|
by Lisa J. Dry
originally printed in BIO News -- Aug/Sep 2003
In May, United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick made good on repeated threats to take legal action against the 15 nations that comprise the European Union in order to end their five-year moratorium on new biotech crop approvals. Joined by representatives from Argentina and Canada, and with the support of nine other countries, Zoellick declared that, "The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. . . . we've waited patiently for five years for the EU to follow the WTO rules . . . for five years, European officials have told us that a change in policy is just around the corner. But around every corner we find a new roadblock."
Thus, the United States formally initiated the consultative process-what might be described as the "discovery phase" of the long-anticipated case that is now before the World Trade Organization, the international body designated to resolve trade disputes between countries. In dispute is the EU's violation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which lays out rules to guide the actions of countries as they regulate imports of crops and foods in order to safeguard health and the environment. The United States contends that three actions by the EU and its member states have violated the Agreement: the imposition of the moratorium, the failure to act on applications for approval of specific products and the imposition by certain member states of bans against approved products.
A Brief History
Before 1999, the EU approved for planting or import nine ag biotech products. Since that time, no new products have been approved, and the EU has failed to offer scientific evidence to support this de facto moratorium on new approvals. In the early days, Europe posed questions about the safety of the crops for food use, employing what is known as the precautionary principle-that there is always the potential of an unknown risk factor. As the scientific evidence mounted and billions of meals were consumed by Americans with no ill effects, the EU cited new concerns.
The situation is reminiscent to that faced by the Peanuts character Charlie Brown: Lucy repeatedly entices him to kick the football she is holding; each time his hopes overcome his historical experience, but when he runs up to kick the football, she whisks it out of this path and he winds up flat on his back.
Most recently, some EU officials have declared that if the foods are labeled and their ingredients can be traced back to the farm, they will happily grant approvals. On the surface, this may sound reasonable, but in practice, it is likely to trigger yet another WTO case, this one based on the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. There is no scientific basis to support special labels for all foods derived from crops improved through biotechnology, for detailed examination shows they do not necessarily differ in composition from those produced through conventional or organic methods. And in the United Sates and other major commodity exporting countries, with the vast channeling of commodity grain streams, to trace back something like a cake mix to the farm(s) in Iowa or Nebraska where the corn was produced is, even if possible, cost prohibitive.
Some optimists believe that to avert yet another trade dispute, the EU is showing an increased desire to move forward on crop approvals. In July, the European Commission (EC) filed a suit against 11 of its own member countries for failure to implement new EU rules on approval of crops improved through biotechnology. Though this move does not necessarily affect the WTO case, it is generally viewed as a positive step.
Others are skeptical of the willingness or the ability of EU officials to follow through on their promises. They point to a long list of broken promises (see chronology) and argue that the pressure of the WTO is necessary to move the EU to action.
Impact of the moratorium
The failure of the EU to approve new products has created repercussions in areas beyond hard economics that include costs in human suffering and impediments to scientific innovation.
Food aid. President Bush made headlines in May with a speech linking the EU moratorium and famine in Africa. This was a reference to Zambia's refusal last year to accept food aid in the form of U.S. corn. Numerous reasons were cited for the Zambian action, ranging from fears of being poisoned to avowed concerns for (phantom) European export markets for Zambian corn, none of which withstood scrutiny. However, the negative effects of the EU moratorium are not limited to countries experiencing famine. As Zoellick noted, "As a major importer of food, Europe's decisions have ripple effects far beyond its own borders. Uganda refused to plant a disease-resistant type of banana because of fears that it would jeopardize exports to Europe." Developing countries, which may stand to benefit greatly from this technology, read the signals that increased crop productivity to boost their own economic stature will not be rewarded by open markets in Europe.
Trading partners. India, China, and countries in South America and Africa have expressed fears that their ability to export crops to Europe would suffer from planting biotech crops. Many countries in the process of establishing their own regulatory regimes are closely watching the European situation-there is a possibility that the EU position will have undue influence on these other countries.
Economic. U.S. corn farmers estimate that lost sales to Europe have exceeded $1 billion and continue to climb at a rate of $300 million per year. To avoid incurring additional losses, some mainstream U.S. farmer groups have encouraged their members to plant only corn or soy varieties approved for export to Europe, thereby impeding use of existing crops approved in the United States. In addition, some groups have requested that technology providers withhold marketing of new products that do not have European approval-an action that stifles innovation, market development, and capital investment.
The lack of access to these improved crops also has costs for European farmers as well. The National Center for Food and Ag Policy (NCFAP) released preliminary study results in June indicating lost European farm revenue of over $1 billion by not growing biotech crops. The study showed that crops like insect-resistant corn have the potential to increase yields in Europe by 4.2 billion pounds. The study also showed a reduction of 21.7 million pounds of pesticide by moving to three of these crops.
Lisa Dry is a BIO director of communications.
| 
Printer Friendly