World Trade Panel Sides with Biotech Food Producing Countries

GENEVA, Switzerland, February 9, 2006 (ENS) - A World Trade Organization panel has issued draft conclusions upholding the complaints of United States, Canada and Argentina that the European Union did not allow imports of genetically modified food and feed for six years - but the panel did not make its conclusions public.

However, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace have obtained and published the conclusions of the WTO panel. The groups said they made the draft conclusions available to allow "the whole world to engage in the debate on the future of our food."

The groups condemned the secrecy of the WTO and called on governments to ensure that complex health and environmental decisions are taken in a transparent manner by bodies qualified to do so.

"The WTO is keeping its draft ruling secret," said Alexandra Wandel, trade coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe. "This sums up everything that is wrong with the WTO. It is secretive, undemocratic and biased towards business interests. The WTO should be the last institution to decide what people eat and grow in the fields."

Syngenta genetically modified corn has a built in resistance to insects. The Bt10 variety also resists an antibiotic. (Photo courtesy Syngenta)

The dispute resolutions panel concluded that the European Union did not meet its obligations under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, known as the SPS Agreement. The agreement aims to prevent governments from using health measures to shield domestic industries from foreign competition.

The panel ruled that "The European Communities applied a general de facto moratorium on the approval of biotech products between June 1999 and August 2003, which is when this panel was established." The European Union enacted its regulatory framework governing the import of genetically modified food and feed in 2003.

The ruling covers 25 genetically modified varieties of cotton, beets, oilseed rape, maize, potatos, and soybeans.

The environmental and trade groups called the preliminary ruling "a major step back for the democratic rights of national and local governments to set their own environmental and human health regulations when there is scientific uncertainty."

"The WTO dispute panel is set up to view regulations strictly in a framework designed to facilitate trade, not to realize public or environmental health objectives," said Steve Suppan, senior trade associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

U.S. officials claimed victory after the draft ruling on Tuesday. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued a joint statement saying the World Trade Organization (WTO) has preliminarily found the European Union has a de facto moratorium on agricultural biotechnology products that is inconsistent with WTO rules.

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (Photo courtesy U.S. State Department)

"We believe agricultural biotechnology products should be provided a timely, transparent and scientific review by the European Union, and that is why Canada, Argentina and the United States brought the case in the first place," Portman said.

Johanns said, "The continuing adoption of agricultural biotechnology worldwide is evidence it provides tremendous benefits to farmers and rural communities. Global biotechnology acreage has increased more than 50-fold in the first decade of commercialization, with more than one billion acres planted."

"More than 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries, including five EU nations, are reducing pesticide use, receiving higher yields and preventing erosion by planting biotech varieties," Johanns said. "Ninety percent of these farmers are in developing countries, adding to rural incomes, promoting development and preserving our environment."

The European Commission reacted defensively to the draft ruling, saying, "There is a general consensus between scientists that GMOs [genetically modified organisms] are not inherently unsafe, but that their safety for the environment, human health and animal health needs to be assessed on a case by case basis before marketing."

This approach is supported by international organizations such as the World Health Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Commission said. "The EU legislation follows strictly the internationally recommended approach and reflects the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which the EU is a signatory."

European Commissioner for External Trade Peter Mandelson (Photo courtesy European Commission)

"The EU believes that such regulatory oversight is of utmost importance to address any potential failure of the regulatory system, such as those that have been experienced in the U.S. in the recent past when non-approved GMOs such as Starlink GM maize, or Bt 10 GM maize entered the U.S. food chain," said the Commission.

The Commission emphasized that the European Union "has no ban on safe GM products."

In the 25 countries of the European Union, GMOs can only be placed on the market after having undergone a stringent science-based risk assessment on a case by case basis.

So far, more than 30 GMOs or derived food and feed products have been approved for marketing in the EU. As an example, the Commission said that in early January 2006, the EU granted approvals to three new genetically modified maize products after a rigorous safety assessment.

"Contrary to U.S. claims," the Commission said, "the EU is one of the largest importers of GMOs and derived food and feed. The EU is the largest soybean and soy meal importer and the fact is that soy imports consist largely of Monsanto “Round-Up Ready” soybean, which is cultivated in all the main soybean global producers, i.e. the U.S., Brazil and Argentina."

"The claim that the 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 Commission said. "The longer times to assess the safety of GMOs in the EU are due to the complexity of the science involved as well as to delays incurred by biotech companies to provide suitable data demonstrating the safety of the products."

The environmental and trade groups that released the panel's conclusions say the World Trade Organization is not the correct arena for these decisions.

"This verdict only proves that the WTO is unqualified to deal with complex scientific and environmental issues," the groups said, quoting the panel's statement that "the panel did not examine ... whether biotech products in general are safe or not."

During the WTO dispute the European Commission also questioned whether the WTO is the right place to solve such disputes. "There is a serious question as to whether the WTO is the appropriate international forum for resolving all the GMO issues that the complainants have raised in these case," it said.

Daniel Mittler, trade policy advisor at Greenpeace International, said, "The U.S. administration and agro-chemical companies brought the case in a desperate attempt to force-feed markets with GMOs. But consumers, citizens and farmers around the world do not want GMOs and this ruling will change none of that."

"The U.S. government and the biotech companies may claim that the ruling proves that GE [genetically engineered] crops are safe for human consumption and the use of GE seeds is an environmentally beneficial agricultural practice. But the case covers no such thing: much less does it support the profoundly flawed U.S. regulation of GE crops," said Steve Suppan, IATP research director and author of a backgrounder on the case.

An international campaign against the WTO dispute called "Bite-back - WTO: Hands off our food!" is supported by 750 organizations representing some 60 million people. The "Bite Back" citizens' objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth International with the support of consumer, development and farmers' groups, trade unions, research institutes and citizens from over 100 countries.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow said, "This ruling is a direct attack on democracy. Last year European countries voted to uphold national bans on GM products, now the WTO has ruled that these bans are illegal."

"This dispute is a desperate attempt by the U.S. and biotech industry to force GM foods onto an unwilling European market," Oxborrow said. "But consumers will not be bullied into eating GM foods. This result will backfire and lead to even greater opposition to GM in Europe."

The WTO dispute resolution panel's draft conclusions are found online at: http://www.iatp.org/