|
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
CONTENTS:
____________________________________________________________________________ |
||||||||
UNEP Press Release.
From AgBioView 9 Sep 03 (shortened)
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/pr-01-en.pdf
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the first legally binding international
agreement governing the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology
enters into force on 11 Sept 03. The treaty, which aims at ensuring an adequate
level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology, was adopted in
Jan 2000 by member countries to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
On 13 June this year, the
movement shall be consistent with the objective of the Protocol.,
said Mr. Zedan.
"Because of the sensitivity and contention around some of the issues that almost
made it impossible to have agreement on the text of the Protocol until the very
last minute, some skeptics were wondering if the
Protocol, even though adopted, would ever enter into force. Well, they have
been
proven wrong", said Ambassador Philemon Yang of
Since the adoption of the Protocol, the Intergovernmental Committee on the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) has made considerable progress in proposing
possible implementation measures. ICCP is the interim body, established to
undertake preparatory work for the first meeting of the
Protocol's decision-making body. "The work done by ICCP has contributed significantly
to clarifying a number of issues thereby giving many countries the confidence
they needed to ratify the Protocol and get ready for its implementation",
said Ambassador Yang, the ICCP Chair. The decision-making body of all the
member countries of the Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the
meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, will convene from 23 to 27 Feb 04 in
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia to address strategic and operational measures for the implementation
of the Protocol.
While the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Protocol is implemented
lies with Parties, Mr. Zedan observed that "all
relevant stakeholders: business and industry, NGOs, scientists, researchers and
the media have a big role to play". Their cooperation is essential for the
successful implementation of the Protocol. "I encourage all the players to
take on their respective responsibilities in support of the Protocol". "I
strongly urge all countries that have not yet done so to ratify the Protocol as
soon as possible in order that they may participate as full partners in the
decision-making at the first meeting of Parties, which will shape the future of
the Protocol".
Additional information
(1)
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated under the Convention on
Biological Diversity in order to promote "the safe transfer, handling and
use of LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology that
may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically
focusing on transboundary movements".
(2) 103 countries signed the Protocol by the closing date for signature on 4
June 01.
(3) The entry into force of the Protocol means, in practical terms, that a number
of things will change regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs, involving countries that are Parties to the Protocol:
(a) Under what is known as the advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure, any
Party shipping LMOs for intentional introduction into
the environment for the first time shall have to give prior notification to the
importing country that is a party to the Protocol and provide sufficient
information
to enable it to make an informed decision.
(b) On the other hand, if a Party approves for domestic use and marketing LMOs intended for direct use as food, feed or processing
and these may be exported to other countries, that Party must communicate its
decision and details about the LMOs to the world
community via the Biosafety
Clearing-House (BCH).
(c) Furthermore, exporters must ensure that all shipments are accompanied by
appropriate documentation required under the Protocol.
(d) Shipments of LMOs for intentional introduction
into the environment will have to be identified in accompanying documentation
as LMOs, with a specification of the LMO identity and
characteristics and a declaration that "the movement is in conformity with
the requirements of the Protocol”.
(e) The Biosafety Clearing-House is now operational. All decisions taken by any
Party regarding the importation or release of LMOs
must now be made available to the Biosafety Clearing-House. In addition, the
information specified in the Protocol, including: national laws for implementing
the
Protocol; any bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements entered regarding
transboundary movement of LMOs and summaries of risk
assessments of LMOs must be provided through the BCH.
(f) Parties must ensure that risk assessments are carried out for decisions
taken under the AIA procedure and must adopt measures for managing any risks
identified by risk assessments. They must also monitor and control any new
risks that may emerge in the future.
(4) Additional information about the Protocol is available at the following Web
sites:
CBD
Web site: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety
and Biosafety Clearing-House: http://bch.biodiv.org/Pilot/Home.aspx.
