GMOs on the March: new biosafety law awaits president's signature.

Since late 2002, government officials have been predicting passage of a biosafety law for Mexico. Finally, such a law exists.

The decisive step was taken on December 14, 2004, when the Chamber of Deputies--which had previously opposed the legislation--passed the bill 319 to 105 with 17 abstentions. Two months later, the Senate--which had sponsored the original bill--followed suit (87 to 16, with six abstentions). President Vicente Fox is expected to sign the bill into law this month.

According to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), signed by 150 government leaders at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, "biosafety" means "efforts to reduce and eliminate the potential risks resulting from biotechnology and its products." As the wording ("potential") suggests, there is no certainty as to what these risks may be.

However, biosafety has an Orwellian function in the title of the new law (Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Geneticamente Modificados).

It does not mean "safety" from products made of biologically altered material (genetically modified organisms, or GMOs), in the sense of safety from a disease. It means "regulating," in the sense of allowing GMOs to have access to Mexico with certain rules and restrictions.

The new law, one of five separate legal initiatives since 1999, establishes regulations for the planting and commercialization of GMOs in Mexico.

Biotechnology became an important international trade, legal and political issue once scientists were able to take a single gene from a plant or animal cell and insert it in another plant or animal cell to give it a desired characteristic. The typical examples given are "a plant that is resistant to a specific pest or disease," which doesn't immediately sound risky or unsafe.

However, from the Nazis to science fiction to modern warfare, "genetic experiments," "biological weapons," "bioterrorism" not only have an ominous ring to them, but they trigger strong reactions of fear.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This is the charged rhetorical terrain in which public debate over Mexico's biosafety law has been conducted, making it the most controversial law on environmental issues of the sexenio.

Trying to educate the public and allay irrational fears that ignore the fact that there is no conclusive evidence as to the long-term dangers of genetic experimentation has been a tough nut to crack. So--environmental advocacy groups say--has trying to educate legislators on the precautionary principles that should be established before taking decisions that liberalize the commercial harvest of GM crops.

The law comes at a time of greater governmental transparency and accountability than was ever seen under former PRI governments. Still, it would have caused less of a stir were it not for the revelation--and confirmation by a Nafta Environment Commission report released last year--that GM corn had contaminated Mexican native varieties.

Due to the considerable evidence that corn originated in Mexico, the importance of maintaining the diversity of native corn cannot be overstated. This is the issue that caught the eye of the national press and made passage of the law a political minefield.

In the run-up to the December vote, opponents drew attention to the appearance that the law served the interests of multinational producers of GM crops. These multinationals were poised to cash in on the introduction of GMOs in this country and critics took to calling the bill "Mexico's Monsanto Law" and "The Law for the Promotion and Gratification of the New Genetic Colonies."

Lobbying efforts eventually resulted in certain amendments. Labeling requirements were established to inform consumers of the GMO content in their purchases, and the importation of GMOs is prohibited if not accompanied by documentation proving the GMO is authorized in the exporting country. A new concept, "GMO-free zones," was also introduced into the bill, while it is expected that the legislation will be modified on a case-by-case basis, meaning there will be different regulations for each particular GMO

"This is not a good law," said Pablo Uribe of Mexico's Center for Environmental Law (Cemda). "It hardly includes the minimum necessary restrictions."

Uribe insists the next stage of drawing up the law's reglamento (operating regulations) is going to be difficult and lengthy. This will include standards for labeling, such as what information must be displayed and where, as well as specifics for the release of GMOs into the environment for experimental purposes.

--Dr. Barbara Kastelein