US vs. EU . Genetically Modified Foods . [Pending]

1. US vs. EU.Genetically Modified Foods.[Pending] Dela Acolatse George Adair Christine Angone Gleisson Abreu

2. US vs. EU Genetically Modified Foods History & Background • GMO were introduced to the world through biotechnology • Growth of GMO crops has increased greatly since 1996 • GMO’s are expected to increase sales to 25 billion by 2010 • Since 1999, the US has critized initiative by Europe to regulate labeling policy

3. US vs. EU Genetically Modified Foods • EU & US have strong disagreement on EU’s regulation of Genetically Modified foods • US claims regulations violate free trade agreement • The EU’s counter position is that free trade is not free trade without informed consent • Value of agricultural trade between US and the EU is estimated at $57 billion

4. US vs. EU Genetically Modified Foods • In 1998 US exported 63 million worth of corn to the EU, exports fell to 12.5 million in 2002 • In May 2003, US launched formal complaint process under WTO dispute settlement about EU failure to approve any new genetically modified crop • In August 2003, with no resolution in sight, US asked WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel

5. US vs. EU

6. US VS. EUGenetically Modified Foods • US argue that the EU moratorium violates WTO agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Articles 2,3,5(1),5(7) • The SPS agreement permits countries to regulate crops and food products to protect health and the environment • US contends that there is no scientific evidence that GM derived food and feed crops are different from conventional varieties

7. US VS. EUGenetically Modified Foods • US contends that EU biotech measures are inconsistent with provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement Article 2(2), 2(4). • General Agreement on Tariffs Trade - national treatment rule of Article III • Agreement on Agriculture • US argues that this has not only impacted US exports to the EU, but caused developing countries to shun boitechnology

8. US vs. EU – GMOParty Positions US* Complaint: The United States and its allies argue that the EU moratorium violates the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures. The SPS agreement permits countries to regulate crops and food products to protect health and the environment, but their rules must be scientifically justified, and approval procedures must occur without undue delay.

9. US vs. EU – GMOParty Positions US* Complaint, con’t:U.S. interests contend that there is no scientific evidence that GM-derived food and feed crops are substantially different from, or any less safe than, conventional varieties, a conclusion they say even European scientific authorities have reached. The United States contends that EU biotechnology measures also are inconsistent with provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the Agreement on Agriculture.

10. US vs. EU – GMOParty Positions

11. US vs. EU – GMOParty Positions EU Response:EU officials have told the United States that the EU’s cautious approach to regulating agricultural biotechnology is necessary to restore confidence among European consumers, who have become much more wary of changes in food production, after a series of major food safety crises that were not related to GE crops.

12. US vs. EU – GMOParty Positions EU Response, con’t:At the same time, EU officials assert that they have shown good faith in moving as quickly as possible to restart the approval process. In May 2004, the EU approved a GE variety of canned sweet corn for import. In July 2004, it also approved the importation of a second GE corn variety for animal feed, and approved imports of the same variety for use in food in October 2004.

13. US vs. EU – GMOPanel Decision Scheduled to be released Spring 2005

14. US vs. EU – GMOOpposition • The US's decision is likely to increase anti American protests in Europe where according to opinion polls 70% of the public don't want to eat food derived from GMOs and 94% want the right to choose.

15. US vs. EU – GMOOpposition • "The Bush White House and US business interests should not have the right to make decisions about what people in Europe get to eat. But the current WTO system means that this could be the case. The European Commission must stand firm and act to defend our right to eat what we choose.''

16. US vs. EU – GMOSupporters • The supporters of GMO highlight positive aspects: • the production could be concentrated in already fertile regions, thus bringing poorer areas back to their natural habitat. • It could also be possible to increase some vitamins and some elements to the detriment of others, so as to make allergies and other problems decrease. • Such aspects would favor above all the poorest countries, cutting down the expenses of cultivation and improving the yield, in spite of the shortage of some resources. • It would give more nourishing food to people living in places where the diet is based only on little nourishment. • It would help areas devastated by natural disasters.

17. US vs. EU – GMOImplementation Issues • So far the European Union has adopted new legislation that makes labeling of GM food and GM animal feed mandatory. • One of the biggest loopholes that still exists is the fact that GM producers are not liable in case of damage to health or environment.

18. Possible Panel Decision • As a result of time needed to select and identify experts and request by the 4 parties (US, Canada, Argentina and EU) to submit additional evidence, Panel will postpone the release its report to June, 2005.

19. Possible Panel Decision • Prediction: Panel will rule against EU in this case due to lack of scientific evidence showing harmful effects of genetically modified foods. EU consumer wariness may exist but does not justify discrimination.

20. Proposal • GM foods must be subject to strict scientific tests before reaching consumers. • EU’s suspension of imports and delay in approval of biotech products must be based on hard scientific evidence alone.

21. Proposal • Establishment of a WTO neutral scientific body to conduct the tests. • Labeling of GM foods should be allowed with a disclaimer that the food in question has been found to be safe for consumption.

22. Sources • http://www.biologydaily.com • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_war_over_genetically_modified_food • http://www.europeangreens.org/info/policy/manifesto04.pdf • http://www.foodmarketexchange.com • http://www.gefoodalert.org Labeling & Traceability of Bioengineered Foods, US dept of State Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002 • http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/04Mar/RS21556.pdf • http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05mar/RL32809.pdf • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4450735.stm • http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/europe.pdfPew Initiative on Food & Biotech- An Examination of Trade Issues Surrounding GM Foods, August 2003 • Put Down the Genetically Modified Tomatoes Its no time to pick a trade fight over biotech foods , Stuart S Malawer, Legal Times September 1,2003 • http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm#gmos • Liceo linguistico. “Young Italy.”