Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)

1. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) Jennifer Takach Joshua Richter Natasha Simanich ITRN 603 Professor S. Malawer 8 March 2006

2. GMO Issue – A brief background • Technological innovation and market integration have changed the global scene in a political, economical, and ecological aspect. • Changes involving technological innovation have brought about many ethical, legal, scientific, and institutional issues.

3. Food Organisms: Crops Livestock Fish Non-food applications: Forestry Horticulture What is “Genetically Modified”? The modification of the genetic characteristics of a microorganism, plant or animal by inserting a modified gene or a gene from another variety or species.

4. Associated Risks of GMO’s

5. Associated Benefits of GMO’s

6. International Law on GMOs

7. WTO Agreements Involved in the Dispute • Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Agreement • Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement • GATT 1994 • Articles I, III, X, and XI • Agreement on Agriculture • Article 4 • Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement • Articles 2 and 5

8. Codex & the SPS Agreement • Codex Alimentarius Commission - - • Establishes food and safety standards within the SPS • Provides a “burden of proof” on scientific data • Agrees upon various ways of reducing risk • Provides consistency in risk management decisions • Establishing expert scientific guidance • Adds to the SPS Agreement – • Agreed upon international food and safety standards • Establishes scientific guidelines • Leaves room for interpretation through burden of proof and different ways of reducing risk

9. The Complainants United States Canada Argentina • Case Filed in 2003 • EU had an unfair 6 year moratorium. • Not scientifically justified • Violates SPS • Oppose EU food labeling and traceability regulations.

11. The Respondent European Union • “every country has the sovereign right to make its own decisions on GMOs in accordance with the values prevailing in society.” • 2004: Labeling and Traceability Rules

12. Panel Formation • August 29th, 2003 – Single panel established by the DSB. • March 4th, 2004 – Director-General composed the panel. • The decision due date has been postponed numerous times for various reasons: • More time for countries to prepare rebuttals. • Panel’s decision to seek scientific and technical experts. • Panel to finalize their report. • Currently, the due date of the official decision from the Panel is the end of March 2006.

13. Panel’s Unofficial Ruling • February 7th, 2006 – Announced that the 6 year moratorium was a trade violation. • Final decision will officially be announced later this year. • Still concern over how the EU will handle this decision. • U.S. concerns with labeling. • E.U. grocery stores stance.

14. Current Trade and Related Issues • Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms, and it is not clear if potential risks from GMO foods fit into one of those categories(hard to have scientific certainty) • Trade issues on global level result from different regulations in different countries • Institutional issues • WHO CAN SAY WHAT IS BEST FOR SOCIETY?

15. Current Trade and Related Issues • The benefits of GM Technology is not yet reality (most agricultural production happens in developed countries) • Few GMO products so far benefit consumers • Harder for developing countries to use GMO crops on small scale farming

16. Trade and Economic Related - - US Patent Protection on Bio-engineering Access to markets (US is the single major producer of biotech products) As a result, US Corn & Soybean exports are threatened (high GMO content) Unscientific Trade Restrictions Regulatory Oversight - - Crops and food products are regulated by 14 separate laws in the U.S. alone! Farmers & Producers - - GMO and non-GMO crops are combined in the crop handling systems – to separate would be costly and in some cases impossible Not only crops but food products could be effected Labeling & tracing regulations are not necessary and are misleading GMO’s in the NATIONAL Interest… US Interests in GMO Exports

17. GMO’s in the NATIONAL Interest… • The Science - - • GMO’s are as safe as natural counterparts • Supported by 3200 international scientists (including 20 Nobel Laureates) • 81 EU research projects resulted in no greater risk of GMO’s than conventional counterparts • Food aid is the same content as what US consumers eat! • The benefits of GMO’s - - • Reduction in use of pesticides, increased productivity, more crops yields on less land • Environmental and ecological testing is completed before commercialization of GMO’s • Bringing vital food and vitamin resources to poor/starving nations • International Benefits - - • Feed the poor – stop food hunger!

