SUNS 4364 Monday 1 February 1999

Kuala Lumpur, Jan 29 (IPS/A.Y.Mede) -- Asian activists are stepping up efforts to introduce safeguards to slow the spread of biotechnology firms in the South, given uncertainty over the
benefits of the technology and its products.

Their focus is the final negotiations for an international biosafety protocol to be held in Cartagena, Colombia on Feb 14 to 23.

In the run-up to the meeting, a tussle is heating up between developing countries that want as many precautions as possible in the use and trade of genetically modified or engineered organisms,
and government and firms with an eye on business gains in the developing world.

"Biotech companies are very keen to push genetically engineered organisms and products in the South," says Chee Yoke Ling, a Malaysian environmental lawyer who is also a member of the
Independent Group of Scientific and Legal Experts on Biosafety.

"But the threat posed by the technology to the environment, health and livelihoods of farmers are too high in the midst of great uncertainties and absence of regulatory rules," Chee added.

The Independent Group, convened by the Penang-based Third World Network, has been providing scientific and legal support to developing country negotiators ahead of the Cartagena talks.

It argues that a strong international regulatory system is necessary because developing countries in Asia and other regions are ill-prepared to accept genetically engineered products and deal
with its potential problems.

Activists say that biotechnology firms, which have already introduced genetically engineered products in a few Asian countries, are now pushing for engineered crops to be planted
there. This is taking place with little or no biosafety measures.

A case in point is India, where the U.S. chemical giant and one of the world's largest biotechnology companies, Monsanto, has started conducting field tests on a genetically engineered cotton seed
variety through a joint venture with a local partner.

And while, Monsanto has claimed it has the authorization of the Central government, Indian NGO activists have brought out that the trials were started, and only later New Delhi's authorization was
issued.

The joint venture company, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotechnology, is conducting field trials of Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) cotton at 40 locations in nine states in India. This variety is the first
genetically engineered cash crop to be tested there.

But activists with the Karnataka Rajya Raita Sangha and environmentalists claim the way the tests were done risks biological pollution. Farmers and people's movements in India have made the strongest protests in Asia in recent years against biotechnology activities.

Monsanto denied those charges, and says Bt cotton is successful in the U.S. and other developed countries, and even in China. "If the farmers were not happy with the product, it wouldn't have been so successful," Monsanto officials were quoted to have said.

Scientists wary of biotechnology say that first, genetically engineered organisms may thrive in one place, but not necessarily so in another environment. Second, they say the use of Bt cotton in
developed countries has run into problems.

Also, while Monsanto and others are trying to "sell" to the public the bio-technology and genetically engineered seeds as needed by the South to increase food production, Indian press reports show
that Monstanto has admitted that it has not undertaken such research in respect of staples like rice.

The concentration on commercial crop seeds may well result in reducing the food production and availability of food, some critics in India have charged.

Biotechnology firms are also becoming more active in the South through collaborative research with local institutions.

For example, Monsanto is working with the Malaysian Agricultural Research Institute to develop transgenic papaya. This project also involves Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines under the Biotech Papaya Network for South-east Asia.

"This is just the beginning of penetration by biotech companies in the South. They have designs to expand their outreach with minimal barriers and we need to rein them in," Chee said.

As biotechnology firms run into controversy about genetically altered organisms and products in developed markets, they are preaching the supposed benefits of this technology to developing
countries.

"As long as there are inadequate biosafety regulations at the national and international levels, developing countries are attractive targets for biotechnology companies as this meant less
accountability," Chee added.

But though genetically altered products are not always welcome for many developed-country consumers, the biotechnology industry has gotten support from their governments. Chee says many of its demands are reflected in positions of industrialised nations in the biosafety talks.

Biotechnology firms have tried to narrow the scope of the biosafety accord by opposing the inclusion of human health impacts and socio-economic issues, saying these have no place in a technical accord.

They oppose liability and compensation provisions, crucial to Asian and other Southern activists, citing reasons such as complexity and lack of time for negotiations.

But developing countries want socio-economic considerations to be included, a position shared by scientists who made their views known in a letter to the scientific journal 'Nature'.

Assessment of new technology demands balanced consideration of possible risks and perceived benefits, said John Barret of the University of Cambridge, Chris Giddon of University of Wales and
Julian Kinderlerer of the University of Sheffield, writing together with two officials with the UN Industrial Development Organisation.

All too often, they said, assessments tend to focus on the scientific risks while excluding consideration of wider issues. As such, they called for the biosafety protocol to permit the
consideration of socio-economic issues before the environmental release or transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms.

But industrialised governments such as those of the US, European Union, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and Australia, say it is not right for the protocol to address such concerns. The EU later
reversed its objection to inclusion of a clause on human health impacts.

Activists also want the so-called "precautionary principle" to underlie the protocol -- which means affected countries can take action even despite the lack of scientific certainty about the
effects of biotechnology.

Scientists say this is important because there can be no recall once a biohazard spreads in the environment, especially in Asia where agriculture supports millions of farmers.

Indeed, activists say it was due to the ecological risks associated with genetic engineering that the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity called for a biosafety protocol. It was not until 1995, however, that agreement was reached to negotiate such a protocol.

To critics, industrialised countries' opposition to a liability regime shows that the biotechnology industry rejects any notion of an international legal obligation -- and that rich countries seek
to avoid any state responsibility for their firms' actions abroad.