PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The Precautionary Principle was agreed at the UN in 1992 as part of the Rio Declaration (Principle 15). It states:
"where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". For more on EP@W on Precautionary Principle

The EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection reaffirmed the Precautionary Principle in June 2003 saying the Precautionary Principle "is a legitimate regulatory tool to be used in particular circumstances such as where a risk is identified but the scientific consensus is uncertain as to either its nature or its extent." The EU used the principle in 1999 to halt the application for a genetically modified maize seed because of concerns with the Monarch butterfly.

The Precautionary Approach from Sri Lanka, Upali Newspapers Ltd "The decision to ban certain Gm-foods is based on the "precautionery approach" or the precautionery principle which simply means "not to meddle with things one does not really understand", or "what you do not know could hurt you, therefore be careful". In relation to innovations and activities it is based on the fact that science does not always provide adequate information necessary to avert a threat to environment or public health in a timely manner and to take some measures pending such information. This approach is instilled in the minds of us from childhood through children’s stories, parables and folktales."

EUROPEAN LAW
If an organic farmer faced economic losses, or lost organic status/licence through GM contamination, they would not be able to claim compensation from anywhere - the loss is said to 'lie where it falls'. Equally the burden of harm and/or loss to the environment would have to be bourne by society. In contrast, a GM farmer can claim compensation for a crop that does not grow properly through their contract with the GM company. Insurance companies will currently NOT insure organic and convential farmers against GM cross-contamination.

Friends of the Earth state "Currently there is no legislation to require biotech companies to pay compensation or clear up any damage caused by their crops. If GM food and crops are as safe as the industry says they are, why won't it accept liability for any damage caused?" full story FoE Liability and GM crops (PDF† format - 152K) Oct 2002

THE USA, EU AND WTO
The US plans to sue the European Union at the World Trade Organisation unless it allows the sale of GM foods and crops.

On 13 May 2003 the United States said that it would be joined by Argentina, Canada and Egypt in filing a World Trade Organisation (WTO) case against Europe over "its illegal five-year moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products". But the Egyptian Government says that it has decided "not to become a party" to the WTO complaint. More

CARTEGENA PROTOCOL
In May 2003, Colombia ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Just one more country is needed and the protocol will be in force by the end of the summer, allowing countries to demand proper notification and risk assessment of GM crop imports. Based on the precautionary principle countries are also allowed to deny such imports.
The USA have not even signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, but have been trying to stop all further implementations. More from EPAW on Convention & Cartagena.