Unlocking of life's code by biotechnologists is bound to reshape vast sectors of the global economy with significant consequences for humanity
India is lagging way behind in putting in place legislation on ecology and trade related issues that have surfaced in the post-World Trade Organisation (WTO) era. But it is mercifully going ahead in participating and ratifying fresh international conventions on such issues.
The cabinet's approval for signing the Cartagena protocol on biosafety well before the deadline of June 4, 2001 bears this out. Thrashed out by delegates from 133 nations in Montreal, Canada, last January, the biosafety convention is essentially a sequel to the Convention on Biological Diversity and deals largely with the international trade, sharing and use of biotechnologically treated products.
This convention may not, of course, be the last word on controversial issues like trade in products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and human health concerns over the unmindful consumption of such products. But it certainly has made a major advance in laying out a safe road map. It paves the way even for transactions in the relatively more controversial products called living modified organisms (LMOs). However, pharmaceuticals have been completely exempted from it.
Also exempted to a substantial extent are the biotechnologically altered materials in transit through a country and the GMOs destined for restrained use under the existing global "advanced informed agreement" (AIA). Not all those who have signed the document are however convinced that the transparency in the global trade of such products mandated by this accord is adequate.
India, already a late starter in biotechnology, can ill-afford to lag further behind. Considering the vast scientific talent in the country, it has the potential to become a major exporter of biotechnology products.
The scope for the production and global trade of LMOs too is fairly vast and India has, and can further improve, its capability in this sphere. The setting up of mechanisms for safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs, as proposed under the Cartagena protocol, would facilitate fast growth of such trade without undermining the conservation and sustainability of biodiversity.
Unlocking of life's code by biotechnologists is bound to reshape vast sectors of the global economy with significant consequences for humanity. Hence the international community badly needed a convention like this. Transparency in the process of biological altering of products is vital.
The Cartagena convention addresses, albeit only partly, the issue. It envisages setting up of a "Biosafety Clearing House", requiring that necessary information be filed within 15 days of commercial approval of products containing LMOs.
Moreover, it has virtually settled the dispute over labeling of GMO products by laying down specific procedure under the "advanced informed agreement" (AIA) for first-time shipments of genetically modified organisms, including seeds. It requires the grain and product shipments to include the words "may contain GMOs".
A simplified procedure has been worked out for domestic transactions and use of grains and other commodities derived from GMOs. Under this, notification to the international clearing house is obligatory; for the rest, the countries can take decisions based on their own domestic laws. India will, of course, be handicapped in using this provision till it suitably alters and augments its domestic statutes.
