Fwd: U.S. has filed WTO case against EU

[Guest guest]

News Update from The Campaign <newsupdate wrote:Wed, 14

May 2003 03:25:34 -0700

News Update from The Campaign

U.S. has filed WTO case against EU

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

It's official. In a move that may trigger a new trade war, U.S. Trade

Representative Robert Zoellick and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman

announced on Tuesday that the United States will file a World Trade

Organization (WTO) case against the European Union (EU) over its

moratorium on genetically engineered foods.

 

Joining the United States in the WTO case against the EU are Argentina,

Canada, and Egypt. Joining the case as third parties are Australia,

Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and

Uruguay.

 

You can watch the 58-minute press conference where Zoellick and Veneman

announced the WTO challenge if you have Real Player on your computer.

Here is a link to the video:

http://www.ocav.usda.gov:8080/ramgen/secy/sec051303.rm

 

Or you can read the transcript of the press conference at the following

web page:

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/05/0157.htm

 

When reporters at the press conference were permitted to ask questions,

many of them dealt with labeling. Trade Representative Zoellick insisted

that this action by the U.S. was focused on lifting the moratorium. But

he did leave the door open to other challenges that could involve

labeling.

 

Most major newspapers are featuring articles on this development. Posted

below are two good articles, plus two detailed press releases.

 

NOTE: Those of you who are " Active Members " of The Campaign can go to

the " Members Only " section of our web site and access dozens of articles

on this news story through our " Internet News Feeds on Genetically

Engineered Foods " feature. It is only $12 a year to be an Active Member

of The Campaign. Here is a link to join and get instant access to the

Members Only section:

http://www.thecampaign.org/join.php

 

The first article posted below is from The New York Times titled " U.S.

Contests Europe's Ban on Some Food. " The second article is from the St.

Louis Post-Dispatch titled " U.S. pushes to end ban in Europe on biotech

crops, food. "

 

The first press release is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As

you might expect, it is strongly biased on the legitimacy of this United

States action.

 

The second press release and detailed ANNEX is from the European

Commission of the European Union. The following statement from EU Trade

Commissioner Pascal Lamy sums up their sentiment:

 

" The EU’s regulatory system for GMO’s authorisation is in line with WTO

rules: it is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. There is

therefore no issue that the WTO needs to examine. The US claim that

there is a so-called “moratorium” but the fact is that the EU has

authorised GM varieties in the past and is currently processing

applications. So what is the real US motive in bringing a case? "

 

THE CAMPAIGN'S EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

 

The Campaign has opposed this WTO action of the U.S. against the EU ever

since it was first brought up as a possibility nearly two years ago.

However, now that it is here, we feel we can use it to our advantage.

 

As the momentum builds to the 2004 presidential race, the fact that the

United States has filed this WTO case means that the presidential

candidates will need to have a position on genetically engineered foods.

Not only will we be asking their position on this WTO case, we will also

question the candidates on whether on not they think U.S. citizens

should have the right to have labels on genetically engineered foods.

 

The debate over genetically engineered foods will get significantly more

attention because of this WTO action. And the closer the American public

looks at this global food fight, the more they will see that the system

regulating genetically engineered foods in the United States is greatly

lacking in appropriate safeguards.

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

***************************************************************

 

U.S. Contests Europe's Ban on Some Food

 

The New York Times

By ELIZABETH BECKER

May 14, 2003

 

WASHINGTON, May 13 — The Bush administration filed suit today at the

World Trade Organization to force Europe to lift its ban on genetically

modified food, a move that was postponed earlier this year by the debate

on Iraq.

 

The suit will further heighten trans-Atlantic trade tensions after

several recent rulings against the United States in cases brought by

Europe at the W.T.O. over United States steel tariffs and tax shelters

for overseas corporations.

 

The administration was backed by the speaker of the House, J. Dennis

Hastert of Illinois, and other senior Republican and Democratic

lawmakers who have been promoting the lawsuit for months. American

farmers have led the complaints, saying they have invested in the

technology needed to raise genetically modified crops only to see one of

the biggest markets — Europe — closed to their products.

 

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

administration had run out of patience waiting for the European Union to

lift what he called a five-year-old moratorium that blocked several

hundred million dollars of American exports into Europe. Worse, he said,

European attitudes were spreading unfounded fears in the developing

world, where the need is greatest for the increased yield of genetically

modified crops.

 

" In developing countries, these crops can spell the difference between

life and death, " he said. " The human cost of rejecting this new

technology is enormous. "

 

Mr. Hastert estimated that American farmers lost $300 million in corn

exports each year because of the European policy toward genetically

modified food and animal feed.

