April/May 2000
By the Mother Earth News editors
On the international stage of GMO politics there are two sets of players: those who are convinced of the benefits of GM agriculture and wantto liberalize trade of these goods and those who denounce it as unsafe and want more regulation of GM crops. The former group (known as the Miami Group) is made up of six countries - the U.S., Canada, Australia, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina - and the latter group is everyone else, headed by the European Union. It is the Miami Group that has been blocking legislation to impose more strict tests and regulations on the import and export of GM foods.
RELATED CONTENT
THE YEAR IN GREEN POLITICS December/January 1999 Senators denied a plan to cut $33 million from the...
A Plowboy Interview with Jim McHale, a major supporter of agriculture and rural Pennsylvania....
An expert from the Union of Concerned Scientists says the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture — j...
Today’s changing world has prompted us to rethink the way we grow our food. Increasing demand for h...
COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE November/December 1988 Two former MOTHER EARTH NEWS gardeners are b...
In January, delegates from 130 countries met for a week in Montreal to set up a working model to regulate trade in GM products. What they came up with has been temporarily called the Biosafety Protocol and it allows for countries to block the import of genetically altered seeds, microbes, animals and crops that they consider a threat to the environment. If a shipment is turned away by an importing country, then it goes on a list - an international clearinghouse so to speak - which others countries can reference. Conversely, countries exporting GM bulk goods are required to label shipments with signs saying they "may contain" genetically modified organisms. The protocol is set to be officially signed by participating countries in May.
While this is a boon for countries like Thailand, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and India that favor stricter testing laws governing GMOs, there are crucial steps left out. There is nothing in the protocol requiring the labeling of products made with GMOs, only of bulk commodities. Plus, the labeling term "may contain" means that countries like the U.S. do not have to separate natural corn from GM corn. The U.S. argued that this stipulation would have stalled trade altogether.
Nevertheless, the key ingredient of the protocol - the ability by importing countries to block GM crops if they suspect a health risk - is a major victory for the naturalists.
