| The WTO has found in favour of the US in its complaint against the EU's de facto moratorium on GMOs.
The findings of the confidential interim report of the WTO became common knowledge this week after much speculation, and the results have surprised no-one.
The EU stopped granting new approvals of GMOs in 1998 in response to intense consumer and civil society concern about the harmful effects of this new technology on human health, the environment and farming. Since that time, as awareness and understanding about GMOs has grown in Europe, opposition to it has hardened too. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of European consumers do not want to eat GM foods, or have the crops growing in their fields. In thousands of regions across Europe, governments at local, regional and national level have declared GMO-free zones and national bans on GM crops, in response to the public's strength of feeling, and in order to prevent contamination of agriculture and environment with genetically modified genes.
In 2003, the US, frustrated that they were unable to force European consumers to accept their GM exports, filed a complaint at the WTO, supported by Canada and Argentina. The US claimed that the EU position was an unfair barrier to trade. US officials have been claiming that the EU position is simply a matter of protectionist economic policies which are illegal under WTO rules, and that it is nothing to do with food safety or the environment at all. However, all Europeans know that this claim is rubbish, and that this policy is entirely as a result of consumer and citizen mobilisation due to scientific concerns.
In 2004, the EU put in place labelling and traceability rules on GMOs, and slowly re-started the process of limited GM approvals. However, GM is unlikely to enter the food chain in any significant amount, because labelling is compulsory and food suppliers are wary of putting GMOs in food if they know it will be rejected by their customers. In fact, in some ways the complaint to the WTO may have backfired on the US, because since 2003, opposition to GM has hardened even further, and many now see the bullying tactics of the US as further reason to be suspicious of the technology.
The 1000+ page report and its conclusions are supposedly confidential, until the official report is released in a few weeks' time. However, NGOs have made it available online in order to show the undemocratic approach by which the WTO came to its decision. According to Daniel Mittler of Greenpeace International 'This verdict only proves that the WTO is unqualified to deal with complex scientific and environmental issues. They even say so themselves, claiming that "the panel did not examine... whether biotech products in general are safe or not."' So it appears that the valid EU argument, that GM rejection is based on sound scientific and environmental concerns, was completely ignored by the WTO, whose only interest is in forcing trade.
Even Syngenta has admitted that the ruling is unlikely to benefit them, or to increase GM presence in the EU market, since consumer stance is so strongly against the technology. Instead, Europe will continue to be an important market for GM-free produce, and this ruling will not affect African export markets. As Carrie Stebbings of the GM Freeze in the UK has said, "The US... promote free trade around the world but they don't seem to have grasped the basic principles of supply and demand. There is no viable market for GM in Europe but US farmers could win back their market share by producing non-GM food that people actually want to eat."
---------------------
1. Europe Bridles at WTO View on National Biotech Bans
Article from Reuters. Date: 8 February, 2006
Jeremy Smith
http://www.alertnet.org/redir/righsection_rel_art__index_htm/thenews/newsdesk/L08210482.htm
2. WTO GMO Decision Expected Tomorrow: Evidence Shows the US's Desperate Efforts Unlikely to Succeed in Forcing GM Food Acceptance
Press Release from GeneWatch UK. Date: 6th February 2006
3. Article from Dow Jones Newswires. Date: 7 February 2006
http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_1199532.html
4. US May Press Africa on GMOs, Africans Vow to Resist
Article from Reuters. Date: 8 February 2006
Shapi Shacinda
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-08T134127Z_01_ALL849230_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-TRADE-WTO-GMOS-AFRICA-REFILED-20060208.XML&archived=False
5. EU Citizens will Decide on GM, not US/ WTO Bullying
Press Release from GM Freeze, UK. Date: 7th February 2006
www.gmfreeze.org
6. Groups Publish Conclusions of WTO Dispute: WTO secrecy an outrage
Press Release from IATP, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Date: 8 February 2006
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_8_Feb_WTO_conclusions.htm
----------------------
1. Europe Bridles at WTO View on National Biotech Bans
Article from Reuters. Date: 8 February, 2006
Jeremy Smith
http://www.alertnet.org/redir/righsection_rel_art__index_htm/thenews/newsdesk/L08210482.htm
BRUSSELS - European countries bristled on Wednesday at a world trade ruling that touches on national sovereignty over genetically modified (GMO) foods, with some saying they would do their level best to keep farming GMO-free.
