more
sustainable, "green revolution" in the light of forecast
population growth and pressure on the worlds agricultural production
- particularly in developing countries.[91]
These issues are highly complex and controversial and go some
way beyond the scope of this inquiry. However, they are also very
important and we note that the Cabinet Committee has no member
from the Department for International Development. We recommend
that a Minister from the Department for International Development
be appointed to the Cabinet Ministerial Group on Biotechnology
and Genetic Modification. We regard this as important in the
light of DfID's interest in the consistency of UK policies across
the board as they impact upon developing countries and in view
of doubts expressed by witnesses as to the positive contribution
that GM technology could make to the agriculture of developing
countries.[92]
89 Appendix 18 Back
90 Ev
p63 Back
91 Q104 Back
92 See
Appendix 17 (World Development Movement) Back
| 
