| Author (Person) | Bower, Helen | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Title | In Focus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Details | 8.9.03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Publication Date | 08/09/2003 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Background and reporting on the main issues in the European Union and the wider Europe The United States, Argentina and Canada have stepped up the pressure on the European Union to end its five year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) products by launching a case against the EU's GM restrictions at the World Trade Organisation. The complainants argue that the EU rules are illegal because they are not based on scientific evidence of risk to health and the environment. The three countries are also contesting bans by six EU Member States on some already approved genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Background The request by the United States, backed by Canada and Argentina, for a WTO dispute panel [DS291, DS292, DS 293] is not unexpected. It follows an announcement from the US trade representative, Robert Zoellick, on 13 May 2003 that the United States was filing a case against the EU at the WTO after months of negotiations between the two sides failed to resolve the issue [see earlier From the American standpoint, the EU's moratorium on GM products has become increasingly frustrating since there is no scientific evidence to suggest that GM products cause problems for human health. In the meantime the EU ban is estimated to cost US farmers and the biotechnology industry $300m a year in lost exports. More recently, American frustrations have grown amidst fears that the EU reaction to GM products is leading to negative press about GM crops on the African continent. In 2002 a number of African countries refused to accept shipments of American food aid on the grounds that they may contain GM crops and in June 2003 the President of the United States, George Bush, accused the European Union of indirectly contributing to the famine in Africa by discouraging African nations from investing in biotechnology [see earlier But the EU's Member States are clear that they want to ensure a strict framework governing the use of GM products in food is in place in case of any risks to human health. Indeed, they are backed up by the attitudes of European consumers who have been reluctant to purchase GM derived food. New EU rules on GMOs The European Commission is also frustrated at the timing of the WTO dispute panel. After months of debate the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union finally adopted a new regulatory system for GMOs in July 2003. The new legislation governs the labelling and traceability of GMOs in the food chain and introduces a number of new measures:
The European Commission believes that the new framework will give consumers confidence that those GM product that reach shop shelves are safe and will therefore lead to an increase in sales. As David Byrne, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection explained,
The EU also argues that now the new rules are in place the European Commission should be able to make progress on a number of applications for marketing of GMOs in the EU and that therefore the 'de fact' moratorium could soon be lifted. However this has failed to satisfy the WTO complainants. US farmers claim that the new rules on traceability, which effectively require GM crops to be segregated from non-biotech crops will be hugely costly to implement. WTO dispute process The United States' request for a WTO dispute panel on 18 August 2003 is the final step in the WTO dispute settlement process. A panel is only established if consultations between the parties in the two months prior to the request have failed to settle the dispute. The European Union immediately blocked the panel. However, the WTO was obliged to establish one at the second time of asking on 29 August 2003. Once the three judges are nominated, the United States will have between three and six weeks to file its first written submission and the EU will have a further two to three weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a second written submission will follow. On average a panel procedure takes a year but this can be extended if one of the parties appeals - a process which can take up to three months. In this case the need for evidence from scientific experts may extend the case even longer, with few commentators expecting the results before 2005, by which time the European Commission may have approved many new GM products for marketing in the EU. The EU has recently shown that is not completely 'anti-GMO' when it refused to grant a request from Austria to ban the use of GMOs in the region of Upper Austria for a three year period; it is clearly just keen to ensure that a strict regulatory framework is in place. European Commissioner for Trade, Pascal Lamy, has already expressed his regret at the US decision to request a WTO panel, saying,
“The US decision to attack the right of countries to regulate the trade in GMOs is disgraceful. With this step the corporate-led US administration wants to forcefeed GMOs onto Europe and the rest of the world. The WTO is not the right place to decide what people should eat. Environmentalists and consumers around the world will resist the Bush administration and the WTO”. But the United States maintain that the EU is in breach of global trade rules. The US Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman said,
EU-US Trade War? The establishment of the WTO dispute panel threatens to escalate trade tensions between the EU and US, just a month ahead of the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico. While the Doha Development Agenda is supposed to be the key focus of the agenda, many observers believe that the row over GM crops will overshadow proceedings, along with differences between the EU and US over agricultural subsidies. Further information within European Sources Online: European Sources Online: Topic Guides
European Sources Online: In Focus
European Sources Online: Financial Times
European Sources Online: European Voice
Further information can be seen in these external links: EU Institutions European Commission International Organisations World Trade Organisation
Codex Alimentarius
National Organisations Office of the United States Trade Representative Miscellaneous Organisations Friends of the Earth Europe The European Consumers Organisation
Europabio News Organisations BBC News Online
Helen Bower 8 September 2003 The United States, with the backing of Canada and Argentina, has called for a WTO dispute panel to be established to investigate the European Union's 'de fact' moratorium on GMOs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
