The latest flash point over the idea of laboratory-altered food crops and medicines – the Law of Biosecurity for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) was signed recently by Mexican President Vicente Fox to the consternation of environmentalists.
The law is an especially sensitive topic in Mexico because of fears about the impact of altered genes on the world’s original corn species. As it is the law raises health concerns in other parts of the world.
While Mexico has enforced a moratorium on GMO products, the new law puts in place a system to approve and regulate them. That, proponents say will spur experiments and allow Mexico to better understand and take advantage of one of the world’s most promising technologies.
Critics, including Greenpeace, however, condemn the new law as a sellout to profit-oriented industry groups, such as St. Louis-based Monsanto, the agricultural technology developer, without proper safeguards to protect farmers and consumers from unknown risks.
At the bottom of the controversy is the word "caution". Nearly all sides agree humanity should proceed cautiously with development of "transgenics": the transfer of genes from one organism to another, but few agree on how cautiously.
The cautionary principle" is the basis for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a 2000 international treaty prescribing how nations should develop and trade in transgenic materials. It has been ratified by 118 countries including Mexico. The US, by far the largest manufacturer and user of transgenic crops and other product, however, did not sign the protocol.
The law’s opponents say it reflects the principle of promotion rather than caution. They don’t trust the government, which has consistently endorsed biotechnology. Nor many of the scientists who backed the law, some of whom have patents and stand to profit. They had wanted the new law to set out penalties for transgenic producers who "contaminate" farmers’ crops without their permission. They also demand that all transgenic products be labeled for consumers.
As is, the law requires only some labeling. The law’s proponents argued the approval process made it unnecessary and that it would unfairly mark the products while increasing the price for consumers.