ISSUE 44: DECEMBER 2006-FEBRUARY 2007

FRONT PAGE | ARCHIVE |

Define 'precautionary principle' to avoid
trade clashes over biotechnology – report

Averting international conflicts over the perceived safety of products derived from cutting edge biotechnology and other sciences requires a better, common definition and understanding of the “precautionary principle,” according to the UNU Institute for Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS).

In a report, it calls for international agreement on common approaches to risk assessment and suggests the WTO dispute settlement system is not the “best way in which to resolve disputes in these important areas of policy making.”

Prepared by Sabrina Shaw and Risa Schwartz, both professional alumnae of the WTO Secretariat in Geneva, the report warns that disputes over biotechnology products, founded in part on cultural differences, are creating a “trans-Atlantic divide.” It highlights similarities and differences between agreements and organizations with respect to precaution – and the consequences of those differences.

According to Gary Sampson, Professor of International Economic Governance at UNU-IAS and author of the recent book, The WTO and Global Governance: "Precaution – not science – lies at the heart of much of the public concern about the regulation of biotechnology products. In the absence of scientific justification for trade restrictive measures, the WTO will increasingly find itself passing judgment on which regulations are ‘legitimate’ and which are ‘unnecessary barriers to trade.’ This will put the WTO increasingly between a rock and a hard place to say the least."

“The seriousness of these disputes and the importance of the technology threaten great damage to international cooperation and law,” says UNU-IAS Director A.H. Zakri. “More and more commentators are beginning to openly wonder whether the World Trade Organization will be able to survive the full effects of the European Commission -Biotechnology panel, for example."

The precautionary principle is a central element of several multilateral environmental agreements, a reflection of past instances of underestimated and unanticipated impacts of new technologies – perhaps most famously the industrial release of POPs, a family of organic pollutants subsequently shown to persist stubbornly in the environment – and the use for refrigeration of chemicals later found to destroy atmospheric ozone.

So far, however, the precautionary principle has not been adopted authoritatively beyond international environmental law.

The UNU-IAS report notes differences between Europe and North America are highly pronounced with respect to genetically modified organisms and labeling of GM products, with European concerns about the risks manifested in trade restrictions on biotech goods deemed “acceptable or even desirable in the United States.”

The report says nations need to determine a common threshold of risk “or, at a minimum, a common practice of risk assessment”.

Says UNU Rector Hans van Ginkel: "There is an important need now to take stock, reassess basic positions, principles and areas of agreement about the precautionary approach before countries initiate a new wave of disputes about biotechnology and the precautionary approach.

"Such a discussion could not be more timely given the recent controversy about genetically-modified contamination of US rice exports, the suspension of the Doha round and the prospect of countries re-examining disputes and grievances in the wake of the upcoming WTO ruling."

FRONT PAGE

© 2006  United Nations University