18. GMO’s – One European Reaction “It is so much simpler to condemn something than to attempt to understand it. We have a ‘fine tradition’ in Europe of burning those people we do not understand, whether they be witches or heretics, for it is much easier to do this than to try and understand them.” J.E. Beringer “EC-sponsored research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms” School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol (UK),

19. GMO’s - - INTERNATIONAL Interests… International Interests in GMO Scientific Research • Trade and Economic Related - - • Rights of Farmers to have access to genetic resources and biotech benefits • Scientific studies not conclusive enough in the emerging science • Concern over Monopolization • Regulatory Oversight - - • Labeling for consumer choice and benefit • Traceability standards in every step of the process • Emerging laws and regulations dealing with the scientific principles and dissemination of GMO products

20. GMO’s - - INTERNATIONAL Interests… • The Science - - • Long-term effects unknown • Allergenicity & Antimicrobial resistance • Creation of new species as a result of modern science • Farmers & Consumers - - • Causal – Non-GMO food scares in Europe in mid-1990’s • Public Health & Safety may be effected by unknown risks • Lack of Knowledge in LDC’s

21. Proposed Solution • Moratorium was a violation of fair trade laws. • EU has a right to regulate and monitor agricultural products. • Feasible Timeline Needed. • Traceability Agreement. • Label Agreement. • Educate EU citizens on GM food benefits. • US has a right (under WTO trade rules) to access EU markets with agricultural products. • Internationally recognized health, food, and safety standards (Codex @ WTO) in order to reasonably conclude risk assessments and benefits of GMO’s.

22. The following international consumers to a recent Washington State University study found that they are in favor of GMO products and crops if the benefit is enhanced nutrients (although their knowledge of risks associated with GMO is directly related to their response)…: Chile Mexico India Food For Thought

23. Afterthoughts • Technological advances have assisted with productivity levels, food and production resources, and environmentally safe products. • There are risks associated with GMO’s, however, can be scientifically reduced. • Many international standards on food safety that may be counter to what national standards exist. • Benefits of GMO’s yet to be realized by LDC’s. • Increased Consumer awareness programs – Labeling / education. • Despite WTO ruling that GMO restrictions are in violation of the trade agreements, there is still much uncertainty as to the length of this dispute.

24. Conclusion & Implications • Scientific data is now a part of trade disputes. • There is no scientific evidence either way which makes GMO’s so controversial. • The EU has taken the precautionary approach and doesn't want to include GMO’s until proven safe. • The US claims that science can not progress until is being applied. What does the future hold?

25. Discussion Question - Labeling • Do you think that the EU should be allowed to label GM food at their grocery stores? • How would labeling effect consumers and GMO producers?

26. Works Cited • Ahearn, Raymond, “US-European Union Trade Relations: Issues and Policy Changes”, 23 December 2004, Congressional Research Service, pg. 9-10. • BBC News. “Q&A: Trade battle of GM food.” February 8th, 2006. • http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4690010.stm • Beringer, J. E., “EC-Sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms”, Data Sheet • http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/general-intro.html • Borak, Donna. “WTO Rules against EU on GMO’s” Washington Post. February 8, 2006. • http://binas.unido.org/binas/regs.php • “Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge US Agricultural Exports”, General Accountability Office, GAO-01-727 • “Evaluation of Codex”, Codex Alimentarius, • www.codexalimenatrius.net/web/evaluation_en.jsp • Larson, Alan P., “Discussion on the WTO Case on the EU Biotech Moratorium”, Foreign Affairs Press Release, 14 may 2003, • http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/20557.htm

27. Works Cited • Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. August 2004. • http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2 • Questions and Answers on U.S. Food Aid Donations Containing Bio-Engineered Crops”, Fact Sheet, US Agency for International Development, 10 January 2003, • www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/16736.htm • “Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origins joint FAO/WHO…”, World Health Organization, 29 May – 2 June 2000, pgs. 12-14, 49. • www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/ec_june2000/en/index.html • Siv, Sichan, “Bio-Engineered Crops”, Statement at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 27 August 2002. • www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/13587.htm • World Trade Organization. Dispute Settlement DS291. • http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm • “20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods”, World Health Organization, Question 13 & Question 17 • www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html