Go Slow on Genetic Pact

A year ago, a United Nations-sponsored conference that was called to write rules on the trade in genetically modified organisms adjourned in acrimony and without agreement on many of the key issues. The U.N. is trying again this week in Montreal, but the negotiating countries have made little progress in reconciling their differences. The trade in goods ranging from genetically modified grains to medicine is growing in global significance. It should not be governed by a hastily cobbled deal.

At the heart of the haggling is what is called the Biodiversity Protocol, a document intended to implement the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. The purpose of the convention, which the U.S. government signed but has yet to ratify, was to make sure that the growing trade in genetically altered organisms--such as pest-resistant corn, animals or bacteria--does not pose a threat to the biological diversity of species.

Growing opposition to genetically modified food in Europe, Asia and even the United States has added heat to the debate and split countries into blocs guarding their narrow national interests and distrusting each other’s motives.

Those who want strict regulation, including the European Union and some developing countries, argue that tampering with nature could be catastrophic, and they accuse the United States, which opposes all-encompassing rules, of bowing to commercial interests. Washington contends that U.S. regulations are strict enough to prevent the release of any harmful organisms and, in turn, charges the EU with protectionism.

Still, the negotiations in Montreal are said to be moving ahead in a spirit of cooperation, and that’s necessary considering how much work the delegates have ahead of them if they want to meet Friday’s self-imposed deadline. The key remaining issue is the breadth of the protocol. Clearly, the original convention was intended to cover genetically modified organisms that are introduced into the environment, such as seeds. Trade in genetically modified food is subject to a separate regulatory regime and should be excluded.

Just as important, the protocol also should not serve as a pretext for circumventing the World Trade Organization rules on trade. A proposal, coming mainly from Europe, that countries should be free to ban imports of bioengineered products on the basis of safety concerns alone should be rejected. WTO rules call for rigorous testing and require some evidence of harm to justify an import ban.

On the less divisive issues, such as notification and a host of others, the negotiating countries, including the United States, should be prepared to compromise.

Having a global protocol on the ever- expanding trade in genetically altered organisms is important. But it has to be done right.