On Jan. 29, the nations of the world reached a historic agreement to regulate foods and crops that are genetically modified. But the treaty is only a partial victory for consumers, farmers and environmentalists who want to ensure a safe food chain.

Many are concerned that genetically altered seeds are being widely planted, and modified foods sold, without being labeled as such.

Environmentalists fear that altered genes will move into ecosystems via pollen, with unknown and possibly dangerous consequences. Consumer groups worry that genetically engineered foods could have negative health consequences. These and other risks have not been studied adequately.

The new treaty, called the Cartagena Protocol, recognizes that genetic engineering presents risks, and requires the labeling of genetically modified agricultural commodities that are shipped across borders. It also gives nations the right to refuse genetically modified food imports if sufficient evidence of their safety is lacking.

But the agreement has shortfalls. Bulk commodity shipments, seeds and animal feeds won't have to be labeled for at least two years. And no labels will be required at all for processed foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. U.S. negotiators also managed to water down the wording of the labels on commodities. Instead of saying "contains genetically modified organisms," the labels will say only "may contain genetically modified organisms."

During the negotiations, which took place in Montreal, two clear factions emerged. One was composed of major food-exporting countries -- the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile and Uruguay. Each of these nations has a strong biotechnology sector. But members of the European Union and Third World nations tend to be skeptical of biotechnology. This second group succeeded in including a clause in the protocol known as the "precautionary principle." The principle allows countries to ban genetically modified organisms, even without scientific certainty of their danger.

The United States tried to make the protocol subordinate to the World Trade Organization, where free trade and corporate profits take clear precedence over health and environmental concerns. While this proposal was defeated, the final language is ambiguous, stating only that the protocol and the WTO will be "mutually supportive." Exporters of genetically modified foods will still be free to use the WTO to challenge countries that try to block imports, though only on the basis of so-called sound science.

Despite its pitfalls, the biosafety protocol does signify that the balance of forces has shifted. The genetic engineering industry is on the defensive. The massive WTO demonstrations in Seattle late last year awakened government officials around the world to the concerns of farmers, consumers and environmentalists. Officials could not simply ignore them.

If this movement continues to build, we may yet achieve our demand for the right to safe and nutritious food for all.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **