Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 1 • Number 3 • 20th December 2001
US Steps Up Pressure Over Biotech Rules
US Steps Up Pressure Over Biotech Rules
The US is reported to be losing patience with the continued EU de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with pressure mounting within the US to bring a case to the WTO. At the same time, the environmental organisation Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) has attacked the US and Argentina for allegedly pressuring small countries, such as Bolivia, Sri Lanka and Croatia, to refrain from implementing strict import rules for GMOs.
EU GM regulations still under attack
"Patience is wearing out" regarding the continued EU ban on the approval of GMOs, said Undersecretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Alan Larson. "It is time for the [EU] member states to work to lift the ban," he said. Another US official stated that US government and industry representatives were getting "angrier and angrier" with the lack of progress, increasingly putting pressure on the US to bring the case to the WTO. The US has also reiterated its criticism of the draft regulations on labelling and traceability proposed by the European Commission in July (see Background, below), which, according to one US official, it contends are "unworkable and discriminatory".
According to Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, however, the ban — in place since 1998 — is likely to remain for at least another two years while EU member states are debating the proposed labeling and traceability regulations. Wallstrom also pointed out that support among member states for the de facto moratorium was actually growing, with some countries even calling for a liability regime to be in place before it can be lifted.
FoEI attacks US for pressuring countries over GMO bans
Based on a number of leaked documents, FoEI has accused the US of putting pressure on small countries to not ban the import of GMOs. In a non-paper outlining US views on Croatia’s interim GMO legislation, which proposes to ban or restrict the import, marketing, use and production of GMOs until specific legislation is in place, the US expresses concern that the ban "will undermine the science-based, rules-based approach to food safety as agreed to under the WTO, as well as unfairly restrict trade". "If such a ban is implemented, the U.S. must consider its rights under the WTO," the paper states. It furthermore suggests that Croatia should use caution in implementing the proposed EU biotechnology directives on labelling and traceability.
FoEI also reports that the Bolivian ban on GMO imports was revoked in October as a result of pressure by the Argentinean soya corporate sector, despite assurances by the Bolivian government in August that the ban (in place since January 2001) would be renewed. Similarly, Sri Lanka in September decided to suspend its GMO ban, which had been strongly criticised by the US as not scientifically justified (see BRIDGES Weekly, 11 September 2001). The US has also in the past reportedly threatened to invoke Section 301 of US trade laws if Thailand decided to approve proposed labelling requirements for GM foods that harmed American exports (see BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July 2001), "The World Trade Organization is the instrument that the US and biotech corporations are using to force countries around the world to accept GMOs," said Juan Lopez from FoEI. "We call on all governments of the world to stand up to the WTO," he added.
Background
It remains unclear whether import bans on GMOs and the proposed EU regulations on labelling and traceability are WTO compatible. If it were to come to a dispute in the WTO, the matter would most likely be taken up under the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) or the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), both of which allow WTO Members to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, as long as they are based on science, non-discriminatory, least trade-distortive and do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade. The SPS Agreement furthermore allows Members "in cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient" to provisionally adopt SPS measures subject to requirements laid down in Article 5.7 of theAgreement.
Some believe that the proposed EU regulations would be unnecessarily trade-distortive (and therefore WTO-incompatible) due to the high cost of segregating GMOs from non-GMOs. It is also argued that the regulations are not scientifically justified, in particular requirements to label products derived from, but no longer containing detectable traces of GMOs. Others have also expressed concern about the proposed 1 percent tolerance threshold of accidentally introduced GMOs, which they say will be difficult to comply with and measure. [See BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July 2001]
"U.S. said losing patience with EU ban on GMOs; pressure rises for WTO complaint," WTO Reporter, 13 December 2001; "U.S. to analyze EU biotech rules, submission to WTO planned, official says," WTO Reporter, 30 November 2001; "US and biotech corporations impose genetically modified organisms worldwide under WTO threats," FoEI PRESS RELEASE, 17 December 2001; "Mexican Congress to Fox: ‘Ban GM corn’," THE NEWS MEXICO, 6 December 2001; ICTSD Internal Files.