U.S. Delays Suing Europe Over Ban on Modified Food

[Guest guest]

From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/international/europe/05TRAD.html?th

 

U.S. Delays Suing Europe Over Ban on Modified Food

By ELIZABETH BECKER

 

 

ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - With war looming in Iraq, the Bush administration has

decided against antagonizing its European allies and has postponed filing a

case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food,

according to a senior administration official.

 

" There is no point in testing Europeans on food while they are being tested

on Iraq, " said a senior White House official who asked not to be identified.

 

Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, had said that

the administration would decide soon whether to sue the Europeans for what

he called their " immoral " opposition to genetically modified food. He said

that stand was leading to starvation in the developing world.

 

A cabinet meeting to consider the suit was canceled this week as European

agricultural officials descended on Washington to argue for patience.

 

Even so, the conflict will resurface soon. Mr. Zoellick has said he believes

that genetically modified food could help alleviate hunger - as well as open

markets for American farmers - and wants the European opposition to be

confronted so that developing nations accept food from genetically modified

crops.

 

But the heated rhetoric of a few weeks ago, when Mr. Zoellick accused the

Europeans of having a Luddite attitude against biotechnology, was muted this

week as both sides stressed the importance of lifting the ban.

 

The question is when.

 

Ann M. Veneman, the United States agriculture secretary, has said that " our

patience is just running out. "

 

Franz Fischler, the European Union's farm commissioner, said that he met

with Ms. Veneman and told her the problem would be resolved within three or

four months.

 

" We do not have a fundamental opposition to genetically modified food, " said

Mr. Fischler at a press conference today. " We are in the final phases of

passing our laws in Parliament and we would strongly advise not to start an

action that would disrupt that. "

 

Experts agree that the United States could win a case at the World Trade

Organization and force a lifting of the four-year-old ban.

 

At the same time, they agree that the ultimate resolution of this case will

rest on labeling - not opposing notions of science - and that it promises to

pit European ideas of proper regulation against American notions about free

and unfettered trade.

 

European consumers have for years questioned the safety of genetically

modified food out of fear that those modifications may have unknown, and

unintended, consequences for human health.

 

They are demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically

modified and has passed rigorous testing. The agricultural establishment in

the United States is just as strongly opposed, saying that once the food has

passed tests there is no need to distinguish it with label that could be

seen as a warning.

 

" That implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified food, "

said Elsa Murano, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food

safety. " It would be another kind of trade barrier. "

 

Industry also complains of the cost. " Labeling is a sham, " said Mary Kay

Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural group.

" It would be so expensive, it would shut down our exports. "

 

Margaret Beckett, the British minister in charge of food and the

environment, said both sides of the argument had to understand the serious

cultural differences underlying the disagreement.

 

After the deaths in Europe from mad cow disease and the subsequent killing

of herds infected by foot and mouth disease, European consumers are wary of

any food that is not clearly labeled and easily traced.

 

" Extravagant claims are sometimes made on either side of the argument, " she

said. " Whether we like it or not, there is an expectation of traceability

and labeling of all kinds of products among European consumers. You are not

going to convince them that GM products should be an exception to what is

the norm. "

 

While European nations agree on the need for labeling in the face of deep

consumer fears, American lawmakers have had a more mixed record.

 

Although it took 12 years of lobbying by farmers, chefs and

environmentalists, the agriculture department last year created an official

organic label to show consumers what produce has been raised without

conventional pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones. The

food is growing in popularity - it is a $4 billion industry - and public

response was overwhelmingly in favor of the new label.

 

As industry feared, the cost of the label has proved prohibitive for some of

the smallest farmers - averaging $5,000 each year - and the paperwork is

time-consuming. Federal officials believe that the process could be

streamlined over the years.

 

In last year's farm bill, Congress included a provision opposed by much of

agribusiness that required that all meat, fish and produce be labeled with

its country of origin within two years.

 

Already, Canada has complained that the new country of origin labeling will

restrict its trade with the United States, especially in meat. In a study

released last month, Canadian officials complained of the cost and suggested

that the new provision should be withdrawn.

 

That is unlikely until the European ban on genetically modified food is

lifted and the issue of labeling is confronted head on.

 

Trade and agricultural experts predict that in the end a compromise may have

to be reached among competing interests within the United States as well as

between the Europeans and the Americans.

 

" The United States is not monolithic, " said John Audley of Carnegie

Endowment. " Business groups may have to yield on labeling while activists

will have to yield on allowing genetically modified food to be sold and let

consumers decide what they want. "