| Scare
over GM food
A QUARTER of randomly selected baby food and milk products in
Thai supermarkets has tested positive for genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs), according to Greenpeace activists who picketed
food multinational Nestle's Bangkok headquarters last week. Such
food products contain organisms that have been modified
genetically by the use of advanced technology. This incident is
symptomatic of the uptick in activity of Asian non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) over the regulation of GMOs. Heretofore,
activists in this issue have been outspoken mainly in Western
Europe. By comparison, even in the United States, both NGOs and
the government have been quite lackadaisical where
genetically-modified food products are concerned.
The Thai NGO activists say Asians are being treated as
'second-class consumers' compared to European markets, where
GMO-free labelling is being widely adopted. This sentiment is
understandable. When grassroots organisations express such
concerns, what is articulated is often a proxy for economic,
social and moral issues. These include misgivings about trade
imbalance and domination by Western multinational corporations,
fears that the corporate quest for profit will override health
considerations, the plight of small farmers, a mistrust of
science, the erosion of trust in regulatory authorities, the
desire for greater consumer choice and participation in decision
making, as well as moral misgivings about the manipulation of
living things. In other words, public concerns, as expressed by
such NGOs, extend well beyond environmental and health hazards.
Yet, policies intended to allay public concern are usually
crafted based on technical studies of risk. Unsurprisingly, many
of such policies often fail to resolve underlying concerns which
may be culturally and religiously conditioned. This suggests the
need for a broader and more inclusive conversation. That is,
because GMO regulation is international in scope, it is an
important test of the capacities of the international regulatory
order for the globalisation of risk assessment and management.
But an equally-important consideration is for that regulation to
take into account potentially-competing societal interests, the
divergent views of different nations and groups; and, their
different cultural and religious concerns.
Last year, parties to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity
adopted a first protocol to that convention to address the
international movement of certain GMOs. Once that comes into
force, it will require prior notification to importing countries
of international movements of GMO crops and other living
organisms, with prior risk assessment as well. The protocol
recognises the right of importing countries to bar the
importation of such organisms or to regulate them, consistent
with international trade law. While not directly regulating the
movement of food products containing or derived from GMOs per
se, the protocol provides that they must be identified with the
label: 'May contain living modified organisms'. This could well
be the last line of defence for less developed nations too poor
to adopt technologies to test foods for GMOs. The protocol,
which will undoubtedly emerge as a central forum for addressing
the international regulatory debates over GMOs, is to be
welcome. But given the loss of confidence in the ability of
existing international institutions to resolve similar
controversies, it behoves the main movers to proceed with
alacrity tempered with cultural sensitivity .
|