 

" There's no question in my mind that the European Union's protectionist,

discriminatory trade policies are costing American agriculture and our

nation's economy hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year, "

Mr. Hastert said.

 

But European officials said today that they were dumbfounded by the

suit. They said there was no moratorium on genetically modified food.

 

" The U.S. claims that there is a so-called moratorium, but the fact is

that the E.U. has authorized G.M. varieties in the past and is currently

processing applications, " said Pascal Lamy, the top European trade

official. " So what is the real U.S. motive in bringing a case? "

 

In practice, the Europeans did have an informal moratorium on new

varieties of genetically modified food from 1998 until last year, when

the E.U. instituted a new regulatory system that has approved two

applications, with others pending.

 

At the center of the debate over genetically modified crops, if not the

suit filed today, is a growing disagreement between the United States

and Europe over what steps are necessary to protect public health and

the environment.

 

European consumers are far more wary of genetically modified food than

are Americans, and many object to what they consider aggressive American

promotion of those foods, influenced by agribusiness.

 

The European Union is demanding that genetically modified food be

labeled as such. They also want to be able to trace the origins of the

food's ingredients and are near completion of new legislation to require

both.

 

The United States opposes such labels and tracing mechanisms, saying

they are too costly and impractical.

 

Margot Wallstrom, the European environmental commissioner, said the

European legislature would complete its measure to require labeling and

methods for tracing food and animal feed that is genetically modified.

 

" This U.S. move is unhelpful, " she said. " It can only make an already

difficult debate in Europe more difficult. "

 

The United States agriculture secretary, Ann M. Veneman, said today that

the case was aimed at protecting American farmers and ranchers.

 

" With this case, " she said, " we are fighting for the interests of

American agriculture. This case is about playing by the rules negotiated

in good faith. The European Union has failed to comply with its W.T.O.

obligations. "

 

The United States was joined by Argentina, Canada and Egypt. Australia,

Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and

Uruguay expressed support as third parties without direct commercial

interest.

 

Many of these countries are in negotiations with the United States for a

free trade agreement.

 

Chile is waiting for the administration to sign off on its accord after

a delay driven in part by disappointment that it refused to side with

the United States on the war with Iraq at the United Nations.

 

Mr. Zoellick promised European officials last week that trade would

bring the allies together after the arguments over Iraq, not further

separate them.

 

But trade is becoming a divisive issue, especially since the end of the

war.

 

European officials lashed back at the administration today, refusing to

be blamed for blocking genetically modified food aid and reminding the

United States that it had refused to join 100 other countries and sign

the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That agreement sets out rules for

exporters and importers of genetically modified crops to provide the

proper information about the food and feed.

 

Nonprofit groups opposed to the W.T.O.'s influence said the case showed

how globalization undermined local and national governments.

 

" The people eating the food or living in the environment that could be

affected must decide domestic policy, not some secretive W.T.O. tribunal

of three trade experts, " said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's

Global Trade Watch.

 

But several African farmers and scientists at a news conference here

joined Mr. Zoellick and Ms. Veneman in praising the American action.

 

" We believe it is better to give a person food to eat today than wait 10

years to be sure it is safe, " said Darin Makinde, dean of the school of

agriculture at the University of Venda in South Africa.

 

" Two elephants are fighting — the United States and Europe — and it is

Africa that is suffering, " he said.

 

***************************************************************

 

U.S. pushes to end ban in Europe on biotech crops, food

 

By BILL LAMBRECHT St. Louis Post-Dispatch

updated: 05/13/2003 10:57 PM

 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration moved aggressively on behalf of

farmers and the biotech industry Tuesday by asking the World Trade

Organization to end the European Union ban on genetically modified food

and crops.

 

In an action viewed in Europe as the opening salvo of a trade war, the

United States and several allies filed a formal WTO complaint in Geneva

contending that Europe's nearly 5-year-old moratorium on new approvals

of engineered products amounts to an unfair trade barrier.

 

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in Washington that the

United States had run out of patience with European hostility toward

gene-altered products, sentiment that had spread around the world.

 

" We tried to work with them. We tried to be patient. We tried to get

results, " Zoellick said at a news conference in Washington.

 

Canada, Argentina and Egypt joined the United States in bringing the

case; nine other countries expressed support.

 

The 9-year-old World Trade Organization is the sole mechanism in

international commerce for resolving trade disputes and has the power to

declare vast sums in damages. Cases typically can take 18 months to

resolve. In the late 1990s, the WTO slapped Europe with tariffs for

refusing to accept hormone-fed beef from the United States.

