{ "id": "RL30594", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL30594", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 104471, "date": "2001-01-18", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:29:12.715941", "title": "Biosafety Protocol for Genetically Modified Organisms: Overview", "summary": "The Biosafety Protocol to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted in\nJanuary 2000, by the 176 nations that are parties to the CBD. Not having ratified the CBD, the\nUnited States participated in the negotiations as an observer, but nevertheless was an active\nparticipant in the discussions. The Protocol addresses a major area of concern that was not resolved\nby the parent CBD in 1992 the safe handling, transfer and trade of biological organisms. In\nrecent years, this issue has gained new prominence and controversy as genetically modified\norganisms (GMOs) have become widely used as agricultural crops, and have become the focus of\nconcern by U.S. trading partners and citizens around the world. While GMOs are widely used in\nU.S. crops, citizens and governments in many countries, particularly in Europe, have questioned the\nenvironmental and health safety of such products, and have rejected them in the marketplace.\n The Biosafety Protocol sets forth a number of procedures and rules concerning trade in\nbiological products, including agricultural commodities. These rules are therefore of key importance\nto U.S. economic interests, including those who develop biotechnology. The Protocol applies to the\ntransboundary movement, transit, handling and use of most GMOs. It incorporates a number of\nprinciples that are still under development and in the process of being defined. These include some\ncontroversial concepts such as the precautionary approach (popularly known as the \"precautionary\nprinciple\"), which is generally understood to mean that if definitive scientific certainty is lacking,\nit is valid to err on the side of caution. This approach is a source of concern for critics, who worry\nabout the erection of trade restrictions justified by using this concept. The Protocol also calls for\n\"Advance Informed Agreements\" between exporting and importing countries regarding first\nshipments of a GMO and labeling of subsequent shipments; and the establishment of a Biosafety\nClearinghouse as a means to share scientific, technical, environmental, and legal information on\nGMOs. Issues relating to these provisions are discussed in this report, including concerns about\ntrade restrictions that might ensue from the protocol, the possibility of burdensome information\nresponsibilities, and others.\n Given the importance of the Protocol to U.S. interests, the United States is likely to remain an\nactive participant in refining the elements set forth in it. A related issue is whether the United States\nis hampered in this participation by the fact that it has not ratified the parent Convention on\nBiological Diversity. Consequently, the United States cannot sign the Protocol and attends the\nrelated negotiations as an \"observer.\" \n In general, the issues related to GMOs and how the Biosafety Protocol may affect U.S. interests\nrelated to them are likely to be of continuing interest to Congress in terms of possible economic\nimpacts and trade considerations.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30594", "sha1": "b71435765fc1cc02c0592bbca5859b536fd8cf0e", "filename": "files/20010118_RL30594_b71435765fc1cc02c0592bbca5859b536fd8cf0e.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20010118_RL30594_b71435765fc1cc02c0592bbca5859b536fd8cf0e.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }