More Sorry Than Safe: Assessing the Precautionary Principle and the Proposed International Biosafety Protocol

I. INTRODUCTION Recent advances in biotechnology promise tremendous benefits, including fastgrowing, resilient crops, more nutritious foods, new medicines and vaccines, and even new technologies for environmental decontamination. Yet modern biotechnology also inspires fear and trepidation. Greenpeace International, one of the leading anti-biotechnology environmentalist groups, warns that genetically modified crops "threaten biodiversity, wildlife and truly sustainable forms of agriculture."1 Luddite activist Jeremy Rifkin warns that "[v]irtually every genetically engineered organism released into the environment poses a potential threat to the ecosystem . . . . Each new synthetic introduction is tantamount to playing ecological roulette."2 Some believe genetic engineering is part of a "human siege on the natural environment" and "agriculture worldwide is at risk" from the introduction of genetically engineered crops.3 Others even claim that the "release of transgenic organisms is much worse than nuclear weapons or radioactive wastes."4 Until international regulation is in place, some warn, a global moratorium on the development and utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)5 is required. In the meantime, environmentalist groups continue to protest the increasing use of biotechnology to develop new strains of existing crops. Environmental protesters dumped bushels of genetically-engineered soybeans in front of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's residence, while others engage in "eco-terrorism" by destroying fields where newly engineered crops undergo field tests.6 Like any technological development, the ability to alter living organisms can bring both good and bad. There are potential benefits, but also potential risks. The full promise of genetic engineering has yet to be discovered. For some, the possibility of unforeseen risks is cause for regulation until the uncertainty can be resolved, irrespective of the benefits that reliance on biotechnology could bring. Advocates of this "precautionary" approach urge adoption of an international biosafety protocol-negotiated under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity-to regulate the use and international transfer of GMOs. Calls for precautionary regulation of biotechnology may seem compelling-until one considers the trade-offs. Government regulation of new technology inevitably slows its development and adoption. At the margin, such regulations increase the costs of developing and marketing new products and techniques. Imposing additional regulatory burdens on a given technology lowers the expected returns from new innovations. This, in turn, provides disincentives for research. As barriers to the marketing of innovations increase, funding for research will decline.7 As a result, excessive regulation may sacrifice the benefits of innovation in the interest of "safety." In the case of biotechnology, excessive precautionary regulation could, for example, limit the introduction of high-yield crops, nutritionally-enhanced foodstuffs, or new vaccines. While regulation of new technology is supposed to make the world a safer place, precautionary regulation of biotechnology could leave the world less safe than it would be otherwise. In short, an international biosafety protocol could make us more sorry than safe. Part I of this paper provides a brief overview of the development of biotechnology, its regulation and its use, with a particular emphasis on agricultural biotechnology. Part II outlines the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which provides an international legal framework for a biosafety protocol and summarizes the results of recent protocol negotiations, such as those conducted in Cartagena, Colombia in February 1999, which continued in Montreal in January 2000. Part III explains why the proposed protocol embodies a variant of the precautionary principle and why such policies may do more harm than good. …