 

The filing Tuesday triggered a 60-day consultation giving the 15-member

European Union opportunity to end its de facto moratorium or otherwise

find resolution.

 

Zoellick declared that if no agreement is reached, the U.S.-led

coalition would take the next step - requesting a dispute settlement

panel to hear both sides in the case.

 

The filing was no surprise given pressure on the Bush administration to

act. The moratorium has cost U.S. corn farmers roughly $1.2 billion

since the late 1990s in lost European markets.

 

Fred Yoder, president of the St. Louis-based National Corn Growers

Association, referred to Europe's regulatory policies as

" irresponsibility at its best, blatant protectionism at its worst. "

 

Europe's intransigence also has stunted growth of the technology as

nations around the world look to Europe for guidance. St. Louis-based

Monsanto Co. alone has seven applications covering modified corn, beets

and cotton stuck in the European pipeline. Other biotech companies have

run up against the same roadblock.

 

Monsanto spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said, " We feel like at stake are

the interests of hundreds of thousands of small and large-scale farmers

around the world who either grow or want to grow biotech crops. "

 

European anger

 

The Bush administration delayed bringing the case for months for fear of

further ruffling feathers in Europe, where many people and political

leaders were skeptical and downright hostile toward the invasion of

Iraq.

 

But with the war over, the White House signaled Tuesday that it can live

with more European anger, which is what the filing promptly generated.

 

European Union trade commissioner Pascal Lamy questioned American

motives and insisted that the Europeans' " clear, transparent and

non-discriminatory " regulatory system needed no outside examination.

 

Europe's environmental commissioner, Margo Wallstrom, said in a

statement that the filing " can only make an already difficult debate in

Europe more difficult. "

 

A European Union official in Washington, Tony Van Der Haegen, said in an

interview that he anticipated that the WTO case would trigger a backlash

in Europe and more of the boycotts against American products that sprung

up when coalition forces invaded Iraq.

 

" There is a disposition on the European side to be rather anti-American

for the moment, " he said.

 

Meanwhile, the Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer

Reports, called the WTO case anti-consumer. " It will only deepen the

concerns and suspicions of European consumers if they feel their

governments are being forced to allow imports of genetically modified

foods, " Jean Halloran, director of Consumers Union Policy Institute,

said in a statement.

 

" Elephants are fighting "

 

Europe's anti-biotech attitudes emerged in the late 1990s amid concerns

that crops engineered to ward off pests and weeds were speeding to

market without adequate public science vouching for their safety.

Monsanto, the global leader in commercial plant sciences, assumed blame

for failing to prepare the European public for the arrival of a potent

new technology.

 

The British Medical Society and Prince Charles fanned the flames by

arguing that biotechnology violated " precautionary principle, " a bedrock

of European environmental regulation aimed at heading off unwanted

consequences.

 

European science groups, among them the French Academy of Sciences, have

by and large, since endorsed biotech crops.

 

Nonetheless, European consumers persist in their skepticism, unsure why

they should assume risks for a technology that, so far, has provided

benefits for farmers and the biotech industry.

 

Those concerns have added up to a giant political problem for European

regulators, who have been unable to mollify consumers with a newly drawn

system of labeling genetically engineered foods.

 

Zoellick argued that the European delays were having " a steamrollering

effect " in other countries. He said the extent of the problem hit home

last fall when several famine-plagued African nations turned down U.S.

food aid because it might be genetically engineered.

 

Zoellick brought along several pro-biotech representatives of developing

countries to help condemn European attitudes.

 

Referring to the U.S.-Europe food clash, South African agriculture

professor Diran Makinde asserted: " Elephants are fighting and Africans

are suffering. "

 

***************************************************************

 

USDA News Release

 

Release No. 0156.03

Contact: Richard Mills, USTR

(202) 395-3230

Alisa Harrison, USDA

(202) 720-4623

 

U.S. AND COOPERATING COUNTRIES FILE WTO CASE AGAINST EU MORATORIUM ON

BIOTECH FOODS AND CROPS

EU's Illegal, Non-Science based Moratorium

Harmful to Agriculture and the Developing World

 

WASHINGTON, May 13, 2003 - U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick

and Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the United

States, Argentina, Canada, and Egypt will file a World Trade

Organization (WTO) case against the European Union (EU) over its illegal

five-year moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products. Other

countries expressing support for this case by joining it as third

parties include: Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras,

Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay.

