Guest guest Posted February 10, 2006 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 The so-called " free trade " WTO has ruled that European consumers are NOT free to decide what they want in their food. Orwell rolls over again. And again, no one in the WTO is elected by any of the citizens of the world. Forwarded message: WTO SAYS EUROPEAN UNION BAN VIOLATED TRADE LAWS The Campaign [members] Friday, February 10, 2006 7:14 AM The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled on Tuesday in the case the United States filed against the European Union over genetically engineered foods. The WTO ruled against the European Union (EU) and in favor of the United States. (Canada and Argentina also joined the U.S. in this case against the EU.) The WTO case filed in May 2003 was about the EU's ban on the import of genetically engineered foods and crops that was in effect from 1998 to 2004. Since the EU removed the ban on importing genetically modified foods in 2004, you might have thought that the United States would have dropped the case since it was no longer an issue. However, insiders speculate the U.S. continued with the WTO case for two significant reasons: 1) The U.S. can use this ruling to threaten other nations to not attempt to block imports of genetically engineered crops into their countries. 2) The U.S. can now file a second WTO case against the EU charging that their labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods are an unfair restriction of trade. THE STAGE IS SET TO ATTACK LABELING NEXT QUESTION: Will the United States now move forward in an attempt to say the European Union countries cannot require the labeling of genetically engineered foods? ANSWER: A case against the EU requirement on labeling biotech foods is highly likely for several reasons when you consider the following facts. The Bush administration is in office for three more years. That is more than enough time for a WTO ruling. Bush's Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, was recently quoted as saying, " We must use the WTO to force open markets for U.S. products. " Johanns has also stated, " The continuing adoption of agricultural biotechnology worldwide is evidence it provides tremendous benefits to farmers and rural communities. " The new chief agriculture negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative is Richard Crowder, a 15-year veteran of Dekalb Genetics Corporation (now part of Monsanto). He was also a former executive at ConAgra and president of the American Seed Trade Association. After the WTO ruling, American Farm Bureau trade specialist Michelle Gorman stated, " Even if we remove the moratorium and we have an approval process for biotech products, we've still got a system in place which discriminates against biotech products in the European union market place. So the next step is to take a case on yet more EU biotech regulations. " With this win under their belt, it is quite likely that the Bush administration will now move forward with a WTO case stating that the European Union countries cannot require labeling on genetically engineered foods. THE BOTTOM LINE... With this WTO ruling now a reality, concerned citizens in the United States and Canada need to become more active than ever in the effort to get legislation passed to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Campaign will be increasing pressure on Representative Kucinich to get the " Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act " sponsored before the U.S. House of Representatives as soon as possible. JOINT INTERNATIONAL GM OPPOSITION DAY - APRIL 8TH Since we heard several months ago from insiders that the WTO ruling would favor the U.S. biotech industry, plans were started to have a " Joint International GM Opposition Day " on April 8th. Here in the United States, we are planning a " National Call-In Day " to the U.S. Congress on April 6th and a " National Write-In Day " on April 8th. A major conference and media event will be held in Chicago during this time called the BioETHICS Conference. The Campaign is actively involved in the planning of this conference. The upcoming edition of The Campaign Reporter will discuss these events in further detail. Posted below are four articles about the WTO ruling. The first article from the Washington Post is titled " WTO Ruling Backs Biotech Crops. " The second article from UPI is titled " WTO rules against EU on GMOs. " The third article from Inter Press Service News Agency is titled " WTO Biotech Ruling Reveals Special Interests, Say Critics. " The fourth article from Reuters is tilted " US may press Africa on GMOs. " Please consider supporting the efforts of The Campaign with a donation: http://www.thecampaign.org/donate.php Thanks for your continued support and activism! Craig Winters President The Campaign PO Box 55699 Seattle, WA 98155 Tel: 425-771-4049 E-mail: info Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org *************************************************************** WTO Ruling Backs Biotech Crops European Ban, Challenged by U.S and Allies, Violates Trade Regulations, Panel Says By Justin Gillis and Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 8, 2006; D01 The World Trade Organization ruled yesterday that a six-year European ban on genetically engineered crops violates international trade rules, according to U.S. sources familiar with the ruling. The widely expected ruling, though it will not be final until later this year, appeared to be a symbolic victory for farmers and agricultural companies in the United States, Canada and Argentina. The three countries had challenged Europe's anti-biotechnology stance in the world trade body in Geneva. