Back
U.S. did not win transatlantic GM trade dispute
Friends of the Earth: WTO still wrong place to settle such rows
Brussels, 11 May 2006 - The United States has failed in its bid to prevent
the European Union from using strict regulations to control genetically
modified (GM) foods and crops. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) made a
final judgement on this issue last night.
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaigner, commented: "This
is no victory for the United States or the biotech companies. Countries
still have the right to ban or suspend genetically modified foods and crops.
Europe's only failure was the way they did it and not why they did it.
Public opposition around the world is solid, and neither the United States
or the WTO will stop countries from protecting their citizens and the
environment from the risks of genetically modified crops".
The WTO last night sent its final ruling to parties involved in the dispute.
And, although the decision will not be made officially public until the
autumn, media reports and the European Commission have confirmed that it is
substantially the same as the 'draft ruling', which was leaked to Friends of
the Earth Europe in February [1].
The WTO's draft ruling rejected most of the US-led coalition's complaints:
* It refused to rule against strict EU regulations to control the use of GM
food and crops;
* It refused to rule on whether GM foods are safe or different to
conventional foods;
* It rejected US claims that moratoria are illegal and did not question the
right of countries to ban GM foods or crops.
However, the WTO did rule - on technicalities - that Europe's four year GM
moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue
delays". However, the WTO did not recommend any action against the EU and
stated that moratoria were acceptable under certain circumstances. The WTO
said national GM bans also broke trade rules, but only because the risk
assessments did not comply with the WTO requirements;
Friends of the Earth Europe also called for a fundamental overhaul of the
way that trade disputes are sorted out in future. A fairer and more
transparent body should be used that also takes into account international
environmental treaties such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the
International Court of Justice.
Friends of the Earth Europe's Trade Campaigner, Sonja Meister, said:
"Despite today's ruling, the WTO is the wrong body for settling trade
disputes. It has a long history of putting corporate interests firmly ahead
of environmental protection, public safety and democracy. It is time that
environment-related disputes were taken away from the WTO."
The United States, Argentina and Canada filed a trade dispute in the WTO in
May 2003 against Europe's reluctance to accept genetically modified foods or
crops. Europe argued that many GM crops should not be grown because of their
unknown effects on the environment and that it was not yet known whether
eating GM foods would cause cancer, allergies or other health effects [2].
Friends of the Earth Europe believes that the WTO is the wrong forum for
dealing with environment-related trade disputes due to its long history of
bias towards industry, its pro-trade agenda and its lack of transparency.
In this particular case the WTO failed to consider other international
environmental laws such as the Convention on Biodiversity and the Biosafety
Protocol. In addition it refused to consider all submissions made by the
public and held all meetings in secret. In sending the draft final ruling
only to the dispute countries, it allowed the US to tell the media in
February that it had won the dispute when the real result was quite
different [3]. The environment group has called for such disputes to be
dealt with away from the industry-friendly WTO.
Notes:
[1] The 1000 page interim report and a shorter analysis by Friends of the
Earth can be downloaded from:
http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/WTO_decision.htm
The interim report showed:
* Europe's four-year moratorium on GM Organisms (GMOs) only broke trade
rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The
WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did
not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004
* There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over
20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the
complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by
the WTO Panel.
* National bans by EU member states broke trade rules only because the risk
assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO
requirements;
[2] Europe's scientific case has been summarised in a report by Friends of
the Earth and Greenpeace. The report, Hidden Uncertainties, can be
downloaded for free from
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/hidden_uncertainties.pdf
[3] FOE Europe has assessed the relative merits of a range of
intergovernmental institutions, in relation to their capacity to deal
equitably with trade and environment disputes. The conclusion is that the
WTO is in fact the least suitable of all institutions considered, and the
Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice would
be the most appropriate venue. "Is the WTO the only way?", which can be
downloaded from
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/alternatives_wto.pdf
Contact:
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO expert: +49 1609 490 1163
Sonja Meister, Friends of the Earth Europe Trade expert: +32 4849 75107
Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns for sustainable and fair societies and for the protection of the environment,
unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups
and is part of the world's largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International.