 

" The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. People around the world have

been eating biotech food for years. Biotech food helps nourish the

world's hungry population, offers tremendous opportunities for better

health and nutrition and protects the environment by reducing soil

erosion and pesticide use, " said Zoellick. " We've waited patiently for

five years for the EU to follow the WTO rules and the recommendations of

the European Commission, so as to respect safety findings based on

careful science. The EU's persistent resistance to abiding by its WTO

obligations has perpetuated a trade barrier unwarranted by the EC's own

scientific analysis, which impedes the global use of a technology that

could be of great benefit to farmers and consumers around the world. "

 

" With this case, we are fighting for the interests of American

agriculture. This case is about playing by the rules negotiated in good

faith. The European Union has failed to comply with its WTO

obligations, " said Veneman. " Biotechnology is helping farmers increase

yields, lower pesticide use, improve soil conservation and water

pollution and help reduce hunger and poverty around the world.

 

Farmers here and elsewhere must be assured that their crops won't be

unfairly rejected simply because they were produced using biotechnology.

The EU actions threaten to deny the full development of a technology

that holds enormous potential benefits to both producers and consumers

worldwide, while also providing a very significant means to combat

hunger and malnutrition that afflict hundreds of millions of people

across the developing world. "

 

" The U.S. and the EU have a large and important economic relationship,

and disputes such as this, while very important, make up only one part

of that relationship. The United States will continue to work with the

EU to manage this and other disputes in an appropriate way, and we look

forward to advancing our shared objectives in the Doha global trade

negotiations and other fora, " Zoellick added.

 

The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS)

recognizes that countries are entitled to regulate crops and food

products to protect health and the environment. The WTO SPS agreement

requires, however, that members have " sufficient scientific evidence "

for such measures, and that they operate their approval procedures

without " undue delay. " Otherwise, there is a risk countries may without

justification use such regulations to thwart trade in safe, wholesome,

and nutritious products.

 

Before 1999, the EU approved nine agriculture biotech products for

planting or import. It then suspended consideration of all new

applications for approval, and has offered no scientific evidence for

this moratorium on new approvals. As EU Environment Commissioner Margot

Wallstrom said almost three years ago (July 13, 2000): " We have already

waited too long to act. The moratorium is illegal and not

justified...the value of biotechnology is poorly appreciated in Europe. "

 

Agricultural biotechnology is a continuation of the long tradition of

agricultural innovation that has provided the basis for rising

prosperity for the past millennium. Humankind has historically

progressed in boosting agricultural productivity, quality and choices by

harnessing science to develop new forms of crops.

 

More than 145 million acres (58 million hectares) of biotech crops were

grown in the world in 2002. Worldwide, about 45% of soy, 11% of corn,

20% of cotton and 11% of rapeseed are biotech crops. In the United

States, 75% of soy, 34% of corn and 71% of cotton are biotech crops.

 

Numerous organizations, researchers and scientists have determined that

biotech foods pose no threat to humans or the environment. Examples

include the French Academy of Medicine and Pharmacy, and the French

Academy of Sciences, the 3,200 scientists who cosponsored a declaration

on biotech foods and numerous scientific studies including a joint study

conducted by the seven national academies of science (the National

Academies of Science of the United States, Brazil, China, India, and

Mexico, plus the Royal Society of London and the Third World Academy of

Sciences).

 

Background:

 

In October 1998, the EU stopped approving any new agriculture biotech

products for planting or import. This moratorium had no effect on any

previously-approved products, such as corn and soy, which are still used

and are available in member countries, but it froze the approval process

in the EU. No biotech product has ever been rejected for approval in the

EU.

 

Since the late 1990's, the EU has pursued policies that undermine

agricultural biotechnology and trade in biotech foods. First, six member

states (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Greece & Luxemburg) banned

modified crops approved by the EU, and the Commission refused to

challenge the illegal bans. In 1998, member states began blocking all

new biotech applications. This approval moratorium is causing a growing

portion of U.S. agricultural exports to be excluded from EU markets and

unfairly casting concerns about biotech products around the world,

particularly in developing countries.

 

The first step in a WTO dispute, which the United States and other

countries are taking today, is to request and conduct consultations in

the next 60 days. WTO procedures are designed to encourage parties to

resolve their differences. If at the end of the 60 days, no resolution

has been achieved, then the U.S. and the cooperating countries may seek

the formation of a dispute settlement panel to hear arguments. Dispute

settlement procedures, including appeal, typically take a total of 18

months.

 

***************************************************************

 

European Commission regrets US decision to file WTO case on GMOs as

misguided and unnecessary

Brussels, 13 May 2003

 

The US announced today their intention to request WTO consultations on

the EU’s authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The European Commission regrets this move as legally unwarranted,

economically unfounded and politically unhelpful.

