 |
Renske van Staveren (IATP) and Phil Bereano (CRG, WashBAC)
Tokyo (Chiba), March 14-17
Report on the First Meeting of the Codex Alimentarius
Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, and on Related NGO Activities
INSIDE
Last July, despite US attempts to prevent it, the Codex decided to more
formally address GE foods. The primary purpose of this meeting was to
inaugurate the Task Force which Codex established, develop its work plan
for
the next four years, and stake out basic positions and issues. It was
chaired
by the host country, Japan, as usual. Most of the debate was on the Task
Force's mandate and terms of reference. The United States, throughout,
urged a
narrow focus on the safety and nutritional factors of genetically engineered
(GE) plants; Malaysia, Norway, several of the EU countries, for example,
took
much more socially responsive positions.
The first morning, Renske circulated the NGO letter (signed by about
230
organizations and individuals from 31countries) addressed to Codex Executive
Committee Chair Thomas Billy (of the US). This letter critiqued the Codex
summary document which purported to interpret the Biosafety Protocol,
particularly its discussion of the Precautionary Principle, the relation
of
the
Protocol to the WTO agreements and the application of the Protocol to
agricultural commodities. Jeanette Longfield of IACFO (International
Association of Consumer Food Organizations) made a formal inquiry about
the
matter, commending the work of the NGOs involved in writing the letter
(CRG,
WashBAC, and IATP, by name; unfortunately missing CNI). France and Italy
made
interventions also supporting the NGO critique. Billy said that the Protocol
text was not available when the Secretariat prepared the document (although
it
is dated February, the month after the Montreal negotiations). He noted
that
delegates should refer to the full text, now provided in the meeting room,
and
that he would consider having the Codex summary document withdrawn, which--he
admitted--may not accurately give the Protocol provisions. While the scope
of
this victory may not be momentous, the fact that the international NGO
community achieved it, early in the process, is noteworthy in our view.
The
letter was translated into Japanese for circulation at an NGO forum held
parallel with the intergovernmental meeting (see below) and a French version
has been posted on the internet and distributed. The English version of
the
letter can be located at <http://www.iatp.org>http://www.iatp.org.
Issues
The U.S. argued that many of the possible topics for the Task Force presented
by the meeting Chair were the responsibility of national governments and
not
appropriate for the committee's consideration.
(1) Traceability and labelling
Advocates of "traceability", such as France, want to ensure
that any GMO can
be traced back to its point of origin, or at least first point of sale,
to
ensure that any contamination of non-GMO product with GMO product can
be
contained and dealt with and that necessary information can be brought
to bear
on any situation of adverse impacts (perhaps including liability)..The
U.S.
opposed including "traceability" of GMOs , saying that it did
not understand
what was entailed in the term. The Codex Secretariat supported the U.S.
claiming that most Codex members didn't understand "traceability"
either.
France, Germany, Greenpeace etc. tried to explain what was entailed by
the
term
and argued that traceability systems were already in place for non-GMOs.
Indeed, as Consumers International noted, the US government (and others
also)
uses the concept in a number of food contexts (as well as for other safety
measures); hamburger, for example, is marketed under such a scheme so
that if
any sold in a supermarket is found to be contaminated the meat can be
traced
back to its point of origin, enabling disease to be contained by cleaning
up
dirty facilities/changing handling practices, etc.
The U.S. (which, by the way, even objected to the term "genetically
modified
organism"!) has maintained for some time that there is no need for
a GMO
tracing system because the products are safe and such a system would be
too
costly. (For example, these are the same arguments that it has made against
labeling and that dragged the biosafety negotiations out until 4:30 in
the
morning in Montreal.) Greenpeace argued that the U.S. was afraid to deal
with
traceability because it would force the U.S. to deal with liability and
insurance issues relating to GMOs. The U.S. said that the task force should
not consider labeling issues related to biotechnology products since these
should be the jurisdiction of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, CCFL.
The issue of traceability remains bracketed in the meeting texts. France
will
prepare a discussion paper on traceability, including impacts on developing
countries, either for the next meeting of the working group (in July 2000)
or
for a March 2001 meeting of the whole Task Force. (If the paper is not
done on
time, Codex will probably not take up the issue.)
(2) "Other Legitimate Factors"
Codex general rules allow countries to use "other legitimate factors"
(such as
ethical /religious/cultural considerations, consumer concerns, food security,
enforcement capacity, and environmental risks) in their regulations, even
if
these have an impact on trade. It is a matter of international contention
whether such factors really exist and if so what they should be. The European
Union argued, though not strenuously, for a wider focus to also allow
for the
consideration OLFs, such as transparency issues for civil society involvement
in standard setting. Sweden and Norway argued for post-market controls
and
monitoring. Malaysia and others argued for inclusion of ethical and religious
considerations. France was the most vocal proponent of a broad mandate
for the
task force. Not surprisingly, the US took a narrow view.
(3) Additional important issues
Because these are so well known, we will not report the details or country
positions. However, there was "diplomatic" discussion of
*substantial equivalence
*pre-market approval (the US prefers the term "pre-market
assessment")
*science-based decision making (and, therefore, the Precautionary
Principle)
*definitions (such as "modern biotechnology").
There was a lot of discussion about procedures for dealing with risk.
The
distinctions between "risk assessment," "risk management,"
and "risk
communication" [originally made by Bill Ruckelshaus at EPA as part
of the
Reagan Administration effort to contain citizen participation in regulatory
decision-making and to erect procedures so complicated that business could
delay actually having to control its conduct] are--unfortunately--largely
accepted by the international community. (The US now distinguishes something
called "risk analysis" which is a combination of these 3 elements.)
