Chronology of Events Leading to WTO Case April 1990
EU legislation (Directive 90/220) on the regulatory approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was adopted.
1994 to 1998
The commercial release of 18 GMOs (9 crop products) was authorized in the EU through the regulatory approval system.
In 1997, some member states began to ban the placing on the market of GM products already approved at the EU level.
October 1998 to present
No further authorizations have been granted, and there are currently 12 applications pending.
June 1999
Ministers from Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg issued a joint statement that they would suspend new authorizations pending EU adoption of GMO labeling and traceability regulations.
The Austrian, Belgian, Finnish, German, Netherlands and Swedish delegations issued a statement emphasizing the need to "take a thoroughly precautionary approach" to new authorizations.
These declarations formalized the de facto moratorium on GMO approvals that had been in place since 1998.
March 2000
The EU's highest court (European Court of Justice) stated that France did not have the right in 1998 to suspend approval of three GM maize strains already cleared at the EU level.
July 2000
The EU Environment Council supported the continuation of the moratorium until the European Commission (EC) prepared proposals on traceability and labeling. The EC assured the United States that proposals would appear before the end of the year and that the moratorium would be lifted.
July 2001
After much delay, the EC adopted proposals for regulations on the traceability and labeling of GMOs and assured the United States that the approval process would be restarted promptly.
October 2001
Member states rejected the EC's proposal for the lifting of the moratorium. Eight member states-Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden-declared that traceability and labeling rules must be implemented before approvals would be granted.
October 2002
Directive 2001/18/EC came into effect, repealing Directive 90/220/EEC (established 1990) and strengthening the existing rules of the risk assessment and approval process. Of particular note, the directive introduced rules for mandatory public information, mandatory labeling and traceability, and post-market monitoring. The EC had previously stated that the adoption of this new directive would prompt member states to lift the moratorium. But moratorium supporters still would not agree to the approval of GMOs without labeling and traceability regulations.
The EC acknowledged that there was no legal basis for the protracted moratorium. Said spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde, "We consider there is no legal basis for the moratorium. It is a political problem." As well, the EC admitted that these regulations were not based on food safety or public health concerns, as stated by Commissioner for Health and Consumer Safety David Byrne: "This is not a public health issue; this is a consumer choice issue."
December 2002
The European Agriculture and Environment Councils reached agreement on traceability and labeling proposals. The Danish delegation declared that the moratorium should remain in place until the EU implemented environmental liability legislation for biotech products. Commissioner Margot Wallström said that some member states "will probably take every chance to move the goal posts and find another obstacle."
January 2003
At an Agriculture/Food Safety Council meeting, nine member states (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden) demanded that no biotech seeds be approved for planting until legislation regarding co-existence of biotech and non-biotech crops is in force.
March 2003
Commissioner Wallström told the Environment Council that the regulatory committee charged with considering applications under Directive 2001/18 would not meet until October 2003 at the earliest.
Compiled by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
Printer Friendly