 

EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said: " The EU’s regulatory system for

GMO’s authorisation is in line with WTO rules: it is clear, transparent

and non-discriminatory. There is therefore no issue that the WTO needs

to examine. The US claim that there is a so-called “moratorium” but the

fact is that the EU has authorised GM varieties in the past and is

currently processing applications. So what is the real US motive in

bringing a case? "

 

David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer protection stated:

" We have been working hard in Europe to complete our regulatory system

in line with the latest scientific and international developments. The

finalisation process is imminent. This is essential to restore consumer

confidence in GMO’s in Europe.” Mr. Byrne recalled that it is the lack

of consumer demand for GM-products that accounts for the low sales of

GMOs in the EU market. “Unless consumers see that the authorisation

process is up to date and takes into account all legitimate concerns,

consumers will continue to remain sceptical of GM products. "

 

EU Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom added: " This US

move is unhelpful. It can only make an already difficult debate in

Europe more difficult. But in the meantime, the Commission strongly

believes that we in Europe should move ahead with completing our

legislation on traceability and labelling and on food and feed,

currently before the European Parliament. We should not be deflected or

distracted from pursuing the right policy for the EU. "

 

The EU stance on GMOs is in line with WTO rules

 

The EU wants to address the challenges posed by modern technologies of

genetic modification. Its regulatory system provides a reliable

framework for GMOs in the EU, meeting demands for human and animal

health and the environment in the EU. Under the EU system, the

prospective effects of GMOs on human, animal and plant health and the

environment have to be scientifically assessed before being approved for

marketing. Under the EU system, companies intended to market GMOs in the

EU must first submit an application to a Member State including a full

environmental risk assessment. The assessment is sent to the European

Commission who circulates it to all other Member States. In case of

objections the European Commission seeks an opinion from the Scientific

Committee (and the European Food Safety Authority in the future) and

takes then a decision. A total of 18 GMOs have already been authorised

in the EU.

 

Reference is often made to a so-called “moratorium” in the EU on

approval of new GM varieties. This relates to the fact that since

October 1998, no new GMOs have been authorised for release into the

environment due to the fact that the EU’s regulatory regime was

incomplete to address the challenges posed by modern technology of

genetic modification. This new regulatory framework was adopted in March

2001 and entered into force in October 2002.

 

The entry into force of these improved rules on approval procedures has

enabled biotech companies to submit revised applications for approval of

their innovative products. Recently two cotton seed oils for food use

have been placed on the market in the EU following authorisation. A

number of new applications for marketing of GMOs are at an advanced

stage of examination and may therefore be granted over the next months

in line with EU legislation.

 

The EU is also finalising the adoption of rules on labelling and

traceability, which aim at responding to citizens’ demands for more and

better information on GMOs, and the need to facilitate the freedom of

choice between new and more traditional agricultural products.

Therefore, the EU system is and will be science-based, not driven by

economic considerations.

 

It must be recalled that the US has so far opposed the Cartagena

Protocol on Biosafety, which has been signed by over 100 countries and

is intended to ensure through agreed international rules that countries,

exporters and importers have the necessary information to make informed

choices about GMOs.

 

The case for appropriate approval mechanisms and marketing regulations

has been reinforced by the problems experienced in the US. The

“Starlink” case is a clear example of the need for appropriate rules for

authorisation and traceability of GMOs. In 2000, GM corn not approved

for human consumption was found to have entered in large amounts the US

food supply chain; More than 300 product brands had to be recalled from

supermarkets by US authorities. In a study of February 2002, the

American National Academy of Sciences concluded that there are a number

of inadequacies in the way GM plants are regulated in the US.

 

The development argument ignores legitimate concerns of developing

countries

A number of developing countries, including a large number African

countries suffering a shortage of food have requested main donors of

food aid to avoid providing GMO food. The European Commission finds it

unacceptable that such legitimate concerns are used by the US against

the EU policy on GMOs. The European Commission believes that it is the

legitimate right of developing countries’ governments to fix their own

level of protection and to take the decision they deem appropriate to

prevent unintentional dissemination of GM seeds.

 

Food aid to starving populations should be about meeting the urgent

humanitarian needs of those who are in need. It should not be about

trying to advance the case for GM food abroad (while staying away from

the international consensus such as the Cartagena Protocol), or planting

GM crops for export, or indeed finding outlets for domestic surplus,

which is a regrettable of the US food aid policy.

 

The European Commission policy is to source food aid for emergency

situation as much as possible in the region, thus contributing to the

development of local markets, providing additional incentives for

producers and ensuring that products distributed closely match local

consumption habits.

