|
It has always been suspected that the US complaint to the WTO about the EU's moratorium on GMOs was really intended to send a warning to developing countries not to try to reject GMOs themselves.
In February this year, reports emerged that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) had found in favour of the US. The report is still not due to be published for several weeks, but the decision was confirmed last week. This news was used by the US to suggest that GM food products were safe, and to discourage other countries from attempting to impose the similar restrictions.
However, a closer look at the actual report, which was leaked to NGOs, reveals that the ruling should NOT have a chilling effect on other countries' GM import policy, because the criticism was in fact on a point of EU process, and did not actually judge the safety of GM foods, or criticise European GMO legislation. Under the UN Biosafety Protocol, countries still have the right to control trade in GMOs. This ruling should not therefore influence other countries' rights to protect themselves against GMOs if they wish.
Friends of the Earth said, "This is no victory for the United States or the biotech companies. Countries still have the right to ban or suspend genetically modified foods and crops. Europe's only failure was the way they did it and not why they did it."
The point on which the WTO criticised the EU, was that they did not comply with WTO risk assessments, and that there was undue delay in the approvals process. The report also found against bans on GMOs held in several EU regions, but accepted that moratoria might be valid in certain situations.
The US (with Argentina and Canada, together the 3 biggest GM producers in the world), claimed that the EU was rejecting imported GM on purely political, protectionist economic grounds, and not on a scientific basis. EU citizens would strongly oppose this claim, since it was consumer doubts over GM safety that led to political pressure to delay approvals of GM and instigate bans on GM in several regions in Europe. Although we know that scientific submissions were made to highlight the uncertainties over GM foods, the WTO report did not include any findings on safety concerns, but avoided the issue altogether.
The European Union claimed however, that the findings would not affect their policy. A new ban on GMOs was approved in Poland this week, and a spokesman for the Austrian ministry of science said that they would keep to their reluctant stance towards GMOs, regardless of the WTO ruling. In 2004, labelling laws were introduced to signal the end of the de facto moratorium. Due to consumer resistance, labelling requirements have still meant that few producers will use GMOs in their food products, and Europe remains largely GM-free in practice. This continues to anger US exporters such as the American Soygrowers Association. But many suspect that efforts to force unwanted GM on European consumers will backfire, as these actions could lead to suspicion and resentment, and even stronger anti-GM feeling.
|
