Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 1 • Number 1 • 22nd November 2001

EU Resists Biotech Discussion In SPS Committee

Do More

Subscribe to the BioRes

* Required Field

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector (Academia, Govt., Private Sector, NGO, IGO): *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

EU Resists Biotech Discussion In SPS Committee

At the meeting of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on 31 October to 1 November, the US and Canada strongly criticised Europe’s continued de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in place since 1998. The EU reacted evasively to the criticism, arguing that the matter should instead be discussed in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

Despite frantic preparations for the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar (9-13 November), the SPS Committee meeting was well attended with all the major players as well as many developing countries and representatives from capitals present. According to one trade source, the SPS Agreement is rapidly becoming a "hot topic" as WTO Members are increasingly recognising the importance of SPS measures as a potential hidden trade barriers, in particular given the obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture to reduce other protective measures, such as export subsidies, tariffs and domestic support.

In what one trade source described as a "non-goer", the issue of GMOs was placed on the agenda of the SPS Committee for the first time when the US requested discussions on the European Commission’s proposed labelling and traceability regulations (see BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July 2001) in the context of ‘non-trade concerns’. The EU, however, which had notified the proposed rules under the TBT Agreement, refused to enter into discussions, noting that the US should raise the matter in the TBT Committee which deals with questions of labelling. In a second attempt to force a discussion in the SPS Committee, the US — supported by Canada — again raised the issue under the agenda item ‘other business’. The two countries strongly criticised the EU for the delay in implementing the necessary approval procedures for GMOs which they said had resulted in a significant trade impact. For its part, the EU reacted vividly to the US strategy, pointing out that substantive discussions under this agenda item contravened normal procedures and that they were not sufficiently prepared for a response.

As one trade source speculated, the EU, which has so far been reluctant to discuss the GMO issue at the WTO, is trying to restrict debates to the TBT Committee, as the TBT Agreement "doesn’t really have teeth to bite them". In addition, the EU might want to avoid challenges under the SPS Agreement in light of its loss in the beef-hormone case which the US had brought against the EU under this Agreement (see BRIDGES Weekly, 21 March 2000). However, the trade source also pointed out that the US would be free to invoke the SPS Agreement in a dispute and that the EU could find it difficult to justify that its proposed regulations do not fall within the scope of the Agreement.

Despite efforts by the European Commission to convince EU member states to lift the moratorium on GMO approvals, many EU member states have refused to do so until appropriate labelling and traceability regulations are in place. It will take at least another two years, however, until these regulations will enter into force (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 October 2001).

The next meeting of the SPS Committee is currently scheduled for 20-21 March 2002.

Background

The SPS Agreement has two objectives, aiming to (i) recognise the sovereign right of Members to provide the level of health protection they deem appropriate, and (ii) ensure that SPS measures do not represent unnecessary, arbitrary, scientifically unjustifiable, or disguised restrictions on international trade. While requiring SPS measure to be based on science, the Agreement also allows WTO Members "in cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient" to provisionally adopt SPS measures. In such cases, Members are instructed to seek to obtain additional information necessary for a more objective risk assessment "within a reasonable period of time" (Art. 5.7). The Agreement furthermore encourages Members to base their SPS measures on international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist, recognising the Codex Alimentarius Commission (food safety), the Office International de Epizooties (OIE; animal health) and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC; plant health) as international standard-setting bodies.

ICTSD Internal Files.