ABSTRACT
The ‘living modified organism’ (LMO) was introduced because the United States of America fervently held the view that only the final organism, not the process by which it had been modified, posed a potential risk to biodiversity. Hence a reference to genetically modified organisms was inappropriate. Thus, the scope of what a protocol should regulate was a matter of dispute right from the beginning. The chairman’s text for Biosafety Working Group-6 contained a mechanism for exemptions from the scope of the protocol, but it did not include specific cases. Intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for contained use were covered by the articles on definitions; unintentional transboundary movements; handling, transport, packaging and identification; and information-sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House. The European position was criticized by some Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries for being inconsistent with its proposal to include effects on human health in the overall scope.
