GMOs - FORCE FEEDING THE WORLD.

[Guest guest]

GMOs - FORCE FEEDING THE WORLD

The transatlantic trade dispute into genetically modified foods.

 

By Friends of the Earth

www.foe.org

 

The World Trade Organisation will publish its Interim Report on the transatlantic trade dispute over genetically modified food on the 5th January 2006. The case rests on the right of individual countries, in this case Europe, to protect their farmland, environment and consumers from the risks posed by the genetically modified foods.

 

Background

In May 2003 the United States, supported by Canada, Argentina and initially Egypt, made a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about Europe’s stance on genetically modified organisms (GMO). Next month the WTO will publish an Interim Report into the dispute. This will be a draft of the final ruling expected later in March or April.

What was the complaint?

The US-led coalition allege that Europe has:

· Refused to give the approval to a number of new GM foods,

· Stopped processing the applications for new GMOs,

· Not taken action to stop EU member states banning GM products.

 

The US argues that Europe’s position on GMOs violates WTO rules and is a barrier to trade. In particular, it claims that US farmers have lost exports because they grow GM crops not approved in Europe. President Bush later added that the EU’s moratorium was impeding efforts to feed the world. He stated that “European governments should join - not hinder -- the great cause of ending hunger in Africa.”

What has happened in the meantime

 

- Egypt pulls out

Soon after launching the dispute Egypt angered the US by pulling out altogether, citing “the need to preserve adequate and effective consumer and environmental protection.” As the only African country in the coalition this was a crucial blow to their “feed the world“ argument.

- Secret panel meetings

After failing to resolve differences the WTO set up a panel of trade experts to examine the case. They have met in secrecy and have taken evidence behind closed doors from the countries involved and also third party countries who wanted to take part.

- Scientists called in

The US argued heavily for science to be kept out of the dispute, stating that it was a trade complaint and the safety of GM foods was not at stake. However the WTO panel disagreed and set up a group of scientists to examine the facts and report on whether there were scientific grounds for Europe taking such a position. The scientists’ report has not been made public.

- Europe’s defence

The European Commission has argued in the WTO that the science on GMOs is constantly evolving and that "new risk considerations sometimes arise spontaneously and change the scope of the risk assessment". They also argues that there are "legitimate scientific concerns" about the use of antibiotic resistant genes and secondary effects of GM crops on beneficial insects.

- Europe’s double standards

Under pressure from the WTO and biotech industry, the European Commission however promotes GM foods and has forced through a number of new GMOs despite being unable to get sufficient support from EU member states.

In addition it took major steps to try and get member states to lift their national bans on GM products. The move back-fired when the Council of Environment Ministers voted down a Commission proposal to stop the bans in June 2005.

- Bite Back – Hands off our food!

Because of the WTO’s secret ways of working, the general public has been locked out of this dispute from the beginning. A number of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have however been active in making their views heard. Some groups have sent in their own legal submissions to the WTO. Over 740 organisations with a combined membership of 60 million people have supported a campaign called Bite Back – Hands off our food! (www.bite-back.org). This campaign demands that the WTO does not force GM foods on people against their wishes.

What are the ramifications?

Since the beginning of the WTO case, the European Commission has taken a much more proactive position on GMOs, using its legal powers to end the six-year long moratorium and promoting GM foods despite the massive objection from its citizens. If Europe loses the WTO case, then they will either have to accept more GM foods or face hefty sanctions on EU products.

The biggest impact of the trade dispute goes well beyond Europe’s shores. The case serves as a warning to other countries, particularly developing countries, not to restrict access to their markets by banning or restricting GMOs. In a similar case over beef hormones, once the US started a WTO trade complaint no other country in the world banned them. Although the US is hoping that this is also the case with GMOs it is unlikely to be so easy. Public protest against GM foods is worldwide and the Untied Nations has established a Biosafety Protocol to protect developing countries from GMOs.

What next?

The Interim Report will be sent to the countries in the dispute for their comments on 5th January. They will then have 3 weeks to submit their comments. There is then the opportunity for countries to comment on the other parties’ comments before a final ruling is issued, currently due on 20 March. This will then be translated into the official WTO languages and issued to all members of the WTO in April/May. Following the final report it is likely that the loser will launch an appeal against the verdict. In the meantime, the European Commission aims to push for the approval of GMOs and the lifting of national bans. The environment, farmers and consumers would be the losers, biotech companies the big winners.

CONTACT: Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert +49 172 748 3953

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert +49 1609 490 1163