Theme 3: Possible gaps - objective of the Protocol, types of LMOs, segregation and traceability, thresholds

Dear all participants

Appearingly, AP threshold and "may contain" seem to have similar concepts in that they have a certain probability(of containing LMOs), but they are totally different between each other. The former is understood with arising from in cases segregation efforts have been taken to contain pure Non-LMOs, while "may contain" is applied to a shipment where contains products for which farmers did not gave special efforts to sort out for Non-LMOs at the harvesting stage.

Therefore, a shipment identified as "may contain" is usually regarded as containing products of which over 90% are LMOs, opposed to one with an AP threshold being accepted as containing Non-LMOs. So, I am of an opinion that AP threshold can not go with "may contain" in an shipment.

Dear Ho-Min Jang,

In that case and even otherwise, the specific gap/challenge for a Party to the Protocol is about how to implement the various standards that it may be obligated to, especially in the context of AP, "may contain" and low level presence, is it not?

Take India, for example: to my knowledge, India plans to become a member of the OCED. When it does, it will have to comply by OECD standards (see http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/OECD_art18.shtml) in addition to all other existing standards that it has obliged to comply with.

This might probably be possible since, in its new labelling rules on imports of GM food and feed, India has set a low acceptable threshold level of 1 per cent (see http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060430&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=3). In any case, India's biosafety regulations are comparable with those of OECD countries.

India has new GM food labelling rules (notified under WTO's TBT Agreement) that specify a low level presence that might be hard to detect in highly processed food (such as Dorito chips imported from the USA) which is what is mainly imported into India: see http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/TBT%20Notifications%20by%20INDIA/Sub_TBT-g-tbt-n-ind-17.pdf (http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/); http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/03/22/stories/2006032200871200.htm; http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060430&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=3 

The gap is in handling, identification and verification mechanisms and India still needs to build its capacity in segregation and traceability (mainly at the ports since bulk shipments arrive by sea: infrastructure, inspection/testing and training of inspectors).

However, for Parties such as Nepal, the bulk imports will be mostly by road, perhaps mainly from India (and/or China). Again, the gap would be the same for Nepal to bridge, should Nepal too decide to pass regulations of imported GM food and feed labelling but it may not be possible/feasible to do so.

For India too, it is practically challenging to implement its new rules on GM food and feed imports.

What do you and/or others think?

From: gunasutra@yahoo.in