Europe's consumers are well known for their skepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods." The biotech industry insists their products are perfectly safe, however, and no different to conventional foods.
Late on Tuesday, a World Trade Organization panel ruled that various EU countries -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg -- had broken international trade rules by imposing national bans on marketing and growing specific GMOs.
Some of those countries reacted angrily to the WTO ruling, saying they would defend their legal right to block EU-approved products if they wanted, since this was the will of consumers. EU law dictates that such bans must be scientifically justified.
Austria, one of the EU's staunchest biotech skeptics, has banned imports of three GMO maize types and is considering a ban on growing a GMO rapeseed. Government officials say they will continue to be as restrictive as possible for the time being.
"The protection of people and the environment have absolute priority, and the most recent scientific research vindicates our cautious approach in this matter," said Austrian Health Minister Maria Rauch-Kallat, responsible for national GMO policy.
"We will exhaust all possibilities to keep Austria's agriculture GM-free and ensure consumers' safety."
Last June, EU governments rebuffed attempts by the European Commission to order the five countries to lift their national GMO bans: the first time that the bloc has managed to agree anything on biotech policy since 1998.
The Commission didn't think the bans were justified, and nor did the WTO in its ruling on the case filed by Argentina, Canada and the United States. It also said the EU's de facto GMO moratorium between 1999 and 2003 broke world trade rules.
France, home to anti-GMO and free trade firebrand Jose Bove, has a long-standing consumer opposition to biotech food. Europe's agricultural powerhouse, France bans two types of GMO rapeseed but has allowed some small-scale growing of GMO maize.
French consumer and farming groups deplored the WTO ruling, insisting that a large majority of consumers were firmly opposed to GMOs and said the EU's temporary approvals ban was correct.
"We think the moratorium was totally justified insofar as we need to assess GMOs' benefits for consumers as well as their potential risks," Olivier Arnault, food officer at France's largest consumer group UMC-Que Choisir, told Reuters.
A poll published in France this week showed that 78 percent of those questioned would like a temporary ban on GMO products in order to evaluate their health and environmental impact.
Green groups said consumer resistance to GMOs has increased in Europe since the three major GMO growers filed their WTO complaint in 2003. The ruling will not encourage consumers to buy more GMOs, they say, and maybe make the opposition stronger.
"The WTO has bluntly ruled that European safeguards (bans) should be sacrificed to benefit biotech corporations," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"This will backfire and lead to even greater opposition to genetically modified food and crops. Consumers worldwide will not be bullied into eating GM foods."
U.S. officials regretted there was a level of misinformation in Europe about the benefits of biotech crops but hoped that the WTO ruling would let the EU open its doors more to GMO imports.
"It is unfortunate the extent to which certain groups have decided to demagogue the issue and mischaracterize the quality ... and environmental implications of biotechnology," Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters.
"The proof will be in trade flows and transparency and ease of approval processes. Time will tell," she said in Brussels.
(Additional reporting by Boris Groendahl in Vienna, Silvia Aloisi in Rome, William Schomberg in Brussels, Sybille de La Hamaide and David Evans in Paris)
******************************************************
2. WTO GMO Decision Expected Tomorrow: Evidence Shows the US's Desperate Efforts Unlikely to Succeed in Forcing GM Food Acceptance
Press Release from GeneWatch UK. Date: 6th February 2006
Today, GeneWatch UK is publishing a summary of public attitudes research from around the world that has been collected since the WTO GMO dispute began in 2003. It shows public hostility to GM crops remains widespread and indicates that the tactics of the US and biotechnology industry are unlikely to succeed in opening markets for GM [1]. The opinion poll and research findings come from a wide spread of countries, including South Africa,
China, Japan, Mali, Canada and Europe. They demonstrate that people remain unconvinced about GM crops and foods and, even in the US, the great majority want the choice through mandatory labelling.
