After a controversial entry into cotton, international corporations promoting Genetically Modified crops are trying to expand their reach into food. The promised benefits would appear compelling in an era of food shortages and low productivity, but the uncertainty about their wider impact on human health and the environment underscores the need for strong biosafety regulations. Progress in strengthening biosafety has been slow. That has not, however, prevented the unregula ted spread of GM crops. Countries such as Brazil have been presented with a fait accompli, forcing them to regularise their cultivation. Considering the absence of data from long-term studies, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was evolved five years ago to help member countries monitor transboundary movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). But the protocol has not made much headway in realising its goal of creating a legally binding instrument for liability and redress, in situations where use of GMOs results in potential harm to people or the environment. At the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol held in Bonn from May 12 to 16, progress on the issue was limited to laying out a road map to 2010, when the liability and redress instrument will be discussed. This tardy pace stands in contrast to the aggressive global promotion of GM crops. The recent finding of the Japan-based UN University Institute of Advanced Studies that the 100 countries participating in the Cartagena Protocol do not have the training necessary for implementing biosafety regulations underscores the scale of the problem. Genetic modification of crops relies on introducing genes from unrelated organisms into a crop species to produce traits such as pest resistance, which cannot conceivably be produced through traditional breeding methods. Cotton spliced with a toxin-producing bacterial gene to resist the bollworm pest is an example. But the hidden environmental effects of such manipulation