Frequently asked questions are also available at: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/faqs.asp
|
"The lack of systematic research on the
interactions between biology and society is a critical bottleneck in efforts
to engage the public in dialogue on biotechnology. This is particularly critical
given the fact that advances in biology pose new ecological and ethical
issues that are associated with the physical and chemical sciences." Calestos Juma,
2003 |
Muffy
Koch, Golden Genomics cc, 14 Sept 03
The
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety website indicates that SA acceded to the Cartagena
Protocol on 14 Aug 03 and the agreement will enter into force for this country
on 2 Nov 03. This ends long speculation in the sub-region about whether SA
would in fact become a Party to the Protocol. As of today 34 of the 53 African
countries have indicated their intention to become Parties to this new
international agreement on transboundary movement of living GMOs. Of these, 9
have ratified, 7 have acceded and 18 have signed, but not yet ratified. The Protocol
came into effect last week on 11 Sep 03.
Parties
to the Protocol agree to set up national biosfety structures that will make
decisions on transboundary movement of living GMOs and to maintain a biosafety
clearing house of information on these structures and decisions. The Parties
also agree to enforce an advanced informed agreement process before moving
living GMOs into other countries and will, in turn, benefit from the
opportunity to assess imported living GMOs before they enter the country. The Protocol
excludes living GMOs transferred for research and teaching purposes and has
abbreviated requirements for commodities that may contain GM grain.
The
Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has made funding available to help
developing countries develop national biosafety frameworks that comply with
their obligations under the Protocol. Over 100 countries are accessing this
funding through the UNEP biosafety development project. A further 12 countries
are accessing GEF funding through UNEP, World Bank and UNDP to implement
biosafety frameworks developed under earlier projects.
AfricaBio
is planning a workshop in Oct 29th to look at the implications of the Protocol
for Parties, non-Parties and trade in the sub-region. Further information can
be obtained by emailing africabio@mweb.co.za.
BIG PRIZES
FOR SCIENCE PHOTOS Do you have
exciting photographs depicting an aspect of science? Or can you capture the
excitement of science and technology on film? Closing date: 14 Nov 03. More information can
be found at www.saasta.ac.za/science lens
CBD treaty disastrous
Ted Agres,
Scientist.com, 11 Sept 03 (shortened)
The
first legally binding international agreement governing the shipment of GMO
across borders went into effect on 11 Sept 03. The Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety requires that the governments of signatory nations be notified when
living GMOs, such as crop plants, are going to be brought into the country with
the intention of introducing them into the environment. Critics are already expressing
concern about possible trade consequences of the new rules, which are intended
to protect native biodiversity, but the protocol is not expected to
significantly impact scientific research.
However,
the biosafety protocol is only one part of a larger treaty, the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), which also covers access to indigenous plants and
other genetic resources, and so far, scientists and others say, the protocol's
parent document has proved misguided at best. "The treaty [CBD] is an
absolute disaster for scientists," said a senior UN official on condition
of anonymity. "It draws no distinction between scientists bioprospecting for drugs and pharmaceuticals, scientists
conducting academic research, and those collecting samples for agricultural
research and plant breeding. I feel sorry for the scientists. It's a
nightmare."
The
CBD was concluded at the Earth Summit in
Douglas Daly, curator of Amazonian botany at the
Even
local scientists are not immune. Ricardo Callejas, a
biology professor at the
The CBD has also negatively impacted agricultural research for plant breeding
and sample collection, said Cary Fowler, senior adviser to the International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute, a consortium of 16 major agricultural
research institutes around the world. Member facilities hold the world's
largest collections of biodiversity for agriculture, crop-breeding materials, and
gene banks.
"Our task has become extremely difficult since passage of the CBD,"
Fowler said. "A lot of material in our gene bank would be extinct if it
had not been collected in the past. But we're finding it harder and harder to
collect materials now." Collection samples have dropped from about 30 000
per year to fewer than 5 000 as a direct result of the treaty, Fowler said.
"The CBD is both the cause and effect of this mentality."
