ICTSD Outputs and Activities on Biotechnology, Trade and Sustainble Development

Biotechnology: Addressing Key Trade and Sustainability Issues

B.3 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Q15 Are living modified organisms different to genetically modified organisms?

The Biosafety Protocol uses the term ‘living modified organism’ (LMO) instead of the more commonly used ‘genetically modified organism’ (GMO), which has generated some confusion as to how these expressions relate to each other. According to Article 3 of the Biosafety Protocol, an LMO is “any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology”. The term ‘GMO’ which is used in the vernacular to refer to organisms produced by biotechnology, was avoided as more of a political than a scientific label (see Section A.2, and IUCN, 2003).

The reference to ‘LMO’ however, has raised concerns due to interpretations of the term that exclude products of biotechnology that are considered GMOs from the Protocol. Some commentators, for instance, have criticised the exclusion of “non-living” organisms (Li Ching, 2004). Under the Protocol, an LMO is “living” when it is a biological entity capable of “transferring or replicating genetic material”. As a result, genetically modified seeds, cuttings and tissue cultures, for example, which are living parts of plants, are covered by the Protocol (FAO, 2004). On the other hand, non-living products derived from or containing GMOs, such as milled maize and soybean derivatives used in many foods and nonfoods, and yeast-based foods such as beer and bread, are not included (CBD, n.d.). Viruses and viroids, which are incapable of self-replication but can insert their genetic material into the cells of other organisms and thus reproduce, are nevertheless explicitly included (Mackenzie et al., 2003). Sterile organisms, which can replicate their genetic material and may reproduce asexually, are also explicitly mentioned.

Since “organisms” are generally defined as living beings with the ability to function independently and/or reproduce, it is unclear, however, how qualifying them as “genetically modified” rather than “living modified” would have extended the scope of the Protocol. Moreover, the terms ‘GMO’, ‘genetically engineered organism’ and ‘transgenic organism’ are still widely used, including in legislation implementing the Protocol. Malaysia, for instance, is reported to have signed the CBD only with the written clarification that it interpreted ‘LMO’ as a term identical to ‘GMO’. The EU directives on biotechnology also refer to ‘GMO’.

Indeed, the restriction in the scope of the Protocol seems to have occurred, instead, in the exclusion – for the most part – of processed materials of LMO origin, also referred to as “products thereof” (MacKenzie, 2003). During extensive negotiations on the objective and scope of the Protocol, most developing countries favoured a broad and comprehensive approach, which incorporated products of LMOs. In the sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on Biosafety, for example, Ethiopia, on behalf of the African Groups, argued for such an inclusion. Similarly, non-governmental organisations such as the Third World Network cited concerns posed by products of LMOs, including cases of “considerable amount of recombinant DNA persisting in soy proteins”, a product of transgenic soy beans, which “can be transferred to the microflora in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals, and thence to the environment, including soil and water systems”.

Other countries and stakeholders, however, argued for a more limited scope for the Protocol. The US, for example, was “adamantly opposed” to subjecting products of LMOs to the Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure. Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State of the US at the time of negotiations, for example, noted: “products derived from GMOs are, to say the least, (of) extremely low risk to biodiversity”.

The Protocol, ultimately, did not refer to products of LMOs in its objectives and scope, but they are addressed in Article 20(3)(c), Annex I(i) and Annex III(5), which refer to information required for the Biosafety Clearing House and for notifications and risk assessments under the AIA procedure. In this context, products of LMOs are defined as “processed materials that are of living modified organism origin, containing detectable novel combinations of replicable genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology”.