Sir

Your article about negotiations on the global regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) omitted much of the essential context of this ill-conceived undertaking (Nature 398, 6; 1999).

It is misleading to represent the lack of agreement at the talks as a “conflict between trade and environmental concerns”. ‘Pseudo-environmental concerns’ would be more apt. The scientifically insupportable scope of the proposed biosafety protocol focuses regulatory attention on experiments of largely negligible risk. It covers GMOs, but no other organisms, no matter how pathogenic or otherwise dangerous to the environment.

Ironically, the protocol would burden with unscientific, expensive and unnecessary regulation environment-friendly products that can be produced by recombinant DNA technology, and which are needed by developing countries.

US negotiators at the talks in Cartagena could have argued persuasively that the proposed regulations lack scientific and common sense, but their position instead focused exclusively on trade considerations, aiming to protect agribusiness interests.

The United Nations' proposed protocol would make GMOs artificially expensive to test, produce and use. According to a US Department of Agriculture study, the prices of wheat and coarse grains (corn, barley and sorghum) could increase worldwide by an average of 2 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. Developing countries would spend more on food and be prevented from participating in technological trends.

Future talks should be based on scientific principles, actual product risk and the public interest, rather than politics, expediency and narrow self-interest.