Biotechnology Summary
Biotechnology, or the genetic modification of living materials, has ignited heated debates over
trade policy. Innovations in the manipulation of microbes, plants, and animals raises serious
ethical questions related to the commoditization and exchange of living organisms. In the arena
of trade policy, these ethical questions pose a unique economic dilemma: to what extent should
trade policy reflect moral and ethical judgments about the fruits of biotechnology?
Debate on Genetically Modified Foods
The principal cause of the debate surrounding products of biotechnology is the uncertainty of the
long-term health and environmental effects of genetically modified living materials. Though
many scientists believe GM foods to be safe, a small but influential group of researchers
maintain that uncertainty about their effects on human health justifies extreme precaution,
including the possible use of trade restrictions. Some supporters of GM foods agree that rigorous
testing and research should continue but that in the meantime the benefits of heartier or enriched
crops are too great to ignore and are essential in eliminating world hunger and malnutrition.
Advocates of sustainable development are also wary of the long-term effects that GM crops
could exert on the environment.
Agricultural concerns center on issues of 'genetic pollution' or the genetic flow from GM crops to
unmodified plants in the wild. Transfer of genes from GM to wild plants could create health
problems in humans, anti-biotic resistance in plants and associated insects, long-term damage to
ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, and lack of consumer choice.
Defenders of biotechnology often argue that genetic manipulation holds the key to eliminating
hunger and suffering across the world. One commonly cited example is 'Golden rice' which
scientists have engineered to produce extra Vitamin A. The rice has been hailed as a godsend for
malnourished people in the developing world because Vitamin A helps prevent blindness. Critics
take two different stances on these wonder-foods. Some refer to recent studies and statements by
doctors that Golden rice is not a sufficient source of vitamin A. Specifically, people with
diarrheal diseases are incapable of absorbing vitamin A from the rice, thus people in developing
countries who commonly suffer from diarrheal disease and vitamin A deficiency remain afflicted
by both. Other critics reply that 'Franken foods' are the wrong answer to the problems of hunger
and malnutrition, which they claim are the outcomes of distributional problems. Instead of
posing a viable long-term solution, GM foods distract from and exacerbate the real issues
involved.
Patenting Life
Biotechnology issues related to intellectual property rights are concerned with the moral and
ethical implication of patenting living organisms. These concerns are linked to fears that
biotechnology will transfer resources from the public sphere to private ownership via the
enforcement of intellectual property rights. Firms that have invested in the development of
genetically modified varieties want to protect their proprietary knowledge, but many farmer
groups have protested that enforcing intellectual property rights will disrupt their access to seed.
Farmers accustomed to harvesting and replanting their seeds are not willing to pay for GM seeds
year after year. These debates draw attention to the controversial TRIPs Article 27.3(b), which
exempts certain life forms from patentability but requires countries to establish some form of
protection for plant varieties.
GM Food and Hunger
Producers of GM crops argue that biotechnology could be the world's cure for hunger. They cite
the technology's ability to produce high yields, resist natural disasters such as drought and certain
viruses, and be enriched with vital nutrients that starving people are likely to lack.
However, aid agencies and anti-GM countries argue that in regards to eliminating world hunger,
alternatives to GM crop production have not been sufficiently researched. In fact, they note that
many countries where hunger is a major problem do produce adequate amounts of food to feed
their population. Hunger, they argue, is not only a function of agricultural yield; it is also a
function of mismanaged government and a series of other factors, which technology cannot
resolve.
At present there is no international law dealing with aid shipments of GM crops to needy
countries. However, debates over a country's right to refuse GM food aid during a famine are
bringing this issue to the forefront of biotechnology concerns.
Multiple Forums for Debate
There are a number of forums attempting to guide the international debate on biodiversity. At the
WTO level, the March 8, 2004 TRIPS Council meeting saw the nations of Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba,
Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and Venezuela called for greater urgency in resolving
possible conflicts between the TRIPS agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). [1] The Convention was established with the three main goals of conservation of
biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits from the use of genetic resources. [2] The CBD is concerned with preservation while the
TRIPS agreement examines the intersection of business and biodiversity and so there would
naturally be conflicts between the different missions of the two arenas. The U.S. and Japan have
called for discussions to take place in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
forum instead which is mandated to increase intellectual property protection. Meanwhile, free
trade agreements continue to change the intersection of trade law and biotechnology. For
instance the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement encourages plant patentability, a step
beyond that of the TRIPS agreement, reflecting the U.S. desire for intellectual property
protection to encourage innovation. It also and forbids reversion to weaker patent laws once
stronger laws have been enacted. [3]
Current Events
Since 1998, the EU has placed a moratorium on the import of genetically modified living
materials, citing insufficient proof that these organisms do not cause long-term negative effects
to public health. The ban has frustrated the US, the largest producer of genetically modified
crops, and it has long been threatening to file a formal complaint with the WTO over the EU ban,
citing the ban as unjustified and discriminatory. In July 2003, however, the EU lifted the five-
year ban on the condition that all products containing at least 0.9% genetically altered
ingredients be explicitly labeled as such. Despite this move, which would finally allow US
farmers of genetically altered crops access to European markets, the US, Canada, Argentina,
Brazil and numerous other countries filed a formal complaint with the WTO in May 2003. They
argued that the EU's moratorium on the approval of new GM foods violated WTO rules, and cost
their farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues each year. [4] These countries have
also expressed dissatisfaction with the EU's new stipulation that all GM foods be labeled, but the
EU has called the complaint unnecessary in light of their new policy toward GM foods. In March
2004 a WTO panel was appointed to rule on the US-Argentina-Canada complaint against the EU
de facto moratorium on the approval of new GMOs. [5] (See also the GTN SPS/TBT page.)
The issue of biotechnology's ability to battle hunger has also manifested itself in the complicated
cases of 6 African nations, who have banned GMO food aid. [6] Zambia rejected GM food aid
while it was hard hit by a famine in 2003 for health and environmental reasons. [7] Zambia
voiced concern that GM seed might contaminate their local crop, thus jeopardizing their ability
to continue shipping organically grown crops to the EU. The fear that millions in Zambia might
starve proved false and the nation ended up producing a 120,000 ton surplus. [8] US food aid
which most likely contain GM crops had to be rerouted by the UN World Food Program which
distributes the aid. The US has said that it is impossible in practice to keep separate GM foods
from non-GM foods. [9]
Conclusion
Biotechnology and its products have created some amazing possibility as well as raised fears
among many of their potential negative consequences. There is also the moral dimension of
playing with living beings. Nevertheless, the technology and its products are here to stay. GM
foods highlight both the potential and the problems with this technology. Foods like "golden
rice" may one day ensure that malnutrition is never a concern. However, the fears and
uncertainty of its impact on health and the environment have raised important ethical issues as in
the case of Zambia turning down GM food aid while in the midst of a famine.
