Furthermore, due to the many other significant public health concerns facing the region, food-borne illnesses often go unnoticed, despite their unfortunate effects, both in terms of human suffering and economic costs. However, the task of attempting to accurately estimate the occurrence of food-borne diseases in the region is truly formidable, as surveillance systems are inadequate and occurrences are poorly recorded in most countries of the region. Accurate reporting of the occurrence of disease as well as the potential hazards in the food supply is needed in order to develop an effective national strategy to reduce food-borne disease and to increase the political will among national policy makers to give higher priority and the necessary resources to food safety programs.
Following five years of negotiationsthe Cartagena Protocol Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the Biosafety was agreed in January The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity, taking into account human health, with a specific focus on transboundary movements.
It establishes an advance informed agreement AIA procedure for imports of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment, and also incorporates a precautionary approach, and mechanisms for risk assessment and risk management. The Protocol further establishes a Biosafety Clearing-House BCH to facilitate information exchange, and contains provisions on capacity building and financial resources, with special attention to developing countries and those with domestic regulatory systems.
The Protocol entered into force on 11 September90 days from the submission of the 50th instrument of ratification.
At the date of entry into force, certain provisions took effect immediately, including: As of Septemberthere were Parties to the Protocol.
The BSWG met six times between and Delegates used the first and second meeting to define issues and terms and to articulate positions. By the third meeting, in Octoberdelegates had produced a consolidated draft text to serve as the basis for negotiation, established two sub-working groups to address the core articles of the Protocol and also formed a contact group on institutional matters and final clauses.
The fourth and the fifth meeting focused on reducing and refining options for each article of the draft Protocol. Despite intense negotiations, delegates were not able to finalize the Protocol, disagreeing primarily over its scope, trade-related issues and treatment of LMOs for food, feed or processing LMO-FFPs.
Unable to do so, the ExCOP adopted a decision to suspend the meeting, which would be resumed based on further consultations. These meetings included spokespersons from the five major negotiating groups: After seven days of intensive negotiations, the meeting adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the early morning hours of 29 January The ExCOP requested the CBD Executive Secretary to start preparatory work on the development of a BCH, and established a regionally balanced roster of experts to be nominated by governments to provide advice and support upon request.
ICCP-1 concluded with recommendations for intersessional activities and synthesis reports for each substantive item to be further considered by ICCP The third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee AprilThe Hague, the Netherlands adopted recommendations on: The most contentious issues concerned compliance, liability and redress, and documentation for LMOs for food, feed or processing, contained use and intentional introduction.
Agreement was also reached on more detailed documentation requirements for LMOs destined for direct introduction into the environment. While the meeting did not complete its mandate to adopt an international regime on liability and redress in the context of the Protocol, it achieved a political compromise that will pave the way towards adopting a legally binding regime, hailed by most participants as a major step forward.
The compromise envisions a legally binding supplementary protocol focusing on an administrative approach but including a provision on civil liability to be complemented by non-legally binding guidelines on civil liability. The meeting also established an ad hoc technical expert group on risk assessment and risk management.
Its mandate is to: At its first meeting MayMontreal, Canadathe Working Group heard presentations on scientific analysis and risk assessment, and state responsibility and international liability; and expanded options, approaches and issues for further consideration in elaborating international rules and procedures on liability and redress.
At its third meeting FebruaryMontreal, Canadathe Working Group considered a working draft text synthesizing views submitted by governments and other stakeholders on approaches, options and issues regarding liability and redress.
At its fourth meeting OctoberMontreal, Canadathe Working Group focused on the elaboration of options for rules and procedures for liability and redress, based on a working draft synthesizing submissions with respect to approaches and options on liability and redress.
Delegates focused on streamlining options for operational text related to damage, administrative approaches and civil liability, resulting in a consolidated text to be used for further negotiations.
At its fifth meeting MarchCartagena de Indias, Colombiathe Working Group continued the elaboration of options for rules and procedures for liability and redress based on a revised working draft compiled by Co-Chairs.
Delegates agreed on certain core elements, including the definition of damage, and further streamlined the remaining options. From Maydelegates convened in Bonn, Germany, for regional consultations and in the Friends of the Chair group to continue negotiating an international regime on liability and redress.
In an open plenary, delegates addressed: On damage, delegates agreed on one consolidated definition of damage to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Friends of the Co-Chairs group then further refined operational texts on the elements of the administrative approach, and extensively discussed additional elements in regard to: The group considered whether key elements of civil liability should be determined according to domestic law, including the forms of damage to be covered, valuation of damage, and the burden of proof for causation.
In closing, the group further consolidated the definition of scope and achieved a reduction of the operational text in this section from four pages to one. The compromise envisions a legally binding supplementary protocol focusing on an administrative approach but including a provision on civil liability, to be complemented by non-legally binding guidelines on civil liability.The major international instrument on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (the Protocol) to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Protocol was adopted on January 29, ,  and became effective on September 11, The international Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety deals primarily with the agricultural definition but many advocacy groups seek to expand it to include post-genetic threats: new molecules, artificial life forms, and even robots which may compete directly in the natural food chain.
To celebrate the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), part of UN Environment, asked for articles on key issues of the Protocol, an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology.
The Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) was established in decision EM-I/3 adopting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to undertake the preparations necessary for the first meeting of the Parties to the Protocol. Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g.
through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods.
Following five years of negotiations, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was agreed in January The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity, taking into account human health, with a specific focus on transboundary movements.