In 2003, the USA, Argentina and Canada made a complaint to the WTO that Europe's handling of GM crops was a barrier to free trade [2]. This followed the 1998 decision by Europe, arising from public concern, to take a more precautionary approach to GM food, revising and tightening its legislation so no new approvals for GM crops were made for a period of six years. This angered the GM crop exporting countries who, in desperation and unable to win the public debate, turned to the secretive and undemocratic processes of the WTO's trade dispute process in an effort to force acceptance both in Europe and the rest of the world.
Tomorrow, it is expected that the parties will hear the WTO's Dispute Panel's interim findings. The publication of the interim decision is a year behind schedule and, despite the importance of the case, the public will only see the decision if it is leaked. Rather than allowing for an informed view to emerge, a scramble to 'spin' the story will start.
Everyone is likely to claim to have won, even though the outcome will inevitably be mixed. The USA in particular will want to spin the decision as a victory to 'persuade' other countries not to place restrictions on GM foods.
However, will the biotech industry inspired tactic of a WTO dispute to drive GM foods around the world prove successful? The evidence from public attitudes research suggests that scepticism about GM has extended globally and the market will continue to reject GM foods when given the choice. There is also a danger that the tactics will back fire and opposition intensify.
"The US and biotech industry hoped that by bringing a WTO dispute they would be able to bully countries into accepting GM food. The public around the world continues to show they are not convinced and any US 'victory' is likely to be hollow,' said Dr Sue Mayer GeneWatch UK's Director. "The USA and the biotech industry has shown itself unable to judge this issue well from the very beginning when it first exported GM soya mixed with non-GM soya in 1996 and started the whole controversy. Falling back on the WTO when faced with a desperate situation, seems similarly misjudged."
GeneWatch UK was one of fourteen international organisations that submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) submission to the WTO dispute panel arguing that countries should be able to establish rules for GM crops and foods according to their public wishes.
For comment please contact Sue Mayer on 01298 871989 (office) or 07930 308807 (mobile)
Notes to editors:
1. The summary of public attitudes research
Summary of public attitudes research since September 2003
GeneWatch UK
February 2006
January 2006 - Mali: At a five day meeting, farmers heard arguments for and against the introduction of GM technology. They rejected GM crops as an attack on their way of life.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece
December 2005 - South Africa: Almost six out of 10 South Africans either reject or avoid genetically modified foods, according to the results of a poll. http://allafrica.com/stories/200601160543.html
November 2005 - Switzerland: In a national referendum, the Swiss vote for a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. There was 55.7% in favour of the moratorium with a majority across all 26 cantons, a situation which was unprecedented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4475044.stm
April 2005 - Greece: research from University of Thessaly shows 'the overall attitude of Greek consumers towards GM food is negative'.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00916.x
July 2005 - Europe: A Europe-wide survey by the European Commission shows a majority of Europeans (54%) agree that "food made from genetically modified organisms is dangerous".
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf
May 2005 - Russia: An opinion poll shows that two thirds of Russians are against genetically modified foods and the majority of experts questioned support a ban on GM crops.
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60290-russians-reject-gm
March 2005 - China: In a Greenpeace opinion poll, a majority (57%) of the respondents said they would choose non-GM food over GM food.
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/releases/consumer-rejection-of-ge-foods
November 2004 - USA: According to opinion poll and focus groups research by the Pew Initiative, 'Americans' opinions about genetically modified foods remain divided, but majority want a strong regulatory system',.
http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2004update/.
September 2004 - UK: Opposition to GM continues to grow. An opinion poll by the Consumer's Association shows:
* Only around a quarter of respondents found food from a GM plant acceptable, compared with almost a third (32 per cent) in 2002.
* Only around a quarter (26 per cent) favour the growing of GM crops in the UK, compared with around a third (32 per cent) in 2002.
