Challenges from pathogens, pests, and the climate fuel perpetual efforts to develop new crops with mixed traits. When a fungus decimated maize grown in the southern United States, for example, plant breeders devised a way to defeat the pathogen with a natural resistance trait harbored within a variety of African maize. To combat yellow dwarf disease in U.S. barley varieties, researchers harvested resistance genes from Ethiopian plants, while genes from plants originating in the Caucasus and Spain provided the keys for resisting rust disease in U.S. commercial wheat varieties.

Plant breeders can perform these feats of agricultural innovation because they can select traits from a wealth of genetic resources. And since no single country has the full range of naturally occurring genetic resources, the collection and exchange of germplasm requires international cooperation. Yet not every nation considers this exchange equitable. Accusations of biopiracy often arise from countries in tropical and subtropical regions, which possess the majority of the world's agricultural genetic diversity. At the same time, changing land use practices within these countries lead to the loss of uncollected genetic resources. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimates that about three quarters of the genetic diversity found in agricultural crops has vanished over the last century.

These concerns inspired the creation of the UN's International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, an agreement adopted after seven years of negotiations by delegates from 116 nations. Although drafted in November 2001, the Treaty only came into force on June 29, ninety days after forty governments ratified it. José Esquinas-Alcázar, secretary of FAO's Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, told BBC News Online that the "treaty will ensure the conservation and availability of raw material for agriculture."

The agreement requires each contracting party to explore and conserve its plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Parties can work toward this objective by surveying their genetic resources and assessing any threats, and by promoting both in situ conservation and the compilation of genetic resources for preservation in public collections.

The treaty also mandates that contracting parties develop and maintain measures to advance the sustainable use of plant genetic resources. Examples of such measures include extending the genetic base of crops available to farmers and supporting plant breeding efforts that strengthen the capacity to develop varieties adapted to particular ecological conditions.

Under the Treaty, countries agree to establish a Multilateral System to facilitate access to plant genetic material and to share the benefits. The Multilateral System applies to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in the first annex of the Treaty that are under the control of the contracting parties and in the public domain. The 35 itemized food crops and 29 forage crops "represent most of the important food crops on which countries rely," says Esquinas-Alcázar. According to one estimate, the Treaty's annex lists crops representing 80 percent of the world's calorie intake. The 600,000 sample gene bank collection held by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research will also be administered under the Treaty.

Restrictions apply to the use of these genetic resources. The material must be used to promote conservation, research, breeding, and training for food and agriculture. Any use of genetic material for chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial applications falls outside the scope of the Treaty. If an entity incorporates material accessed from the Multilateral System into a commercial food or agricultural product and does not permit others to use the product without restriction for research and breeding, then the Treaty requires payment of an equitable share of any resulting monetary benefits.

The FAO asserts that the Treaty benefits agricultural research because the Multilateral System will reduce transaction costs for the exchange of plant genetic material between countries. That is, researchers will no longer have to negotiate bilateral agreements with each donor country to obtain germplasm.

But before the Treaty can facilitate any transfer of plant genetic material from its germplasm clearinghouse, the countries that ratified the agreement must decide about conditions for access and benefit-sharing, details that will be embodied in a standard material transfer agreement. Conditions recited in this key document will also determine whether the United States will ratify the Treaty.

At least one mystery resides within the Treaty. Article 12 states that "recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit the facilitated access to the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the Multilateral System." Even delegates involved in the drafting of the document could not agree about the meaning of this statement.

It might have been the eruption of biopiracy complaints that motivated the inclusion of the ambiguous passage. During the drafting of the Treaty, protests from India provoked the revocation of a U.S. patent covering a use of turmeric and a European patent on a compound derived from the Neem tree, while South American activists prompted the withdrawal of a U.S. patent on an ayahuasca vine variety. In 2001 alone, India, Pakistan, and Thailand voiced grievances about a U.S. patent on a type of basmati rice, and Mexico protested a U.S. patent on yellow beans.

A copy of the Treaty is available from the FAO website (http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm).

Labeling Food as Genetically Modified and Living Modified Organisms as Pests
In June the Codex Alimentarius Commission released its report of the 32nd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. The delegates generally supported the establishment of guidelines for end-use labeling—the labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering that have a significant change in composition, nutrient content, or intended use.

Production labeling was met with less enthusiasm. Certain delegates, including the U.S. delegation, asserted that consumers would perceive labeling based solely on the method of production as a safety warning. The Canadian delegation argued that method of production labeling fails to comply with Codex's own rule: only factors accepted worldwide should be taken into account as a basis for decision-making. A copy of the report can be obtained from the website of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/).

On June 1, the FAO published new guidelines for determining if a living modified organism (LMO) poses a hazard to plants. About 130 countries have adopted this assessment standard, which focuses on the risk that a foreign gene may transform a plant into a weed. The document also offers advice for determining whether genetically modified insects, fungi, or bacteria could harm plant ecosystems. If authorities deem an LMO a threat, then they can decide whether to prohibit or restrict its import and domestic use. The website of the International Plant Protection Convention offers a copy of the guidelines, entitled "Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms" (http://www.ippc.int/).

Selected References

Anonymous. (2004) Plant gene treaty becomes law. BBC News. June 29, 2004. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3849489.stm.

Fowler C. (2003) The status of public and proprietary germplasm and information: An assessment of recent developments at FAO. IP Strategy Today, No. 7-2003. Available at: http://www.biodevelopments.org/.

Sullivan SN. (2004) Plant genetic resources and the law. Past, present, and future. Plant Physiology, 135: 10-15.

Phillip B.C. Jones, PhD., J.D.
Spokane, Washington
PhillJones@nasw.org