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the finding is preliminary and confidential, said a panel at the trade body issued its decision late yesterday, ruling in favor of the three countries on a large majority of the 25 crops under dispute in the case while issuing mixed rulings on a few crops. The panel also ruled in favor of the three countries in challenging national bans on specific biotech crops issued by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg. The ruling was welcomed by pro-biotechnology groups in the United States, which had urged the Bush administration to file the case in 2003. Farm groups and biotech advocates are hoping the ruling will soften European resistance to the crops and, even more important to them, slow the spread of anti-biotech sentiment around the world. " The decision was never really in doubt, but its global impact could be huge, " Gregory Conko, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, said in a written statement. " With the voice of the world community now clearly on the record, we hope the Europeans will quickly dismantle their bans and let science-based policy and consumer freedom prevail. " How much practical effect the trade ruling will have remains to be seen, though, as resistance to gene-altered crops remains high among European consumers. Most European grocery chains refuse to stock products made with genetically engineered ingredients. If European manufacturers did produce foods with such ingredients, they would have to be specially labeled, a policy that the United States condemns but hasn't yet challenged in the trade body. Past U.S. attempts to push biotech crops have provoked intense backlash by European consumers, and some anti-biotech groups predicted that the same thing would happen again as they assailed yesterday's ruling and the trade case that led to it. Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch in Washington, part of a network of consumer groups founded by Ralph Nader, denounced the WTO panel's application of " retrograde rules " in an attempt " to force Frankenfoods on the rest of the world regardless of what consumers and their elected representatives say. " Biotech crops first came to market in the United States in the mid-1990s. The large majority of those developed so far have been commercial failures, but a few developed by Monsanto Co., Syngenta AG and other big agricultural firms have been runaway successes. They include gene-altered varieties of corn, soybeans, cotton and canola. Genes from other species have been inserted into these crops to allow them to better resist weeds and insects. Some of the crops, notably cotton, require substantially less chemical treatment and are seen by their backers as having environmental benefits. An overwhelming body of scientific opinion -- including regulators at the European Food Safety Authority and scientific institutes in most European countries -- holds that the crops are safe to eat and pose only minor environmental risks. But European consumers were burned by food-safety scandals in the 1990s involving dioxin-laced chickens, beef capable of causing a fatal brain disease, and other disasters in which they were initially assured that the foods were safe. Their trust in the opinion of European, much less American, scientists on such matters is low. Controversy over the U.S.-led movement toward planting biotech crops exploded in Europe in 1998. Several crops had been approved by then and the United States still sells tons of such crops to Europe every year, but the European Union stalled new approvals for six years, from 1998 to 2004. Six countries issued national bans even on crops that had already received Europe-wide approval. It was those actions that the United States and its allies challenged, citing WTO rules that say new products must be considered expeditiously and can be banned only on sound scientific grounds. European regulators contend that even if the rules the United States challenged amounted to an illegal moratorium, the European ban was effectively lifted by a stringent new regulatory framework that took effect in 2004. The trade panel " has recognized that the alleged moratorium has ceased to exist, " a European Commission official said last night. " Our sense is, it's a mixed bag. In some respects, the panel is upholding our positions. " The United States acknowledges that Europe, under the 2004 rules, appears to have lifted its moratorium, at least technically, and is now moving forward in considering biotech crops. But the United States contends that the process is still too slow and the regulatory standards are unreasonable given that the crops, which Europeans refer to as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, pose