 

GM crops of interest to developing countries, such a drought tolerant,

acid soil tolerant crops are still in laboratories. Commercially

available GM crops are largely dominated by herbicide tolerant crops

(75%) and insect resistant crops (17%). However, the use of herbicides

on small farmers in poor countries is very limited while insecticides

are generally used on commercial crops such as cotton but not on staple

crops.

 

Some key figures related to commodities market

 

The US is by far the main maize producer in the world and exports ~20%

of its production. However, emerging countries such as Argentina and

China have started to compete with the US maize export.

 

The rejection of GM maize by a growing number of importing countries

creates a serious threat to US maize export. In the US, ~35% of the

maize is GM maize but only 1-2% of the production is segregated.

Therefore, ~98% of the US maize may contain GM maize varieties, many of

which have not been approved in other countries. Since the US refuses to

implement measures to segregate and control the spread of different GM

maize varieties, its exports are affected.

 

Since 1997, imports of US maize in the EU have largely been replaced

with Argentine maize, as some GM maize varieties cultivated in the US

are not authorised for cultivation or in the EU. On the other hand,

Argentine GM maize producers grow and export approved GM maize varieties

and now have a competitive advantage against US producers.

 

In the US, soybean grower cultivates only the GM soybean authorised in

the EU. Therefore, they do not have problems of access to the EU market.

The decrease of the share of US soybeans reflects, therefore, a lost of

competitiveness of US soybean on the international markets.

 

Background

 

WTO consultation and dispute settlement procedures

 

The first step in a WTO dispute settlement is a request for consultation

from the complaining member. The defendant has 10 days to reply to the

request and shall enter into consultation within a period of no more

than 30 days (unless otherwise agreed by the two parties). The

consultation should aim at finding a positive solution to the issue at

stake.

 

If the consultations fail to settle the dispute within 60 days after the

date of receipt of the consultation request, the complaining party may

request the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish of a Panel

(however, the complaining party may request a panel during the 60 day

period if the 2 parties considers that the consultations have failed to

settle the dispute).

 

Once the panellists are nominated, the complaining party has normally

between 3 and 6 weeks to file its first written submission and the party

complained against another 2/3 weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a

second written submission follow. On average a panel procedure lasts 12

months. This can be followed by an appeal that should not last longer

than 90 days. In a case such as the one at stake here, the necessity of

hearing scientific experts may prolong the timetable.

 

Time table (with the shortest possible deadlines taken into

consideration)

 

Filing of request by US Mid May

Consultation 60 days Mid July

Request for establishment of Panels immediate

Establishment of Panel +/-45 days End August

Appointment of Panellists 20 days End September

US 1st written submission 3 weeks Mid October

EC first written submission 2 weeks Early November

 

ANNEX:

 

A. Current EU legislation in the EU on GMOs

 

Community legislation on GMOs has been in place since the early 1990s

and throughout the decade, this regulatory framework has been further

extended and refined. The EU introduced specific legislation designed to

protect its citizens' health and the environment while simultaneously

creating a unified market for biotechnology.

 

1. GMOs for deliberate release in the environment

 

Directive 2001/18/EC sets out the rules governing the release of GMOs

into the environment. It entered into force in October 2002. It puts in

place a step-by-step approval process, based on a case by case

assessment of the risks to human health and the environment before any

GMO or product consisting of or containing GMOs, such as maize,

tomatoes, or micro-organisms can be released into the environment or

placed on the market.

 

Under Directive 2001/18/EC, a company intending to market a GMO must

first submit an application to the competent national authority of the

Member State where the product is to be first placed on the market. The

application must include a full environmental risk assessment. If the

national authority gives a favourable opinion on the placing on the

market of the GMO concerned, this Member State informs the other Member

States via the Commission. If there are no objections, the competent

authority that carried out the original evaluation grants the consent

for the placing on the market of the product. The product may then be

placed on the market throughout the European Union in conformity with

any conditions required in that consent.

 

If objections are raised and maintained, a decision has to be taken at

Community level. The Commission first asks for the opinion of its

Scientific Committees, composed of independent scientists, highly

qualified in the fields associated with medicine, nutrition, toxicology,

biology, chemistry, or other similar disciplines. If the scientific

opinion is favourable, the Commission then proposes a draft Decision to

the Regulatory Committee composed of representatives of Member States

for opinion. If the Regulatory Committee gives a favourable opinion, the

Commission adopts the Decision.

 

If not, the draft Decision is submitted to the Council of Ministers for

adoption by qualified majority or rejection. If the Council does not act

within 3 months, the Commission can adopt the decision.