In
light of all these problems, the UN and the governments of some developing
countries are starting to recognize the need to change the treaty's
implementation. In Apr 02, country representatives met in
GM agreement in SADC
CropBiotech
Net, 19 Sept 03
Fourteen
The guidelines were adopted last month at a Southern Africa Development
Community (SADC) meeting and cover areas such as policy development and
regulation of GM crops and GM food, the handling of food aid and measures to
increase public awareness of biotechnology and biosafety. The guidelines assert
that the region should develop mutual policy and regulatory systems that are
based on either the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety or the African Model Law on
Biosafety. The heads of member states also agreed to develop national
biotechnology policies and strategies, and to increase their efforts to
establish national biosafety regulatory systems. Member states were also urged
to commission studies on the implications of biotechnology for agriculture, the
environment, public health and socio-economics.
(Ed.
It is interesting to read here that the SADC advisors have noted that the
agreement must be based on either the
Contaminated organic
maize meal withdrawn
Two batches of organic maize meal have
been voluntarily withdrawn from sale in the
Fumonisins have been shown to cause liver and kidney
damage in animals after long-term exposure and it is possible that they could
have the same effect on humans. While there is no limit for fumonisins
in food currently, the European Commission (EC) has proposed a limit of 500
micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg). The levels found in the 2 maize meal samples
are above the proposed EC limit and are considered to be high at 4712 and 20
435 mcg/kg. However, there is unlikely to be any immediate risk to health. The 2
products have been withdrawn from sale as a precaution and the EC has been
notified about the results. The Food Standards Agency is now carrying out
further testing to see if any other brands are affected. Mycotoxins,
like fumonisins, are produced by a range of moulds
growing on food crops in the field and in storage. Previous surveys have shown
that levels of mycotoxins in food are generally very
low. The Food Standards Agency carries out a rolling programme of research and
surveys to monitor products that might be affected and takes action when unacceptable
levels are found.
GM fish produce
Hepatitis vaccine
Checkbiotech,
12 Sep 03 (Via The Life Sciences Network) (shortened)
Researchers
in Singapore have created zebrafish that produce
vaccines in their muscles, and they say the technology could be extended to
popular food fish, such as salmon, to do away with the pain of injections. The
only catch is that the fish must be eaten raw, as cooking would destroy the
vaccine, which is a protein. Associate Professor Gong Zhiyuan
from the National University of Singapore's biological sciences department has
successfully transferred non-zebrafish genes into the
fish, so they produce hepatitis B vaccines. He worked with
Prof Chen says the next step will be to test the sashimi vaccine on animals
which can be infected with the human hepatitis B virus, in this case the tree
shrew, a small mammal. 'Previous attempts to make such transgenic vaccines in
plants and animals haven't been very successful, because they do not produce
enough of the protein,' he told The Straits Times. Prof Gong, however, said
that his work with fish, which he believes is a world-first, has the advantage
of producing high levels of the hepatitis B protein needed. Every kilo of fish
muscle, he explained, could produce 27g of it. 'It's also cheaper to culture
fish, and there'd be no worry of diseases being transmitted to humans, unlike
with mammals such as cows. 'We haven't reached the stage yet where we know how
many fish you have to eat for a correct dose of vaccine, but based on the high
levels of the protein they produce, it shouldn't be much,' he said.
But Prof Chen cautioned that the edible vaccines are still in the early stage
of development and will require years of clinical trials before they can make
their way to the dinner plate. So far, a GM animal product has yet to be approved
for human consumption. The researchers envisage the edible vaccines could be
fed to farm animals and fish in their feed. Prof Gong said: 'It's difficult and
time-consuming to give fish injections, so there are not many vaccines
available for fish.
Already, researchers around the world have created sheep that produce human
proteins in their milk, goats that can be milked for spider-web proteins and
other genetically engineered animals. They are also working on producing useful
proteins in other animals and even vegetables. Prof Gong, a zebrafish
expert, has been working with