General Info
Current Affairs
Archives
Position Papers
Events
Press Releases
Policies
Books/Resources
Facts Sheet
Training
Links

Publications
BioLines Current
BioLines Archive
AfricaBio materials
ISAAA publications

Rainbow Schooling
Educational Article
Work Module
More Information

About This Site
GuestBook

>This is the first in the series of article which will be addressing issues relating to; biosafety, interlectual property right, liability and compensation, critical evaluation of biosafety protocol, and states responsibility regarding transboundary movements of GMO.

There is no denying the fact that modern biotechnology has a great potential for the promotion of human well-being, particularly in meeting critical needs for food, agriculture and health care. Technology has altered the world in such a way that the effects are often unknown and biotechnology like other technologies is associated with relative risks and uncertainties. It is comparatively a new science with little experience acquired and a broad information base still lacking. The risks and uncertainties actually call for a great deal of concern within the ranks of the public at large. The public is generally is concern about the safety of GM food and the introduction of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. Also the fact that genetic modification interferes with nature, raises the problem of societal ethics.

There is therefore need to regulate safety and also to ensure that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are used in a manner consistent with ethical principles in research and development in modern biotechnology. Public concerns are even aggravated due to the fact that there is lack of trust of government regulatory agencies. Therefore government regulatory gencies do owe a duty of care to the public and are therefore faced with the challenge of safeguarding trust and confidence within the public. This is however a difficult task because in most cases, attempts to address these concerns are often frustrated as a result of the low level scientific literacy among the public and also the lack of a general will and concern for the integrity of biotechnology in general and agricultural biotechnology in particular.

Questions involving science in general and biotechnology in particular are generally prone to uncertainty but statutes and common sense demand regulatory action to prevent damage, even if the regulator is less than certain that the damage is otherwise inevitable. This is in line with the precautionary principle which states that "Where there is a reason to suspect threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of scientific evidence should not be use as a basis for postponement of preventive measures". This principle is very instrumental in issues concerning biosafety because it provides the philosophical authority to take public policy or regulatory decision in the face of scientific uncertainty. These uncertainties however create gaps in knowledge associated with living modified organism (LMOS) and their interaction with different types of ecosystems, and to the potentially long time scales over which the effects of certain LMOs on the environment might take to manifest themselves.

According to Dr. N. Borlaug, "the question is not whether we embrace biotechnology. We must. Rather the question is how to maximize biotechnology potential…" And enhancing production and nutritional quality of major crops represent that potential … Therefore; the debate on the use or non-use of biotechnology is a baseless and faulty one. It is therefore needless to place the population under constant fear of the unknown, rather it is important to explain systematically the details of this relatively new technology to the public so that they should be able to choose freely whether or not to consume the end products. It is imperative for contracting parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as per Article 23(1) (a) to " promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOS… taking into account risk to human health".

Developing countries in general and Africans in particular are therefore faced with the challenge of establishing laws within the ambits of the protocol regulating biotechnology in order to reduce the eventual damage which may arise from this technology. It will therefore be an affront to common sense for them to engage into complex and endless debates on whether or not to embrace biotechnology because no matter the situation or outcome, there are always "pros and cons" of any given technology but what matters is to strike a balance. To my mind, the minimizing and reduction of the risks and eventual damage respectively represent this balance.

From the above, the prevention of damage in modern biotechnology occupies a pride of place, for it is necessary to minimize the damage as a result of biotechnology so as to maximize the advantages or potentials of this new found technology. State parties are therefore obliged to prevent damage as reflected in article 8 (g ) of the CBD which requires each contracting party, as far as possible and as appropriate, to establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of LMOs resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, taking also into account the risks to human health. Article 14(1) of the CBD goes further to provide that each contracting party should as far as possible and as appropriate introduce and promote a number of preventive measures with a view to avoiding adverse impacts to biodiversity.

Principle 13 of the Rio Declaration proclaims that States shall develop national and international law regarding liability and compensation. This will as a matter of fact act as an incentive to the liable person to prevent any damage from occurring. There is therefore an obligation to prevent damage resulting from modern biotechnology. Unfortunately, the protocol does not provide for this at the moment, and it is imperative for developing countries to look for adequate means of reducing the damage caused by biotechnology rather than looking for reasons to reject this new found technology if properly maximized will combat the problem of food security.

Tacho Isaac Tabi

CEI/CAM