 

During the notification process, the public is also informed and has

access to the publicly available data on the Internet:

http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/

 

Three complete dossiers have been submitted to the Commission (GM maize

NK 603, GM oil seed rape GT 73 GM maize NK 603 x MON 810 – all from

Monsanto). The three applications are for import and processing only

(not for cultivation).

 

2. GM foods

 

Regulation (EC) 258/97 on Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients sets

out rules for authorisation and labelling of novel foods including food

products containing, consisting or produced from GMOs.

 

The first step of an authorisation procedure is an assessment of an

application to market a GM food product by the Member State where the

food is to be first placed on the market. In case of a favourable

opinion, this Member State informs the other Member States via the

Commission. If there are no objections against the application, this

Member State can authorise the product for marketing in the entire EU.

 

If there are objections by other Member States, a decision at Community

level is required. The Commission consults the Scientific Committees on

matters relating to public health and adopts a decision after receiving

a favourable opinion from the Regulatory Committee composed of Member

State representatives.

 

As a derogation from the full authorisation procedure, the Novel Foods

Regulation provides for a simplified procedure for foods derived from

GMOs but no longer containing GMOs, which are " substantially equivalent "

to existing foods with respect to composition, nutritional value,

metabolism, intended use and the level of undesirable substances. In

such cases, the companies only have to notify the Commission when

placing a product on the market together with either scientific

justification that the product is substantially equivalent or an opinion

to the same effect, delivered by the competent authorities of a Member

State.

 

Under the Novel Food Regulation, there are two applications at an

advanced stage of the approval process, (one for Monsanto GA 21 maize,

and one for Syngenta Bt 11 sweet maize) that are almost ready for a

decision. The European Commission is working with both companies with a

view to clarifying a number of pending issues.

 

Last December, the Commission informed MS that cottonseed oil from two

Monsanto GM cottonseeds have been placed on the market under the

simplified procedure of the Novel Food Regulation (the Regulation

provides that when substantial equivalence is established, applicants

have only to notify the placing on the market to the Commission). The

two cottonseed oils are not distinguishable from their conventional

counterparts.

 

Another new application under Novel Food (for Monsanto GM Maize NK 603)

is currently being examined by the EU.

 

B. EU Rules on traceability and labelling

 

The EU recognises the consumers’ right for information and labelling as

a tool to make an informed choice. Since 1997 labelling to indicate the

presence of GMOs as such or in a product is mandatory. From 17 October

2002 onwards Directive 2001/18/EC foresees that Member States shall take

all necessary measures to ensure a labelling of GMOs as or in products

at all stages of the placing on the market.

 

The Novel Foods Regulation provides for the mandatory labelling of foods

and food ingredients which contain or consist of a GMO without prejudice

to the other labelling requirements of Community law. The labelling

requirements for foods produced from GMOs, but no longer containing GMO

are based on the concept of equivalence.

 

Council Regulation (EC) 1139/98 lays down provisions for the labelling

of foods and food ingredients derived from one maize and one soya

variety based on the presence of DNA or protein resulting from genetic

modification. This criterion serves as a model providing the rules

applicable to labelling of all foods and food ingredients derived from

GMO.

 

In January 2000, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) 50/2000 ensuring

that also additives and flavourings have to be labelled if DNA or

protein of GMO origin is present in the final product.

 

The Commission has recently adopted two common positions (1) on GM food

and feed and (2) on Traceability and Labelling of GMOs. These common

positions are in the process of being examined by the European

Parliament and the Council and expected to be adopted by the end of the

year. Indeed, second readings are planned for July.

 

C. International regulatory framework for GMOS

 

All international agreements such as the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures (SPS) Agreement, the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

Agreement) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on

Biological Diversity recognise the right to their members to take the

measures at the levels they consider appropriate, for example to protect

human or animal health or the environment.

 

The Cartagena Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention regulates the

transboundary movements of GMOs. It has been signed by 102 countries

including the European Union. The US is not a party to the Biodiversity

Convention and therefore has not signed the Biosafety Protocol. The

Protocol will come into force after ratification by 50 countries (41

countries have ratified it at the end of January 2003), including the

European Community). It will be legally binding for the countries that

will ratify it and countries that have signed it are expected, under

international law, to act in good faith and not to take measures which

could contradict its objectives.

