The World Trade Organization ruled in favor of U.S. Biotech companies, determining that the European Union’s foot-dragging with respect to new GM varieties is a de facto moratorium, a violation of international trade agreement. This is the latest in a bitter dispute between the European Union and United States over genetically modified crops. (New York Times, 6 February 2006).
The decision could mean $1.8 billion (The Guardian, 27 April 2004) in remunerations to the United States, which could be appealed on the grounds that the EU lifted the GM ban in 2004 and has since approved 30 new varieties of GM crops. (BBC, 19 May 2004). However, in the aftermath, it seems that the WTO ruling has only strengthened European resolve against U.S. pressure:
In fact the US has mostly won a lot of new enemies. Rather than going away, as the biotech companies and Washington fervently hoped, the opposition to GM foods seems to have been growing since 2004 when the case was brought to the WTO. Europe, its member states and its consumers all rejected the ruling last week, making the WTO look even more out of touch and incompetent to rule on issues about the environment, health and consumer choice.(The Guardian, 13 February 2006)
The WTO may appear out of touch, but they appear more under the influence of powerful special interests:
"It's disappointing that the WTO would seek to override democratic decisions at literally all levels of government," said Dennis Olson of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
...
"Now, the WTO's unelected legal tribunal, at the request of the U.S. government, has chosen to pre-empt a strong democratic international consensus," Olson added.
Last Thursday a coalition of environmental and consumer groups published the conclusions of the ruling, which has not yet been officially released, saying they wanted to show the world how the Geneva-based WTO was being driven by special interests. (Trade Observatory, 8 February 2006).
It is sinister that the U.S. is foisting GM products upon consumers who are openly opposed. Europeans are unfavorably disposed to these crops and the attitude does not appear to be softening over time. Whereas 65 percent in Great Britain believe that GM foods are unsafe, Germans and French poll negatively at an overwhelming 81- and 89 percent, respectively (The Pew Research Center, 20 June 2003). Those who choose to avoid GM foods have the option of doing so because GM foods are labeled clearly in Europe. The EU enacted a law in 2002 requiring full identification of GM ingredients. The inclusion of GM materials are monitored during each stage of the production process and any ingredient, whether itself or derived from genetically modified crops, in excess of 0.9 percent must be labeled. This does not pertain to animals raised on feed containing GM material.
Stakeholders who promote GM products do so in the name of increased diversity and choice for the consumer. The 65 percent in Britain, for example, should not deprive the other 35 percent of what could be cheaper food products. If it were up to GM manufacturers, they would wrest that kind of decision-making and control from the consumer and the practice of informing the public would cease. This is how the matter is handled in the United States. The less the public understands about what they are eating unwittingly, the easier it is for chemical and agri-biotech businesses, like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals, to realize a lucrative return on their investment. The public cannot fight what it doesn’t know exists.
In the United States, 60- to 70 percent of processed food contain genetically modified ingredients. Yet, Americans are largely unaware of the extent to which they consume GM foods, a finding confirmed by surveys conducted by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (September 2004 ) and by the USDA funded Food Policy Institute study (Choices, 2005). Once informed on the topic, the American public expressed, like the Europeans, opposition the introduction of GM products into the food supply. Forty-seven percent of Pew Survey respondents show a slight softening of attitude regarding GM foods over time, but still demonstrate a plurality over GM proponents by at least at 20 percentage points.
Implicit trust in the FDA may contribute to lack of public awareness, in the same way that the lack of awareness serves the FDA's lax regulations regarding GM food safety. American's were more likely to believe in the safety of GM foods simply because they are pervasive in products that we eat today. The idea is that it must be safe if the FDA says so. However, the pervasiveness of GM foods may a testament to the power of strong agri-business lobbies at the expense of public interest. Consider attorney Steven Druker's March 2000 revelation regarding the systematic cover-up by the FDA of its own scientists--scientists who repeatedly warned about the health risks posed by GM foods.
Numerous experts both here and abroad have criticized FDA policy as scientifically flawed, and nine of these experts are so concerned about the extent to which they view it as unsound and irresponsible that they have taken the unprecedented step of becoming plaintiffs in the lawsuit my organization is leading to amend the policy and institute mandatory, rigorous safety testing of all genetically engineered foods. These scientist-plaintiffs are eminent, and their concerns deserve attention. They include a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley, a respected molecular biologist at the State University of New York, and the associate director of targeted mutagenics at Northwestern University Medical School. This latter scientist routinely employs bioengineering in the medical field, but is troubled it is being used in food production without adequate safeguards. Also included is Professor Philip Regal, an internationally renowned plant biologist at the University of Minnesota, who has stated in a sworn declaration to the court "... there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods and some of them could be quite dangerous." (Bio-integrity, 3 November 1999)
For an examination of the health and environmental risks posed by genetically engineered organisms, stay tuned for subsequent posts (Killer tomatoes). Of course, it would only add to the ongoing ten-year old debate that shows little sign of subsiding. Both the U.S. and the E.U. are entrenched in their positions on the matter. Surely, the European market was not the ultimate goal in this affair, since the U.S. and the WTO ruling would have little hope of changing the European mindset.
More importantly, the ruling may determine how a nation can regulate its own imports of GM foods. The U.S. challenge to European restrictions may have been simply a means to open the doors to trade in developing regions of Africa and Asia, areas that are key for the spread of biotechnology.
"This will be the bellwether case throughout the world of how biotechnology is going to be regulated," said Christian Verschueren, director general of CropLife International of Brussels, which represents companies such as Monsanto. (L.A. Times, 6 February 2006)
