One predominantly scientific society devoted to assessing environmental risk from
products of biotechnology is the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR),
which holds biennial symposia to discuss various scientific and regulatory developments
concerning biosafety and how biotechnology may affect the biosphere, and is particularly
concerned with the issues as they relate to developing countries. The proceedings of the last
several years of these symposia are available online at http://www.ISBR.info. ISBR also
publishes the scientific journalEnvironmental Biosafety Research, consisting of articles,
commentaries, and editorials on research relevant to the ecological impacts of products
of biotechnology. It is available online at http://www.isbr.info/journal/.
Another attempt to consolidate information on the risks of products of biotechnology
and their potential effect on biodiversity, particularly in poorer countries, is the
Cartagena Protocol, which emanates from the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD); see http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/. The objective is “to protect biological
diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from
modern biotechnology” (http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/background2.aspx).
Over 130 countries have signed the protocol, which obligates signatories to establish
bureaucracies to identify, monitor, document and track living modified organisms
(LMOs). The agreement covers international trade of the designated LMOs, which
means viable, nonprocessed products of biotechnology. Essentially, this means grains
and oilseeds such as soybeans, maize, canola, and cottonseeds, but not vegetable oils or
food products derived from the commodities.
One useful provision of the Protocol is the Biotechnology Clearing House, a repository
of information on living modified organisms (which, unfortunately, is defined by the
process of biotechnology, not to actual threats to the environment). The Protocol, now
ratified by 134 countries (although, to date, no major agricultural exporters) and the clear-
inghouse database allow countries access to information on particular GM crops and assist
in making regulatory decisions on the degree of risk to local ecosystems. The portal to the
clearinghouse is available online at http://bch.biodiv.org/. Unfortunately, the Cartagena
Protocol is founded on the assumption that products of biotechnology presents a threat
to biodiversity (see above paragraph), but no evidence to support this assumption is pro-
vided. Particularly unfortunate is the corollary assumption that biodiversity is threatened
onlyby biotechnology, as all non-LMO grains oilseeds and other viable commodities in
international trade are exempt. The many scientific studies of environmental risks posed
by products of biotechnology invariably conclude that products of biotechnology do not
pose any greater threat to environment than do conventional products, thus invalidating
the underlying assumption of Cartagena Protocol. There remains not a single documented
case where a GMO (or LMO) has caused harm to biodiversity (McHughen 2006). This
means that the true threats to biodiversity, the things that have wreaked havoc in our plane-
tary ecosystems over the years, will continue unabated, because Cartagena directs all regu-
latory resources to protecting against hypothetical risks (in LMOs) and no effort to stop the
things that actually cause real harm.
12.4 Conclusions
Most current regulatory systems are scientifically flawed, in spite of assertions from
politicians and regulators claiming that their system is indeed “scientifically sound”. The
scientific flaws are several, and each of them invalidates the entire regulatory structure:
302 REGULATIONS AND BIOSAFETY