Dear Colleagues,

Here are some preliminary notes from the just concluded relevant 
session of the Codex Task Force on Foods From Biotech in Japan, regarding the US proposal to shortcut assessing low-level contamination by GMOs in food shipments. 
This threatens the process established under the Cartagena Protocol. Michael Hansen of CI, Ryoko Shimizu of International Cooperative Alliance and I Generally concur on these points; we each hope to send out report backs but want to get this basic info out ASAP.  Please feel free to circulate this message to all relevant NGOs and activists.

We lost a big decision and won several smaller ones.  In sum, the situation could have been far worse.

First, the loss.  A decision was made to have a Working Group on Low Level Presence.  We would have liked to see this blocked, but no significant opposition existed to the basic idea except for our 2 NGOs. Several delegations expressed concerns with aspects of the US' original proposal, and we were able to work with many of them, and to make interventions in an "informal working group" held here to shape the final proposal.  We count these as wins:

(1) The title has been changed and the whole focus in two ways. Gone is "asynchronous approvals" ( difference in time) which was mystifying to most delegates and which ASSUMED that the importing country could was going to approve the contaminant (eventually, so let's not worry too much). All qualifiers on Low-Level presence (unintentional, adventitious) have been dropped.

(2) This is the big win--the focus has been expanded to included a 
Second aspect, the requirement of supplying adequate data on the shipment, the contamination, indirect reference to detection methodologies, etc.  The EC was adamant on this point, and we see it as very positive; at one point the EC was forced to note that it was not talking theoretically but from sad experience of having received contaminated foodstuffs and not knowing what was the real situation because there was no available info (indeed, of course, most of the situations were exposed by NGOs, but we were diplomatic enough not to mention this in the discussions).

(3) two important elements were not eliminated--that this document will Apply only to "risk assessment" (using the Codex tripartite division) and NOT Risk management. Countries are free to say no for all of the OLFs etc that the basic Codex Plant Guideline allows. Second, it is clear that if the substance has been rejected by the importing country, nothing in this document allows it in.

(4) There is now specific recognition of countries' rights to 
(i)set thresholds, (ii) conduct a full risk assessment instead of any abbreviated version coming out of this document, (iii)decide when and how to use this document, and also that (iv)nothing eliminates or abrogates the responsibilities of competent authorities, industries and exporters.

There is a long road ahead, especially as regards how the development of any rules in this process would mesh with the Protocol--in particular Article 18 on which so many NGOs have spent so much energy.  We need to have as many representatives of NGOs at the meetings (likely 2) of this Working Group as possible, (and probably many more on the streets outside). I implore Greenpeace to return to doing its fine work in Codex on these issues--you are needed in this struggle.  Those of us in delegations that may have some slots will try to get knowledgeable activists to join us in the deliberation room. The co-Chairs of the WG are US, Germany/EC, and Thailand.

the first meeting will likely be in Washington, late January or early February. A second is likely necessary, and will be in Brussels or a city of Germany's choosing, or maybe Thailand.

Please circulate this note widely, with the understanding that it is hurried (in order to get the word out to you all).

my best,
Phil

Philip L. Bereano, Professor Emeritus
Department of Technical Communication
Box 352195,  Loew Hall, University of Washington
Seattle, Wash 98195 USA
ph: (206) 543-9037 pbereano@u.washington.edu