«  
  »

The Critical Role of Civil Society in Biosafety

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 

Dear Friends and Colleagues 

Re: The critical role of civil society in biosafety 

The latest issue of ‘Biosafety Protocol News’, a magazine on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, focuses on the tenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Cartagena Protocol. 

The contribution from Third World Network (TWN) underlines the need for civil society to gain access to relevant information in order to raise public awareness and promote public participation in decision-making processes regarding LMOs. It also outlines the critical role that civil society has played and continues to play in global and national biosafety discussions, as well as the challenges that remain.

We reproduce below the TWN article. The full magazine is available at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/outreach/newsletter/bpn-11.pdf 

With best wishes, 

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Websites: : www.twn.my, www.biosafety-info.net

To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net 

Civil society helps promote safety in the use of biotechnology: Third World Network 

by Lim Li Ching

Researcher, Third World Network 

From the early days of modern biotechnology, civil society has actively and consistently raised concerns about the environmental, health and socio-economic risks of genetic engineering and its products. Many non-governmental organizations, farmers’ organizations and indigenous peoples’ organizations have been active in raising public awareness. They have collaborated with scientists engaged in biosafety research by holding campaigns to increase public awareness, education and participation as well as informing policy makers. 

The efforts of civil society have helped to shape international regulatory frameworks and policies regarding living modified organisms (LMOs), commonly known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Information from civil society and scientists helped to shape the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, including the provision on public awareness and participation (Article 23). It also encouraged industry to actively participate in the discussions. 

Notable civil society contributions include the existing international de facto moratorium on field testing or commercial use of genetic use restriction technology (GURTs). Because GURTs aim to restrict the use of genetic material and their related traits, they are seen as impinging upon the rights of farmers [1]. 

In 1999, in response to an avalanche of public opposition, two of the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations, Monsanto and AstraZeneca (currently Syngenta), publicly committed themselves to not commercialize “Terminator” seeds. Continued public pressure also led the former Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to publicly declare FAO’s opposition to “Terminator Technology” as a threat to food security [2]. As a result, several countries, including India and Brazil, currently have legislation prohibiting the use of “Terminator Technology”. 

Today, the role of civil society is just as important in implementing the Protocol because governments need expertise from the public (e.g. indigenous people, farmers, scientists, social scientists, ecologists, health workers, lawyers) who may not be part of the formal decision- making process on LMOs. Civil society can help to ensure a public-peer review by designing and establishing biosafety systems, including procedures for risk assessment and risk management, collective decision-making on LMOs and vigilant monitoring (e.g. monitoring of unintended impacts of LMOs). 

In addition, the Protocol’s provision on public participation requires governments to consult the public in the decision- making process on LMOs. Apart from participating directly in consultation exercises, civil society can help to mobilize the public, particularly sections of the public that are more marginalized, to participate in the decision-making process on LMOs. 

For example, in early 2010, India, in the national consultation on Bt brinjal, organized seven public meetings. By doing so it experienced unprecedented participation by a wide range of stakeholders, including almost 8,000 people from different sectors of society. Civil society played a crucial role in mobilizing participation, raising awareness and engaging independent scientists to highlight biosafety concerns. As a result, the Minister of Environment endorsed the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal was set in place until independent scientific studies determine, to the satisfaction of both the public and other relevant stakeholders, that its use is safe in terms of long-term impacts on human health and the environment. 

Current Perspective 

While civil society continues to contribute to promoting safety in the use of modern biotechnology, including in the adoption of precautionary measures, many challenges remain. First, civil society is often at a disadvantage in terms of resources and political influence compared to the proponents of genetic engineering that include some of the largest multinational corporations in the world. Despite these constraints, civil society continues to contribute positively to biosafety discussions at the national and international level. 

Access to information is another critical aspect. Experience demonstrates that if the public has access to credible science and information, it can easily be engaged and make informed decisions regarding LMOs. However, civil society does not always have access to information including raw scientific data. Such information is often withheld on the grounds that it is confidential which impedes ensuring the safety of modern biotechnology. For example, scientific data on GM maize (MON 863) was initially kept confidential but Greenpeace brought the issue to court and Monsanto was ordered to divulge the information. Once the data was made available to civil society and independent scientists for scrutiny, a re-analysis of the data came to very different conclusions than that of the developer, Monsanto. For example, indications of hepatorenal toxicity led to a review of the data by several Competent National Authorities. While the findings and significance of the re-analysis have been debated, important independent scientific scrutiny was made possible through the efforts of civil society and concerned scientists. 

Access to information is also necessary for meaningful public participation. To participate fully in the decision-making processes on LMOs, there needs to be proper channels and possibilities for participation. A clear decision- making process regarding LMOs includes: what has (or has not) been taken into account and why; regular feedback to those who participate; and, open and respectful attitudes by all concerned. Finally, there is a need for a democratic, transparent and accountable decision-making process regarding LMOs. A committed and watchful civil society will ensure better decisions regarding biosafety issues and clearer ways forward for a sustainable planet. 

Endnotes: 

[1] The de facto moratorium was adopted by the Convention’s fifth governing body meeting in 2000. At the time, civil society played a big role with the ETC Group (formerly RAFI) first discovering patents on the technology in 1998 and then alerting the global community. It coined the term “Terminator Technology” to raise awareness and promote the need for a global ban on the technology.

