Re: GEN3-1; Fwd
Bob MacGregor (rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca)
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:38:01 -0400
I think the press on the failure in Cartagena is a tad one-
sided/biased. The UN Convention on Biodiversity, to my
understanding, established no legitimate opening for the inclusion
of non-viable GMO products in the protocol which fell apart in
Cartagena.
The countries which supported things like product labelling and
inclusion of socio-economic liability, should look elsewhere to
create these provisions; the Biosafety Protocol isn't the right place
for them.
More generally, and particularly for the issues of broader
environmental and social impacts, I'd like to have _all_ agriculture
held to the same standards as GMO's. As it is now, some
countries were trying to set the stage for compensation for the
impacts of what might be considered a _success_ -- eg, one
which raised productivity and required less farm labour or one
which reduced employment in chemical or fertilizer firms becau
fetched for the major exporting countries to swallow.
The US, as a non-signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity
is pretty bold to throw its weight around like it does, but there were
legitimate reasons for Canada and the others to back off the
process. Its too bad they couldn't just stick to the issue of
introduction of Living Modified Organisms -- which brought it under
the convention in the first place.
(analogy: the US president has this same problem every time an
important bill comes up for his signature -- and he sees it loaded
with undesirable, unrelated, porkish ammendments -- without a
line-item veto, he only has two choices: sign or veto. In this
case (the protocol) they decided not to sign)
BOB
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail