london

African countries are to be asked to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for a country to export genetically modified (GM) food without first seeking permission from the importing country.

The move comes in response to the collapse of talks on an international biosafety protocol earlier this year (see Nature 398, 6; 1999). African countries had wanted to insert a clause to this effect in the protocol, but this suggestion was strongly opposed by a consortium of grain-exporting countries led by the United States, and known as the Miami group.

These countries argued that a product that has passed safety tests in its country of origin should not need permission — or additional risk assessments — from an importing country.

The draft Africa legislation, which has been drawn up by a small group of countries led by Ethiopia, says that any person or organization intending to export GM food or use GM organisms in a laboratory or for field trials must carry out an evaluation of the risks to the environment, biological diversity and human health. Such an evaluation will also include socio-economic risks, such as the impact on jobs.

The draft says that permission will only be granted if the GM product does not pose risks of “adverse socio-economic impacts”, and if it “accords with the ethical values and concerns of communities and does not undermine traditional knowledge and technologies”. Under the draft, an exporter will also be liable to pay compensation for any harm caused by the GM material.

“No approval shall be given unless there is firm and sufficient evidence that the GM organism or the product of a GM organism poses no risks to the environment, biological diversity or health. Where there is reason to suspect threats of serious damage, lack of scientific evidence should not be used as a basis for not taking preventive measures,” says the draft legislation.

The final draft is expected to be completed next year when individual governments will be lobbied to adopt the proposals. “A few African countries have now decided to take the initiative and introduce national biosafety legislation in as many countries as possible,” says a source close to the Ethiopian government. “We don't necessarily need to wait for an international protocol.”

Introducing Africa-wide legislation, however, is fraught with difficulties. Last year, for example, heads of state of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) agreed to adopt a continent-wide law banning patents on natural products until the World Trade Organization modifies its rules on patenting in line with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention. But so far there has been no follow-up in any country.

One reason is that the OAU has little practical influence in the continent. Another is that trade and foreign ministries in Africa will not support any proposed law likely to antagonize France — which maintains considerable influence in the continent — or the United States. Neither ministry is likely to agree to a set of measures that are a direct challenge to the international trading system.

Countries belonging to French-speaking Africa have already agreed in principle to accede to the UPOV convention (see Nature 398, 99; 1999), which grants plant breeders intellectual-property rights over the commercialization of products such as seed. English-speaking countries in Africa are expected to follow suit.

At a meeting of OAU heads of state last month, Salim Ahmad Salim, the secretary-general of the OAU and a former prime minister of Tanzania, appealed for countries to adopt legislation making it compulsory for companies that have developed medicines from natural products to share the benefits with local communities.