few risks. " The U.S. appears not to like the E.U. authorization regime, which it considers to be too stringent, simply because it takes longer to approve a GMO in Europe than in the U.S.. " the European Union said in a briefing document. " The U.S. appears to believe that GMOs that are considered to be safe in the U.S. should be de facto deemed to be safe for the rest of the world. " In practice, Spain is the only European country growing any significant amounts of biotech crops. Virtually no foods containing such ingredients appear on European grocery shelves, and some applications to allow such crops have been pending in Europe for a decade. " When you have products that are still languishing from the mid-1990s, obviously we think there's a problem that has to be addressed, " a U.S. trade official said late yesterday. *************************************************************** WTO rules against EU on GMOs By DONNA BORAK UPI Business Correspondent WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- A confidential report by the World Trade Organization has found the European Union in violation of world trade laws for use of a moratorium on genetically modified food products from the United States, Canada and Argentina, according to a U.S. trade official. The preliminary ruling concluded that the EU's effective ban on biotech foods from 1998 to 2004 was a violation of global trade rules. Under WTO rules, moratoriums are barred. The final ruling is due out later this year. The judgment, initially scheduled for March 2005, has been delayed six times and is expected to be the longest in history, at around 800 pages, according to the U.S. trade office. The U.S. brought the case to the WTO in May 2003 after arguing the EU's moratorium was not based on scientific evidence, but protectionist measures intended to keep U.S. products out of European markets. Canada and Argentina also joined the complaint. All three countries are the world's leading biotech crop growers. Out of the 90 percent of GMO products exported, 55 percent come from the United States, 19 percent from Argentina, 10 percent from Brazil and 6 percent from Canada. According to the U.S. State Department, American farmers have claimed $300 million in lost sales of GM corn and soy products to the EU since 2002. The EU has contested the U.S. complaint, arguing that Brussels has never had a moratorium, but has had a lengthier regulation process to approve biotech food products and crops, unlike other countries. According to the European Commission, more than 30 GMO products have been approved for marketing in the EU, and in early January 2006 the EU granted approvals to three new GM maize corn products. " The claim that there is a moratorium on approval of GM products in Europe is self-evidently untrue, " said the commission. " The EU approval process may appear to be lengthy for some countries which adopt a more lenient approach towards food and environmental safety issues. " The European Union was expected to be found culpable of using strict policies to block U.S. and foreign genetically modified food products and crops this week by the WTO. However, it is widely anticipated that Brussels will do little to open its borders and may simply accept retaliatory action by member states. Under the rules of the WTO, the EU can either appeal or simply ignore the ruling and accept retaliatory duties placed on some of its exports to the United States. " Contrary to U.S. claims, the EU is one of the largest importers of GMOs and derived food and feed, " said the commission. According to the EU's executive branch, the 25-member block is the largest soybean and soy meal importer. While the EU lifted its moratorium two years ago and now allows a modified strain of sweet corn, the U.S. argues the EU's action has irregardless been harmful to both U.S. and foreign farmers. The Bush administration contends that current EU policies serve as a disincentive to farmers who are looking to expand their biotech crops, as well as other countries who fear that pursuing the technology would be disadvantageous if other markets are kept closed. Already Switzerland, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Algeria, Ghana, Zambia and Georgia are among the countries that have banned planting genetically modified crops. Washington also claims that the EU decision to hold a moratorium was not based on health or safety risks, but rather on political concerns from certain member states including France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Greece. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., urged the E.U. to comply with the WTO's interim ruling and allow U.S. agricultural exports into its market. " Between high tariffs, questionable regulations and outright moratoria, the European Union has effectively closed its market to our most competitive agricultural exports, " said Sen. Baucus. " Sound science -- not unfounded speculation -- must form the basis of trade in agriculture. " While the administration has been asking that the EU open its market to U.S. biotech products, some analysts warn that a ruling in favor of the U.S. may undermine the regulatory measures currently in place in the EU which may risk food safety. Critics have also rebutted claims that biotech food and crop products can be created to feed the world's starving. They also argue that there has been no proven health or environmental benefits to GM crops. Rather, they say GMOs are no cheaper than regular food products and have not helped alleviate hunger in Africa, because crops are generally used for animal feed. While opponents say there is a high risk of engineered genes, proponents argue that technology helps to boost yields and cuts the number of times chemicals must be sprayed, which ends up limiting run-off and erosion. *************************************************************** WTO Biotech Ruling Reveals Special Interests, Say Critics Emad Mekay Inter Press Service News Agency WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (IPS) - A World Trade Organisation decision that called European safety bans on genetically modified food illegal under its global trade rules could usher in a new phase of potentially hazardous " Frankenfoods " worldwide and further erosion of local protections, say environmental and advocacy groups. The groups urged the European Union to place human health and environmental safety first and continue to resist allowing imports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The long-awaited landmark ruling on the EU's six-year embargo on genetically engineered crops could affect millions of farmers and consumers around the world and billions of dollars in trade. The United States, the main plaintiff in the case, along with developing nations, whose resistance to GMOs has so far largely hinged on European backing, may now feel confident that they can adopt the GMO technologies and retain access to European export markets. The U.S. biotech industry had complained that the EU action effectively blocked up to 300 million dollars of potential U.S. agricultural exports annually. The potential of U.S. exports to huge world markets, like India, is far greater. U.S. biotechnology giants like Monsanto, Aventis, DuPont and Dow Chemical and big agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association strenuously lobbied the George W. Bush administration to bring a formal case before the WTO, challenging the EU's GMO regulatory system. The United States is the world's largest grower of genetically modified crops and seeds, like corn and soybeans, with 96.3 million acres currently under cultivation. Biotech seed sales brought in 2.2 billion dollars last year. The WTO verdict on the case -- filed in 2003 by the United States and some of the countries within its political sphere like Canada, Argentina, Mexico and Egypt -- will determine whether EU policies will move beyond the " precautionary principle " , a notion that new technologies, especially those potentially affecting the environment and public health, should be shelved until risks are ruled out. But analysts and trade watchdog groups are warning that the ruling could now form the basis for challenging other GMO bans in Asian and African countries, which, as members of the WTO, will eventually have to abide by the ruling. " It's disappointing that the WTO would seek to override democratic decisions at literally all levels of government, " said Dennis Olson of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Critics of the WTO decision point out that there is already a broad international agreement on how to deal with biotech crops through the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, adopted in 2000. The protocol gives each country leeway in regulating genetically modified crops, taking precautionary principles, protecting their farmers and requiring labeling of these crops and food products. " Now, the WTO's unelected legal tribunal, at the request of the U.S. government, has chosen to pre-empt a strong democratic international consensus, " Olson added. Last Thursday a coalition of environmental and consumer groups published the conclusions of the ruling, which has not yet been officially released, saying they wanted to show the world how the Geneva-based WTO was being driven by special interests. The WTO has come under fire repeatedly by independent analysts and trade watchdog groups who say that the organisation's panels often look at cases strictly with the purpose of opening markets for trade with little heed to environmental or health goals. " The WTO should be the last institution to decide what people eat and grow in the fields, " said Alexandra Wandel, of Friends of the Earth Europe. Right-wing groups and industry organisations here have been waging a campaign to promote genetically modified (GM) foods and discredit environmental groups such as the Centre for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers Association, on the grounds that they stand in the way of using GMOs to feed the world's hungry and poor. Last week the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing Washington-based think tank with close ties to the neo-conservative clique in and around the Bush administration, said it is launching a book that defends GM crops because they can save children who suffer from diseases around the world. Jon Entine, a researcher at