The claim
is made that we must separate out science-based procedures (i.e., risk
assessment), as if these are not loaded with subjective aspects.
The Precautionary Principle is being discussed within the Codex Committtee
on
General Principles, CCGP (which meets in April in Paris.)
Work Plan
The Chair produced an "aide memoire" which attempted to categorize
subjects
raised by delegations. This was re-worked (in a process within which the
US
was very active) into 3 broad areas: Tak Force work (including science-based
decision-making, pre-market approval, risk analysis, substantial equivalence,
Precautionary approach/principle, OLFs, traceability, methods of
analysis/sampling, labeling, transparency, etc.); "key principle,
concept or
definition": (substantial equivalence, modern biotechnology, recombinant
DNA
technique, GMOs); and food categories (plants, animal, etc.). These were
listed and then arrayed against 6 factors: (1)"overarching principle,"
(2)Task
Force guidelines, (3) other Codex committees, (4) expert consultations,
(5) a
working group of the Task Force, and (6) national decisions. The resulting
matrix should be part of the final report, which will be posted on the
Codex
website,
<www.fao.org/es/codex>
Two working groups will operate under the Task Force, open to all Codex
participants. One, to be led by Germany, covers analytical methods (biological
and risk assessment methods); the other, covering everything else, will
be
chaired by Japan.
Observations
The working group meeting in July (in Japan) will probably be quite important,
as will the work NGOs can do between now and then and at the other 2 relevant
upcoming Codex venues, CCGP and CCFL (May, Ottawa). The next meeting of
the whole Task Force is in a year, also in Japan.
Also relevant is a WHO/FAO Expert Consultation, to be held in June addressing
questions such as: what "overarching" scientific principles
should be applied
to safety and nutritional assessment, substantial equivalence, the science
of
monitoring/assessing long-term health effects, allergenicity, and antibiotic
resistance marker genes. This is clearly an important arena.
There is a certain amount of fuzzy thinking going on -- for example,
the
implications (by omission) that there are no short-term health effects
that
one
must worry about, or that "intentional" effects can never be
negative (since
the list of subjects of concern only includes "unintentional effects").
A large number of contentious issues will be addressed in a short time
frame in
a number of different venues. This situation will put a strain on NGO
resources
and limit our abilities to participate. In addition, the world will not
be
static during the 4 year life of the Task Force; as we saw with the Protocol,
our activities, etc. created a different atmosphere at Montreal in 2000
compared to Cartagena just a year earlier. Thus, is seems critical for
us to
network as much as possible so as to share information and strategize;
indeed,
that was much of the motivation for this missive.
A larger question for us concerns the inaccessibility of the Codex process
to
most of civil society. (We raised this point at an academic follow up
meeting
Saturday the 18th in Tokyo, attended by some Codex people, challenging
them to
evolve along the lines of other UN agencies, most notably the CBD).
Perhaps we
need another letter to Billy, with a concerted push behind it (lobbying
delegations, etc); conversations on this point would seem most timely
now.
News accounts have been carried on at least 2 US listservs:
biotech_activists@iatp.org and <label@thecampaign.org>
OUTSIDE
A 4-day "Codex NGO Forum in Chiba" was organized by the Japan
NGO Committee
(about 54 organizations and 95 individuals). The Committee is directed
by our
colleague Mika Iba (of the Network for Safe and Secure Food and Environment)
and the Secretariat is headed by Mr. Kazuki Maeda from the Seikatsu Club
Consumers Co-operative. Among those involved were farmers, students,
consumers, academics, etc.
Just 6 days before the Forum was to open (with an event featuring Dr.
Arpad
Pusztai), the government's Labor Ministry revoked the agreement to lease
the
venue. A new place was secured, at 5 times the cost, in the wonderfully-named
Makuhari TechnoGarden (Makuhari is a Part of Chiba, a new artificial
world-of-tomorrow built into Tokyo Bay).
Following an NGO briefing on Monday evening, the big event was Tuesday's
demonstration. Although timed for the Codex lunch time, the meeting
re-scheduled its break so the delegates would not be exposed to the protest.
The rally and parade were easy to spot, however, by the helocopter flying
overhead and the crouds of cops. Butterflies, oncomice, and Bgh-ed cows
all
cavorted in the sunshine with many banners and signs in 2 languages (local
and
imperial). Phil spoke, bringing greetings from NGOs around the world.
Subsequent days included Symposia, press briefings, cultural events,
a
farmers'
day (with lunch containing on organic rice and tofu made on the spot),
reports
of activities in other nations, an expert panel on the Codex meeting,
and NGO
strategizing. A few translators, a lot of informal usage of sign language,
and
wonderful hospitality made this a memorable political experience.
On the last day, Mika and a colleague were to deliver a statement from
NGOs
and
world citizens to the Codex government officials; as they arrived at the
conference site they were met by a phalanx of 150 policemen (about 2 for
every
signatory!). The spirit of Seattle lives around the world.
----------------------------------------------------
Ms. Renske van Staveren, Program Associate
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN, USA 55404-2505
ph: 612-870-3423 fax: 612-870-4846
rvanstaveren@iatp.org
<http://www.iatp.org>http://www.iatp.org
<http://www.sustain.org/biotech>http://www.sustain.org/biotech
|