ICTSD Outputs and Activities on Biotechnology, Trade and Sustainble Development

The harmonisation of measures and regulations based on international standards is one of the primary objectives of both the SPS and TBT agreements. Indeed, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical regulations based on international standards are presumed to be consistent with WTO rules. As a result, the standards and guidelines developed by international standard-setting bodies in the field of biotechnology will be critical in determining the measures and regulations that may be adopted by WTO Members in relation to genetically modified organisms and products.

The SPS Agreement establishes that sanitary or phytosanitary measures that conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations of the following international standard-setting bodies are presumed to be consistent with its provisions: (1) the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) in relation to food safety; (2) the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); (3) the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention for plant health; and (4) other relevant international organisations open for membership to all Members, as identified by the SPS Committee, for matters not covered by the previous organisations, though no additional body has thus far been agreed upon. Of these international standard-setting bodies, both the Codex and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) have already developed biotechnology-related standards and guidelines (see also C.6 and C.7).

An Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology was created by the Codex to develop standards, guidelines or recommendations, as appropriate, for foods derived from biotechnology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology. These standards, guidelines, and recommendations are to be developed on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices. To date, the Codex has adopted three standards relevant to biotechnology, including the “Principles for the Risk Assessment of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology” and the “Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants.” Efforts are also under way in the Codex towards developing labelling standards for biotechnology foods.

At the IPPC, the 2001 report of a working group on the phytosanitary aspects of genetically modified organisms and biosafety recommended “as a matter of urgency” that detailed standard specifications be drafted, in co-ordination with CBD experts, in the biotechnology context. A standard for the “Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms,” for example, was adopted in 2004.

In 2005, the OIE adopted several resolutions on genetically engineered animals and the relationship between the implementation of the organisation’s standards and international trade. OIE members stressed the importance of developing standards in this field. Although genetically engineered animals are subject to the organisation’s overall risk assessment standards, some members raised concerns about the unique risks posed by this type of engineering and the lack of standards for regulations that aim to address them. OIE members thus created an Ad Hoc Group on Biotechnology and asked the Secretariat to develop and adopt standards and guidelines for: research and use of vaccines for animals produced through biotechnology, animal health risks linked to cloning, exclusion of unapproved animals and products from the livestock population and segregation from the feed and food supply, and animals that have been genetically engineered to produce medicines or chemicals (ICTSD, 2005b).

The TBT Agreement, unlike the SPS Agreement, does not limit the sources of international standards that WTO Members may use for their technical regulations for a presumption of not being unnecessarily trade-restrictive. As a result, other international standards on biotechnology become relevant, such as those developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO is a non-governmental organisation that links the national standards institutes of 156 countries. In the ISO, the technical committee on food products, which addresses standardisation in the field of human and animal foodstuffs as well as animal and vegetable propagation materials, in particular terminology, sampling, methods of test and analysis, product specifications and requirements for packaging, storage and transportation, has a working group on GMOs and derived products. This technical committee has developed, for instance, standards on the methods of analysis for the detection of GMOs and derived products in foodstuffs.

In addition, it has been argued that the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, as well as the work conducted by the Conference of the Parties (COP) acting as Meeting of the Parties (MOP) (see Section B.3), for instance, could play a significant role as international standards in the context of the TBT Agreement. For example, Article 18 of the Biosafety Protocol provides for handling, transport, packaging and identification of living modified organisms that are subject to intentional transboundary movement and requires the COP-MOP to consider the need for and modalities of developing standards with regard to identification, handling, packaging, and transport practices. It is interesting to note that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol included a specific request to the Executive Secretary to establish co-operation with the World Customs Organization, the ISO, the United Nations Transport of Dangerous Goods Sub-Committee, the International Air Transport Association and other relevant customs and transport organisations, with a view to developing harmonised approach for the packaging and transport of living modified organisms (and the Secretariat eventually included the Codex in its consultations), highlighting the difficulties raised by the fragmentation of standards related to biotechnology.