* Overall 61 per cent of respondents said that they are concerned about the use of GM in food production with the long-term consequences as one of the greatest concerns. http://www.which.net/campaigns/food/gm/0209gmdilemmas_br.pdf
March 2004 - Canada/USA: tracking research by the Canadian Government revealed: 'Half (52%) of Americans are comfortable with buying genetically modified foods, compared to 45% of Canadians. The number of Canadians who are comfortable with buying genetically modified foods has decreased seven points since March 2002' and 'Fully 85% of Canadians believe a new labeling system is needed and 77% believe that system should be mandatory. In the U.S., 82% believe it is needed and 70% feel it should be mandatory'.
http://biostrategy.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=588&mid=176
December 2003 - Canada: A Government report about public attitudes to biotechnology in general said: '.there remains continued and widespread wariness about GM food, reconfirmed in this wave in focus groups. If anything, people express stronger dissatisfaction than they have in the past about the lack of labeling and labeling standards for GM foods'.
http://biostrategy.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=544&all=true
October 2003 - Japan: Research using the 'willingness to pay' approach revealed that 80% of the Seikyou consumers who participated would not choose GM noodles over non-GM noodles, even with a price reduction of up to 50%.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4046/is_200310/ai_n9305606
September 2003 - UK: Two citizen's juries call for moratorium on commercialisation of GM to continue.
http://www.which.net/media/pr/sep03/general/gmjury.html
2. For more details about the WTO GMO dispute see the special section of the GeneWatch web site at: http://www.genewatch.org/WTO/WTO_default.htm
***************************************
3. US May Press Africa on GMOs, Africans Vow to Resist
Article from Reuters. Date: 8 February 2006
Shapi Shacinda
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-08T134127Z_01_ALL849230_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-TRADE-WTO-GMOS-AFRICA-REFILED-20060208.XML&archived=False
LUSAKA - 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.
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."
Additional reporting by Ed Stoddard in Johannesburg
****************************************
4. EU Citizens will Decide on GM, not US/ WTO Bullying
Press Release from GM Freeze, UK. Date: 7th February 2006
www.gmfreeze.org
The US, supported by Argentina and Canada, lodged a complaint against Europe's precautionary approach to GM in May 2003 at the World Trade Organisation. The case accuses Europe of undue delay in approving new GM products and of unscientific bans of certain crops. The interim decision is set to be sent to the parties today.
The ruling puts the spotlight on the US and the WTO, accused of using bullying tactics to persuade the EU to ignore the demands of their citizens and force acceptance of unwanted products on to the market. This case also damages the credibility of the WTO which is seen as a secretive, unelected body with enormous powers that puts the financial interests of large corporations above public, health and environmental concerns.
European citizens have consistently voiced their preference for non-GM food, their concerns about the possible health and environmental impacts and have expressed a lack of trust in the corporations developing them. The EU responded by strengthening the labelling and traceability regulations to partly address these concerns, which led to a moratorium on approvals until the process was complete.
The US claims that as a result of the delays their farmers have lost millions of dollars from the EU market. However, it was consumer rejection of GM technology in food that closed the market to GM food in Europe, and the WTO case will only make consumers more suspicious. The ruling will not restore a market that never existed in the first place.
Carrie Stebbings from GM Freeze said:
"The US often claims to be the world leader in the principles of democracy and free trade. They promote free trade around the world but they don't seem to have grasped the basic principles of supply and demand. There is no viable market for GM in Europe but US farmers could win back their market share by producing non-GM food that people actually want to eat."
*************************************
5. Groups Publish Conclusions of WTO Dispute: WTO secrecy an outrage
Press Release from IATP, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Date: 8 February 2006
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_8_Feb_WTO_conclusions.htm
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace have made the conclusions of the WTO dispute on genetically modified organisms public [1] in order 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.
"This verdict only proves that the WTO is unqualified to deal with complex scientific and environmental issues. They even say so themselves, claiming that "the panel did not examine ... whether biotech products in general are safe or not". The US 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," said Daniel Mittler, Trade Policy Advisor at Greenpeace International.
"The WTO is keeping its draft ruling secret. 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," said Alexandra Wandel, Trade Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"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. "The U.S. government and the biotech companies may claim that the ruling proves that GE 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.
Notes:
[1] The conclusions and recommendations of the WTO panel report are available at: http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=78475
Backgrounders are available at:
IATP: http://www.tradeobservatory.org
FoE: www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf
Greenpeace: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/WTObriefing0602.pdf
Contact:
IATP: Ben Lilliston, IATP, +1 612-870-3416
Greenpeace: Daniel Mittler, +49 171 876 5345
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163
|
