Who will pay for the damage?

Environmental groups are increasingly getting worried. While more nations are adopting genetically engineered biotechnology, there is no system in place that answers the issue of liability and redress in cases of genetically modified organisms (GMO) damage.

Anti-GMO advocates such as environmental group Greenpeace International have been pushing for the international community to discuss the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the first international agreement to deal with transboundary shipments of GMOs. But putting flesh on the Protocol is proving to be a long process.

The Protocol, adopted in 2000, is supposed to deal with the specific hazards of genetic engineering and institute precautionary measures to regulate the international trade of gene-altered commodities. Up to now however, there is no liability regime to address the potential damage of GMOs.

"An international liablity regime which channels liability to the exporter and importer, would have as its primary objective the prevention of damage, and if damage occurs, it would provide for redress," said Beau Baconguis, campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

Baconguis said that a cursory review of problems with GMOs clearly requires that national and international liability regimes should be in place.

Greenpeace noted that without a system of liability and redress for biosafety, companies trading and shipping GMO products can inflict damage to the public and the environment and still get away with it.

It cited examples in Europe and North America where several unapproved genetically engineered strains of maize and rapeseed were detected in conventional seed stocks

One of the most repeated examples of what anti-GMO advocates consider as the reckless behavior of companies is the StarLink incident.

In 1999, the environmental group Friends of the Earth discovered numerous food products that were contaminated with a variety of GMO maize not approved for human consumption. The GMO maize in question, StarLink, was not approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency for use as food because of scientific concerns that it could cause human allergic reactions. The maize was developed by Aventis, recently acquired by Bayer, and sold to farmers by both Aventis and Garst Seeds.

As a result, at least 300 food products in the US were taken off supermarkets and grocery shelves. There were also recalls in Canada and Japan. Aventis, Garst and four food companies (Kraft, Kellogg, Azteca Foods and Mission Foods) settled a class action consumer lawsuit for $9 million to customers who complained they suffered allergic reactions.

Kraft reportedly lost an estimated $10 million in lost sales from its taco shells alone. Taco bell franchises were awarded $60 million by all the taco shell manufacturers.

Industry observers said that the entire cost of the StarLink scandal could exceed $1 billion. Neil E. Harl, a professor of economics at Iowa State University estimated that the company already shelled out more than $500 million to farmers, food processors and grain handlers.

Aventis and Garst settled a class action lawsuit by farmers seeking compensation for lost markets. The lawsuit sought damages as well as a requirement for Aventis to decontaminate all soil, farming equipment to prevent further contamination. The firms will pay $110 million, but farmers are likely to receive a measly $1 per acre.

Baconguis said that the StarLink incident was a huge mistake made by the genetic engineering industry and added that the incident is just the tip of the liability iceberg issue.

"It was good that some form of compensation was provided. What this signifies though is that an international liability regime which ensures that the exporter of those crops pays such costs is the best means available to deter would-be developers and exporters of such risky technologies."

Another such incident occurred in Brazil. Greenpeace said that until recently, GMOs were banned in Brazil, but for years, Monsanto’s GMO soya was being smuggled into the country and grown illegally. As a result, farmers and exporters are having difficulty supplying the growing export market of non-GMO soybean products.

Environment groups claimed that US firmMonsanto, the developer of GE soya, did not assume any liability or responsibility for its own product. Instead, it reaped the benefits from the illegal cultivation because it was able to sell more of its pesticide, Roundup which was used on the GMO soya fields. What’s more is that GMO soya is closer to being legalized in Brazil.

In Mexico, indigenous corn varieties in Oaxaca and Puebla in Mexico were found to have been contaminated with GMO varieties. It is illegal to plant GMO corn in Mexico. Researchers believe that the possible source of contamination could be from the importation of unsegregated and unlabeled grains not intended for planting from the US.

Baconguis said such incidents illustrate the damage that could be done by the transboundary shipments or movements of GMOs.

"That is why it is important that the Cartagena Protocol be given flesh. There are still so many unresolved issues such as the absence of detailed documentation for imports and exports, no liability and redress regime in plance and no compliance mechanism," Baconguis said.

(To be continued )