Cutting it short

Beware of dogs. The dog, a human's best friend after brewer's yeast, tends to think with its nose and its tongue. If it finds a tasty morsel of unknown origin it will first smell it then lick it. Such contact may lead to dangerous consequences. Dogs, however, are unaware of all this. Humans on the other hand have since time immemorial used their hands to interact with the environment. To begin with they built tools to reshape the environment and these tools reshaped the toolmakers themselves.

In a way the toolmakers were genetically modified, by the tools they created. But humans still think with their hands. If they come across a substance of unknown or suspicious origin they will first pick it up, peer at it, examine it cautiously and then check it out thoroughly before using it. A dog could lick poisoned meat and die. Humans would put it through a series of tests first, come to the conclusion that it is poisoned and reject it. There is a certain difference between the degree and level of intelligence that dogs and humans possess.

The caution that humans exercise while dealing with the unknown is reflected in the Precautionary Principle, included in the international Biosafety Protocol which has just been adopted by 140 countries at Montreal. This principle is increasingly becoming the basis of international agreements. It is based not on the scientific evidence that something is dangerous, but on the precaution based on lack of scientific evidence to certify something as one hundred per cent safe.

It is on the basis of this Precautionary Principle that countries seek to curb the trade in genetically modified organisms or gmo s as they are known. The effect of gmo s upon the environment and humans is still unknown. This is because these plants or animals have been created in the lab and they possess characteristics that do not occur naturally. Some of them are pest resistant but could kill off non-target species. Several monarch butterflies died while trying to pollinate gm maize in usa . Some of them are herbicide resistant but could transfer this ability to weeds. A tomato for example contains the gene of a chicken and can resist fungal attacks. As a result it has an extended shelf life. A fish is genetically programmed to grow faster than others but may wipe out local species by destroying their food base. Nobody knows for certain.

It is this fear of the unknown -- the Precautionary Principle -- that is also the basis of the tiff between the European Union and usa . Beef grown in usa is not allowed entry into Europe. Farmers in usa use a number of hormones to grow beef. The Europeans feel that consumption of us beef may adversely affect human health. They feel the same about gmo s. In a way the Europeans are right. Until something is scientifically proven that it is safe not just in the immediate future but also safe after many years it should be regulated. Hence the need for a Biosafety Protocol to ensure that trade considerations are second to safety and health concerns.

To a certain extent the adoption of this international Biosafety Protocol on January 29 in Montreal is a step forward in ensuring that the Precautionary Principle is taken into consideration while dealing with gmo s. But in many ways the protocol is a truncated one. The usa , which leads the Miami Group of grain exporting nations, under pressure from its biotech industry, has seen to it that only minimum safety requirements will be required when dealing with gmo s. The labelling of gm products will for instance be very vague. It will not be applicable in the case of processed foods. Therefore if a us firm uses gm corn to make cornflakes or soya to make baby food, it will not have to specify so. It still leaves the us free to push for inclusion of trade in gm food on to the agenda of the World Trade Organisation ( wto ). In fact, the protocol will not override the rights and obligations under other international agreements like the wto has still not figured out how it will resolve the question of precaution for the future (see Modified treaty , p24) .

Therefore, it is time that all countries try to develop a set of domestic laws to handle trade in gm foods. This is of prime importance because there may not be sufficient competence within the wto to judge how safe it is to permit trade in certain gm products. Developing countries like India, where a large number of people are ignorant about gmo s have also the task of raising awareness about gm products. While Indian government delegates, who attended the unep meeting at Montreal, firmly believe that gm products pose no threat to India, it would be better to be cautious.

But the encouraging trend is that the farmers in the us and the market is already responding to public concern. Farmers are already segregating gm crops from non- gm crops and the area under gm foods is going down. gm foods are a double-edged sword. In some ways an untested technology. It would be unwise to entrust the wto with regulating trade in them. Until science confirms for certain that gm foods are hundred per cent safe we should desist from tasting the tempting morsel being offered to us. In fact, until we are better informed about gm products all matters relating to them must be dealt with strictly in adherence with the norms of the Precautionary Principle.

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.