reenpeace is delighted with the assertion of the precautionary principle within the biosafety protocol, although they regret that a distinction is made between the different types of LMOs. By fighting for a full and systematic labeling of every LMO, the NGO hopes they can get their aim right.

The first international rule over the control of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was born in Montreal on January 29, 2000. Following 1992 Convention on biological diversity and fruit of many years of harsh negotiations, the Cartagena protocol on biosafety represents a historical step for the protection of the environment facing the potential hazards of GMOs. Five years after the first trading disseminations of transgenic crops, which already totalize 40 million hectares over the world, the international community has finally recognized that the GMOs bear specific threats for biodiversity and human health and that their trading must be regulated and controlled.

The protocol sets "advance informed" agreement procedures for transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs). The importing country must explicitly agree on the importation of a LMO before any exchange can be performed. However, these procedures are less restrictive for LMOs intended for human or animal food consumption or processing than those intended to be directly introduced into the environment, especially seeds. The Miami group has imposed this distinction between LMOs "for reproduction" and LMOs for food. This group representing the interests of GMO exporting countries and multinational food industries, gathers the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chili, and Uruguay. This distinction is absurd and cannot be applied as most plant seeds are edible and it is most of the time impossible to know in advance whether these seeds will be used for food or for sowing purposes. Nevertheless, the protocol allows the States to go further and adopt specific national rules for LMO food. Moreover, even for these LMOs, the precautionary principle (not the recognized risk) can found the decision. These two overhangs of the protocol should be used to oppose to the pressures of GMO exporters.

The public wants to know. The major concessions that had to be made to the Miami group were upon questions of handling, transport, packaging, and identification. As it was shown, the protocol sets different identification rules according to the type of use of LMOs: food and processing, enclosed culture, field cropping. For the first category of LMOs, the Miami group made use of pressure up to the last minute and succeeded in removing the obligation to clearly identify the presence of LMOs in cargos. Exporters of LMOs intended for food and processing will only have to mention "may contain LMOs" and "not intended for intentional introduction to the environment". The final clauses considering the identification of these peculiar LMOs shall be set during the next two years following the protocol enforcement. The pressure made by GMO exporters for labeling vagueness reflects their will to avoid clear and precise identification and traceability, as they are fully aware that it cannot be implemented without segregating traditional and transgenic channels. However this strategy only allows them to gain time facing the public’s ever growing desire to be informed about the possible presence of GMOs in their food and the real practices of the market on segregation. The future of GMOs does not only rely on national and international rules but also on the market’s self-regulation. The consumers of all countries must insist on strict labeling rules on GMO foodstuff from their national authorities in order to obtain greater transparency from the coming negotiations within the protocol.

For Greenpeace, the protocol as a whole is a tool that should be improved. The precautionary principle it establishes should allow every country to prevent dissemination of transgenic organisms, which long-term consequences cannot be appraised for the time. It should allow to restrain the use of GMOs to enclosed areas. It should also allow the civil society to better control decision-making in the field of GMOs, and to progress on matters of liability, damage, compensation, global or regional prohibition on specific LMOs.

The recent affairs of cotton, colza, corn, and soybeans seeds contaminated by GMOs unauthorized in the European Union >Read page 37 just show the urgent need for an international ruling that would allow to avoid the fait accompli of genetic contamination by exporting countries. Regarding this, the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol in Montpellier on December 2000 is of the highest importance. On the one hand, it will allow to appraise the involvement of governments on the ground of biosafety. On the other hand, it will have a decisive influence on the following negotiations on the significant matter of identification. Only a strict, precise, and full identification of GMO-containing cargos will provide the States with the necessary means for adequate decision-making on the field of transgenic organisms’ use and imports. It is obvious that the Miami group will continue to exert pressure to avoid or delay the adoption of rules on labeling and traceability they judge as too restrictive.

Let us hope that the governments of the Like-minded group gathering a number of developing countries in favor of a strong protocol together with the consumers and the public will also exert strong pressure and thwart those trying to impose GMOs to those who reject them. The fact that the meeting takes place in France which public opinion is strongly opposed to the use of GMOs in food or agriculture, and which political authorities have made traceability one of their favorite themes allows to hope that the European Union will not accept compromise on matters such as the need of information regarding GMO importation. Like in Montreal, Europe’s place is beside the Like-minded countries and not on the side of those who try to favor biotech industries.

For Greenpeace, opportunity should be taken during the Montpellier meeting to review the lax clauses on labeling of GMOs for human and animal food and processing which only requires the completely vague mention "may contain GMOs". Indeed, how could governments take any safety measure if they are not informed about the presence of GMOs in imported cargos, and about their characteristics? How could they satisfy the legitimate need for information of their citizens if they cannot get information from the exporters? Precise identification is a minimum requirement to enable society to express its choices about genetic engineering, and to give the authorities a chance to protect health and the environment. If exporters refuse to give this information, then let us refuse their GMO imports.