BIOSAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
An introduction to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol

EXCERPTS FROM A COMMENTARY BY THE NEW ZEALAND SCIENTIST, DR ROBERT MANN.

For the full text Robert is commenting on: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/cpbs-unep-cbd-en.pdf
------

I have just been shocked to find the UN Environment Programme peddling crude propaganda for GM.

BIOSAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
An introduction to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol
by the UN Environment Programme
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/cpbs-unep-cbd-en.pdf

This took me 5 min to receive. It turns out to have far more dud characters than I thought a PDF could have, but its gist is still horribly apparent.

Genetic manipulation is not new. For millennia, farmers have relied on
selective breeding and cross-fertilization to modify plants and animals
and encourage desirable traits that improve food production and satisfy
other human needs.

This is a GM-industry slogan, calculated to deceive. GM is nothing like selective breeding. Current GMOs are made by illegitimate recombination, and any surviving mutant is properly called a GM-bastard. I disbelieve that the UNO operatives who put out this propaganda are not well aware of the huge differences.

Artisans have exploited traditional fermentation techniques to transform
grains into bread and beer and milk into cheese.

Use of GMOs in food technology is novel - and one of the first industrial attempts [L-tryptophan], only 2 decade ago, killed one or two hundred people and maimed thousands. Do the UN propagandists not know this? Mentioning ancient trusted foods & drinks like this is deceitful.

Such intentional modification of the natural world has contributed
enormously to human well-being.

Credit is thus illegitimately claimed for GM from the accomplishments of breeders, brewers etc over the centuries who have indeed benefitted mankind. This type of deceit is morally as low as lying.

Over the past 30 years, however, our ability to alter life-forms has been revolutionized by modern biotechnology.

This term is itself an item of propaganda. The term is genetic manipulation or gene-splicing.

Scientists have learned how to extract and transfer strands of DNA and entire genes - which contain the biochemical instructions governing how an organism will develop - from one species to another.

Actually what they insert is scarcely if ever natural genes. Your typical genes-cassette features synthetic DNA, often deliberately different from any natural gene, spliced with synthetic modified parts from the DNA of viruses, bacteria, etc - all for slamming into illegitimate recombination to procreate a GM-bastard.

Using sophisticated techniques, they can precisely manipulate the intricate genetic structure of individual living cells.

The techniques so far have been anything but precise, crassly blasting cassettes into genomes by 'weapons greed' methods not resembling natural breeding, with no means of controlling where DNA-insertion will occur. Most of the target cells are killed, and most of the survivors are obvious monsters. A tiny minority show the desired trait based on the transgene e.g resistance to RoundUp®. Defects are liable to emerge later in any GM-bastards that *apparently* show only the desired trait e.g producing a modified version of a Bt toxin.

It will benefit the environment by reducing the need for more farmland, irrigation and pesticides. It will also provide better medical treatments and vaccines, new industrial products and improved fibres and fuels.

These are essentially fantasies - but stated as if facts, and no longer with the 'proponents argue' or equivalent. So now we are down to barefaced lying.

For many people, however, this rapidly advancing science raises a tangle of ethical, environmental, social and health issues.

'Tangle', eh? = too complicated to explain.

Because modern biotechnology is still so new, they say, much is unknown about how its products may behave and evolve, and how they may interact with other species.

That is true; but why not also mention actual known harm? And note the 'they say'.

Could an ability to tolerate herbicides, for example, transfer from GM crops to related wild species?

So drawbacks are expressed as hypotheses, questions - speculations. The fact that this type of problem has already emerged on a serious scale e.g among GM-rape in Canada, is suppressed.

Might plants that have been genetically modified > to repel pests also harm beneficial insects?

ditto - Losey's monarch caterpillars aren't mentioned

Could the increased competitiveness of a GMO cause it to damage biologically-rich ecosystems?

ditto

Such concerns have kept GMOs in the headlines.

There are many other well-founded concerns, not mentioned by UNEP.

One new scientific study concludes that modified organisms pose little risk - and then another raises difficult new questions.

This is a deceitful sentence, designed to imply there's no clear evidence of harm. UNEP is also failing to reveal that scarcely any benefits have yet been manifested by GMOs for farmers or indeed anybody but the GM-bastard makers and the DNA-kits mfrs.

Modified soya is found in export shipments that had been declared GMO free, or pollen from modified corn is detected in a nearby non-modified field.

Still no mention of why any such outcomes should matter.

Editors fret about potential trade conflicts

Very funny - as if your typical modern editor is anything better than totally cynical, refusing to fret about anything. This disgusting document was composed by jaded if clever PR agents.

, and commentators recite emotional arguments about the pros and cons of modern biotechnology.

The UN Environment agency won't link readers to, let alone itself outline, the very strong scientific and ethical reasons to keep GMOs in containment (and to get much tougher on the lab containment systems & personnel).

Fortunately, this debate has led to a broad consensus that, while modern biotechnology may have great potential,

What, PR operatives - some loss of nerve? Or are you wishing to create wording you could later point to, taken out of context, in case your bosses ask you in future why you didn't warn them? Nearly all of the claimed benefits of GM are fantasies stated as if they're reality

it must be developed and used with adequate safety measures, particularly for the enviroment.

but be careful not to indicate the main concerns about GMOs in the environment, won't you?

Countries with strong biotechnology industries do have national legislation and risk-assessment systems in place.

These function almost entirely as rubber stamps.

However, many developing countries interested in modern biotechnology and its products are still in the process of drafting regulations.

There is little hope that most of them will ever create regulatory charades, let alone effective regulatory regimes. Some will probably outsource charades to Arthur D Little corp, J Arthur Young, or other transnational accountancy/PR corporation.

And because bio-technology is a global industry,

Who says so? It is obnoxious propaganda to assert this slogan. Most countries have no GM nor any desire for GM crops or for importing GM-food.

and GMOs are traded across borders, international rules are needed as well.

It remains open to a nation to refuse such international trade.

In 1995, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity responded to this challenge by launching
negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would address potential risks posed by GMOs.
These discussions culminated in January 2000 with the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Named after the Colombian city where the final round of talks was launched, the Protocol for the first time sets out a comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs subject to transboundary movement.
In this way, the Protocol seeks to meet the needs of consumers, industry and the environment for many
decades to come. This booklet explains how this system works.

The Cartagena Protocol itself is omitted from this corrupt PDF. I hope some capable lawyers, cooperating with suitable scientists, will tackle the uninviting prospect of finding out why this treaty is of so little use in protecting nations (parties or not) from injection of GMOs. Someone has to do it...

R