[2] A letter-writing campaign by the Global Response, a US-based non-profit organization, saw 4,000 of its members in forty countries writing to FAO on the issue.

 

August 20th, 2013 | Category: Public Participation
«  
  »

The Critical Role of Civil Society in Biosafety

Civil society helps promote safety in the use of biotechnology: Third World Network 

by Lim Li Ching

Researcher, Third World Network 

From the early days of modern biotechnology, civil society has actively and consistently raised concerns about the environmental, health and socio-economic risks of genetic engineering and its products. Many non-governmental organizations, farmers’ organizations and indigenous peoples’ organizations have been active in raising public awareness. They have collaborated with scientists engaged in biosafety research by holding campaigns to increase public awareness, education and participation as well as informing policy makers. 

The efforts of civil society have helped to shape international regulatory frameworks and policies regarding living modified organisms (LMOs), commonly known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Information from civil society and scientists helped to shape the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, including the provision on public awareness and participation (Article 23). It also encouraged industry to actively participate in the discussions. 

Notable civil society contributions include the existing international de facto moratorium on field testing or commercial use of genetic use restriction technology (GURTs). Because GURTs aim to restrict the use of genetic material and their related traits, they are seen as impinging upon the rights of farmers [1]. 

In 1999, in response to an avalanche of public opposition, two of the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations, Monsanto and AstraZeneca (currently Syngenta), publicly committed themselves to not commercialize “Terminator” seeds. Continued public pressure also led the former Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to publicly declare FAO’s opposition to “Terminator Technology” as a threat to food security [2]. As a result, several countries, including India and Brazil, currently have legislation prohibiting the use of “Terminator Technology”. 

Today, the role of civil society is just as important in implementing the Protocol because governments need expertise from the public (e.g. indigenous people, farmers, scientists, social scientists, ecologists, health workers, lawyers) who may not be part of the formal decision- making process on LMOs. Civil society can help to ensure a public-peer review by designing and establishing biosafety systems, including procedures for risk assessment and risk management, collective decision-making on LMOs and vigilant monitoring (e.g. monitoring of unintended impacts of LMOs). 

In addition, the Protocol’s provision on public participation requires governments to consult the public in the decision- making process on LMOs. Apart from participating directly in consultation exercises, civil society can help to mobilize the public, particularly sections of the public that are more marginalized, to participate in the decision-making process on LMOs. 

For example, in early 2010, India, in the national consultation on Bt brinjal, organized seven public meetings. By doing so it experienced unprecedented participation by a wide range of stakeholders, including almost 8,000 people from different sectors of society. Civil society played a crucial role in mobilizing participation, raising awareness and engaging independent scientists to highlight biosafety concerns. As a result, the Minister of Environment endorsed the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal was set in place until independent scientific studies determine, to the satisfaction of both the public and other relevant stakeholders, that its use is safe in terms of long-term impacts on human health and the environment. 

Current Perspective 

While civil society continues to contribute to promoting safety in the use of modern biotechnology, including in the adoption of precautionary measures, many challenges remain. First, civil society is often at a disadvantage in terms of resources and political influence compared to the proponents of genetic engineering that include some of the largest multinational corporations in the world. Despite these constraints, civil society continues to contribute positively to biosafety discussions at the national and international level. 

Access to information is another critical aspect. Experience demonstrates that if the public has access to credible science and information, it can easily be engaged and make informed decisions regarding LMOs. However, civil society does not always have access to information including raw scientific data. Such information is often withheld on the grounds that it is confidential which impedes ensuring the safety of modern biotechnology. For example, scientific data on GM maize (MON 863) was initially kept confidential but Greenpeace brought the issue to court and Monsanto was ordered to divulge the information. Once the data was made available to civil society and independent scientists for scrutiny, a re-analysis of the data came to very different conclusions than that of the developer, Monsanto. For example, indications of hepatorenal toxicity led to a review of the data by several Competent National Authorities. While the findings and significance of the re-analysis have been debated, important independent scientific scrutiny was made possible through the efforts of civil society and concerned scientists. 

Access to information is also necessary for meaningful public participation. To participate fully in the decision-making processes on LMOs, there needs to be proper channels and possibilities for participation. A clear decision- making process regarding LMOs includes: what has (or has not) been taken into account and why; regular feedback to those who participate; and, open and respectful attitudes by all concerned. Finally, there is a need for a democratic, transparent and accountable decision-making process regarding LMOs. A committed and watchful civil society will ensure better decisions regarding biosafety issues and clearer ways forward for a sustainable planet. 

Endnotes: 

[1] The de facto moratorium was adopted by the Convention’s fifth governing body meeting in 2000. At the time, civil society played a big role with the ETC Group (formerly RAFI) first discovering patents on the technology in 1998 and then alerting the global community. It coined the term “Terminator Technology” to raise awareness and promote the need for a global ban on the technology.

[2] A letter-writing campaign by the Global Response, a US-based non-profit organization, saw 4,000 of its members in forty countries writing to FAO on the issue.

August 20th, 2013 | Category: Key Regulatory Issues
articles post