the think tank, said in a press advisory that some GM food brands, modified to contain vitamin A for example, remain unutilised because of opposition from environmental and public safety organisations and that those children were the victims of " anti-genetic science advocacy groups " . Because of such efforts from the U.S. government and the biotech industry, the acreage devoted to GM crops is growing, increasing to 222 million acres last year -- one-third was in developing countries. GMO advocates dangle benefits like a potential increase in agricultural productivity, drought and disease resistant crops, and the reduction of the use of insecticides and herbicides. Yet despite the initial elation in industry groups and the administration over the WTO ruling, some argue that the victory is not complete. The Food Products Association, the largest U.S. food and beverage lobbying group, said Wednesday that U.S. companies would still face trade barriers in the European Union such as the requirements for labeling and traceability of foods and animal feed. " These requirements have established a serious trade barrier that continues to keep many food products enjoyed here in the United States out of the European market, " said Jeffrey Barach, vice-president of the FPA. Environmental groups say they are still hopeful the ruling will not be as destructive as initially thought. The expansion of GM crops in the U.S. and other major farming countries has been slowing and many consumers say they are turning to " cleaner " and " tastier " organic or traditional foods and crops. " The U.S. administration and agro-chemical companies brought the case in a desperate attempt to force-feed markets with GMOs, " said Daniel Mittler, of Greenpeace International. " But consumers, citizens and farmers around the world do not want GMOs and this ruling will change none of that. " *************************************************************** US may press Africa on GMOs By Shapi Shacinda Reuters February 8, 2006 LUSAKA (Reuters) - The U.S. may push Africa to accept gene-altered (GMO) food now that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled the EU broke rules by barring GMO foods and seeds, but Africans vowed on Wednesday to resist. " We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods, " Zambian Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana told Reuters in Lusaka. " The decision by the WTO does nothing to change our stand in this matter. " The WTO ruled on Tuesday that the European Union and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to genetically modified crops and foods. A U.S. trade official confirmed findings of the preliminary ruling, contained in a confidential report sent only to the parties. The closely watched verdict addressed a complaint brought against the EU by leading GMO producers the United States, Argentina and Canada. The European Union's opponents asserted that the moratorium, which Brussels argued was never official, hurt their exports and was not based on science. Manufacturers of the biotech seeds, designed to increase yields and resist pests better than normal seeds, maintain they are safe for human consumption. European consumers, fearing the effects of " Frankenstein foods " have resisted them. Even African countries facing food shortages, such as Zambia, have refused to accept gene-altered food donations, arguing their safety had not been ascertained. Those countries that take in GMO-food demand stringent certifications and milling before it arrives on their borders. Regional heavyweight South Africa is one of the few countries on the continent to embrace the controversial technology. SIGNAL TO REST OF THE WORLD Campaigners and analysts saw the U.S. using the World Trade Organization ruling to press Africans to accept GMO food imports on the basis that Europe, which has usually backed the obstinate African position, will itself have to take them. " Politically, I think it is very clear that the U.S. will try and use this case to force GMOs into African markets. American industry is already saying that the result is a signal to the rest of the world, " Daniel Mittler, trade adviser at Greenpeace International, told Reuters by telephone. " They are implying that while the EU may be able to resist an outlawing of national bans on GMOs, developing countries will not and will have to open their markets, " Mittler said. Africans argue that better technology to increase irrigation, more widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides, and improved monitoring of market trends will help deliver improved harvests and defeat hunger. " It is obvious to everyone that the U.S. will interpret the WTO ruling as a message to Africans that it is now time to eat GMOs and stop the noise-making ... after all, the EU has been put on a leash in the matter, " said an agriculture consultant in Malawi, one of the countries that often require food aid. But Zambian minister Sikatana said there was no looking back: " We made a decision based on facts and those facts have not changed. We hope no one in Africa feels they have to change their views based on that ruling, it will not do. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.