Tweet
WTO to EU: You'll eat GM food and like it!
Reason finally prevails.
WTO rules against Europe in GM food case
By Edward Alden and Jeremy Grant in Washington and Raphael Minder in Brussels
Published: February 7 2006 23:31 | Last updated: February 8 2006 11:11
The World Trade Organisation ruled on Tuesday that European restrictions on the introduction of genetically-modified foods violated international trade rules, finding there was no scientific justification for Europe’s failure to allow use of new varieties of corn, soybeans and cotton.
The ruling was a victory for Washington in a long-running dispute that has pitted US faith in the benefits of the new crops against widespread consumer resistance in Europe.
It was immediately welcomed by US farmers and the biotechnology industry, but castigated by environmental and consumer groups who charged the ruling was a blatant example of international trade rules running roughshod over democratic decisions aimed at protecting consumer health and safety.
The European Commission on Wednesday described the ruling as “a mixed bag” that criticised former EU regulatory measures, but would not impact current legislation, which came into force after the US-led complaint was filed in 2003.
“Our current system has been vindicated” said one spokesperson. “We are satisfied with parts of this report, particlularly the part that says our current system works. It is science-based and products are being approved.”
Officials said however they would wait for a final ruling, expected around April, to decide whether the EU had grounds to appeal.
A US trade official, briefing reporters on the confidential decision that was released to the countries involved in the dispute late on Tuesday, said: “We’re please with the outcome. We’re not at the end of the road, but it’s a significant milestone.”
The US, along with Canada and Argentina, launched the case in 2003 hoping that a favourable ruling by the WTO would prevent European-style restrictions on GM foods from spreading to Africa, China and other parts of the world. “One of the reasons we brought this case was because of the chilling effect the EU moratorium has had on the adoption of biotechnology,” the official said.
The immediate practical effect of the ruling is unclear. The European Commission halted the approval of new GM varieties in 1998, but began limited approvals again in May 2004, after the US launched the WTO case. Nearly two dozen applications remain in the pipeline.
The WTO decision also found against separate national bans established by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, which have refused to allow even those GM varieties approved by Brussels. Those national restrictions have remained in place even after the moratorium was lifted in 2004.
US farmers welcomed the decision. Michelle Gorman, director of regulatory relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said: “We’re hoping that it is going to send a strong message to other WTO members that biotech approvals must be science-based and can’t take the amount of time that the EU has taken in approving their biotech products.”
The ruling was also seized on by groups representing large food companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, which have been frustrated by the moratorium and the slow pace of approvals for new GM products. Sarah Thorn, senior director of international trade at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said: “The WTO’s decision makes it clear that biotech regulations must be based on sound science and that the EU’s approach to biotech crop approvals is unwarranted.”
But Friends of the Earth criticised the ruling as an “inappropriate intrusion into decisions about what food people eat”. Brent Blackwelder, president of the group’s US division, said: “The WTO is unfit to decide what we eat or what farmers grow. It is an undemocratic and secretive institution that has no particular competence in environmental or health and safety matters.
“This WTO decision will only increase the determination of citizens in Europe and around the world to reject these poorly tested foods.”
By Edward Alden and Jeremy Grant in Washington and Raphael Minder in Brussels
Published: February 7 2006 23:31 | Last updated: February 8 2006 11:11
The World Trade Organisation ruled on Tuesday that European restrictions on the introduction of genetically-modified foods violated international trade rules, finding there was no scientific justification for Europe’s failure to allow use of new varieties of corn, soybeans and cotton.
The ruling was a victory for Washington in a long-running dispute that has pitted US faith in the benefits of the new crops against widespread consumer resistance in Europe.
It was immediately welcomed by US farmers and the biotechnology industry, but castigated by environmental and consumer groups who charged the ruling was a blatant example of international trade rules running roughshod over democratic decisions aimed at protecting consumer health and safety.
The European Commission on Wednesday described the ruling as “a mixed bag” that criticised former EU regulatory measures, but would not impact current legislation, which came into force after the US-led complaint was filed in 2003.
“Our current system has been vindicated” said one spokesperson. “We are satisfied with parts of this report, particlularly the part that says our current system works. It is science-based and products are being approved.”
Officials said however they would wait for a final ruling, expected around April, to decide whether the EU had grounds to appeal.
A US trade official, briefing reporters on the confidential decision that was released to the countries involved in the dispute late on Tuesday, said: “We’re please with the outcome. We’re not at the end of the road, but it’s a significant milestone.”
The US, along with Canada and Argentina, launched the case in 2003 hoping that a favourable ruling by the WTO would prevent European-style restrictions on GM foods from spreading to Africa, China and other parts of the world. “One of the reasons we brought this case was because of the chilling effect the EU moratorium has had on the adoption of biotechnology,” the official said.
The immediate practical effect of the ruling is unclear. The European Commission halted the approval of new GM varieties in 1998, but began limited approvals again in May 2004, after the US launched the WTO case. Nearly two dozen applications remain in the pipeline.
The WTO decision also found against separate national bans established by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, which have refused to allow even those GM varieties approved by Brussels. Those national restrictions have remained in place even after the moratorium was lifted in 2004.
US farmers welcomed the decision. Michelle Gorman, director of regulatory relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said: “We’re hoping that it is going to send a strong message to other WTO members that biotech approvals must be science-based and can’t take the amount of time that the EU has taken in approving their biotech products.”
The ruling was also seized on by groups representing large food companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, which have been frustrated by the moratorium and the slow pace of approvals for new GM products. Sarah Thorn, senior director of international trade at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said: “The WTO’s decision makes it clear that biotech regulations must be based on sound science and that the EU’s approach to biotech crop approvals is unwarranted.”
But Friends of the Earth criticised the ruling as an “inappropriate intrusion into decisions about what food people eat”. Brent Blackwelder, president of the group’s US division, said: “The WTO is unfit to decide what we eat or what farmers grow. It is an undemocratic and secretive institution that has no particular competence in environmental or health and safety matters.
“This WTO decision will only increase the determination of citizens in Europe and around the world to reject these poorly tested foods.”
my fish genes in my tomatoes, they look sooo fresh 
Comment