Excuse me, whose security did you say????

Food security came up during the first discussions surrounding Article 18.2 (a), regarding the issues of handling, transport, packaging, and identification of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). Whose food security though? The arguments that a) LMOs are the solution for world hunger -- Although farmers cant afford to grow them--, b) as a prominent solution to the world's food problems, LMOs must move around the globe freely to meet global demands IS TOO OLD. The LMOs industry has argued on the basis of saving the world for too long, and that old excuse should not justify unrestricted transboundary movement.

The industry major group argues that flexibility within article 18.2(a) must call for documentation outlining a "may contain" LMOs with a list of genetic events OR (not AND) domestic legal requirements. The International Trade Grain Coalition, on behalf of the industry, expressed concerns for lack of capacity to implement a strong 18.2(a) on both importing and exporting parties, thus highlighting that flexibility shall prevail. Why then, is the industry capable of meeting the standards of the European Union -- the highest out there -- but not able to meet requirements under 18.2 (a) ?

If we are speaking of food security in the context of the developing world, we then need to build a strong safe process of transportation, handling and labeling of modified organisms -- if we develop a weak mechanism for transboundary movement, then we are meeting the "security needs" of the industry. Who are the Parties of the Protocol working for then? We have four days left and we can not afford another failure on article 18 like witnessed during COPMOP 2. The time is running out.