Decision BS-3/10 - Article 18 - para 4 (a) and (b) describes what should be done in case the identity of an LMO-FFP is either known or not known.
It is based on the understanding that - for the sake of Biosafety - Parties want to know the identity of LMO-FFPs in transboundary movement and want to share this with other Parties.
What we now find that exporters can choose "not to know"
"May contain" can - and is - now used to simply include all LMOs of that crop grown in that country, with no intention to determine which LMOs are in fact in a shipment.
This puts pressure on any importing country to approve of all of those LMO-FFPs that are approved in the exporting country. If the importing country has not approved of a LMO-FFP that might be in the shipment, then it will not be able to import this shipment - even if in fact that LMO-FFP is not actually present.
Such an "all-or-nothing" approach therefore puts unduly pressure on the sovereignty of a Party to make its own decisions.
Using "may contain" language instead of establishing the identity of LMO-FFPs goes against the spirit of the Cartagena Protocol. It important that Parties reduce the use of “may contain” language instead of allowing it to become a de-facto standard over time.