 

The Protocol establishes an Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure

for ensuring that countries are provided with the information necessary

to make informed decisions before agreeing to the import into their

territory of GMOs intended for deliberate release into the environment

(this includes all vegetative parts that are meant for planting such as

seeds). However, the AIA procedure does not apply to GMOs which are for

human consumption (food), for animal feeds or for processing. For these,

relevant information has to be provided to the Parties through the

Biosafety Clearing House (a mechanism set up by the Protocol to

facilitate the exchange of information on GMOs, including national

regulation pertaining to them, and to assist countries in the

implementation of the Protocol). Moreover, these commodities, when

exported, must be accompanied by documentation specifying that they “may

contain” GMOs and that they are not intended for intentional

introduction into the environment. The Parties shall decide on the

detailed requirements for this purpose, including specification of the

identity of the GMOs and any unique identification.

 

The US is the largest agricultural commodity exporter but also the

largest GM crops producer. In 2002, the US has grown more than 35

million hectares out of the 58 million hectares of GM crops cultivated

world wide. The US opposes the biosafety protocol because the

enforcement of the protocol will interfere with the main US agriculture

commodity exports, i.e. maize and soybeans. However, if the US were to

follow the Biosafety Protocol, they would have to specify that food aid

might contain GMOs if that was the case, for example.

 

Several countries have adopted a case by case authorisation process for

GMOs but authorisations are not always synchronous with US approvals.

Others, such as Sri Lanka, which have not yet adopted a regulatory

framework, have banned the import of GMOs. Even China, which has one of

the largest biotech industry is now taking a cautious approach with the

authorisation of GM food.

 

Because US traders refuse to segregate, the US maize and soybean face

difficulties on the international market because of the possible

presence in shipments of GMOs that are not authorised in the importing

countries. In addition, due to consumers’ concerns over the safety of

GMOs, the food and feed industry is increasingly looking for supply of

non GM maize and non GM soybean. For those reasons, the US has a vested

interest in an international deregulation of GMOs trade and in a non

labelling policy of GM food and feed.

 

The EU has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs and

for GM food and feed including traceability and labelling provisions.

Many countries are now looking at the EU policy to develop their own

policy. The US fears that several countries will adopt a similar

approach as the EU to regulate GMOs and GM food and feed products.

 

D. GMOs and food aid

 

A number of developing countries, especially in Africa, face a

humanitarian crisis as a result of adverse weather conditions.

 

The US has committed to supply 499 000 tonnes of maize grain as food aid

between September 2002 and March 2003. In the US, 35% of the maize is

produced from GMOs. However, only 1 to 2% of the harvest is segregated

(due to the cost of segregation, such maize is more expensive than

non-segregated maize). Therefore, US maize is likely to contain GMOs.

 

Some African countries in the region have initially refused to take the

maize for a combination of reasons, namely human health concerns,

environmental consideration, the risk of spread of transgenes into their

own maize production, and the repercussion such a spread could have on

regional and international trade and Intellectual Property Rights

concerns.

 

Following the Zambian ban on GMOs, the US has sponsored a study trip for

Zambian scientists in the US and in a number of European capitals. The

Zambian scientists have met the European Commission services and have

been provided with copies of all scientific assessments from the EU

scientific committees (all opinions are favourable).

 

In their report, the Zambian scientists still argued against the

introduction of GM maize in Southern Africa. The Zambian government has

confirmed its decision to ban GM maize in the light of the report of the

Zambian scientists.

 

Other countries (Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi) eventually accepted US

maize provided that it is milled, which is a process preventing he

release of GMs into the environment (their initial ban relates to

environmental concerns). But the US has refused to fund the milling.

 

The US is blaming the EU for the African refusal of the US maize.

However, the Commission has repeatedly said that there is no reason to

believe that GM food is inherently unsafe to human health. However,

developing country governments have the legitimate right to fix their

level of protection and to take the decision they deem appropriate to

safeguard their territory from unintentional dissemination of GM crops.

 

With respect to food aid, the Commission policy is to source food for

emergency situation as much as possible in the region as this

contributes to the development of local markets, provides additional

incentives for producers and ensures that products distribute closely

match local consumption habits. The US policy is to provide food aid in

kind and use surplus production.

 

For practical reasons and to respect the choice of beneficiary

countries, the Commission has requested the World Food Programme to

purchase only conventional (non GM) maize for distribution as food aid.

This avoids food aid being rejected, the cost of milling (in the case of

Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique) and difficulties during the transit of

countries like Mozambique that have taken action against the transit of

GMOs in their territory.

 

Food aid is being distributed. In Zambia, the Commission has allocated €

20 Million to the WFP for regional purchase of maize. By mid January

174,000 tonnes out of the 277,000 committed by the EU has been purchased

- 99% has been procured in the region (70% South Africa, 23% Malawi, 7%

Tanzania and less than 1% in the EU).

 

***************************************************************

 

If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the

forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums

 

***************************************************************

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.