OneWorld.net (U.S.)

A recent interim ruling by the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement body (DSB) on European de facto moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops and food has generated a debate worldwide. The 1,050-page verdict on such a crucial issue was not made public, but handed over to the concerned parties on February 7, 2006. The secrecy of the procedure and timing of the delivery of the verdict raises doubts in the public's mind.

According to reports leaked earlier, the panel had already decided on its rulings against the European moratorium about two months before the Hong Kong ministerial. The verdict was deliberately kept in abeyance as it may widen the gap between the two developed blocs, namely the US and the EU at the Hong Kong ministerial.

Though the verdict is an interim one, the WTO should have made it public, keeping in view the importance of the issue involved. The parties to the dispute—the US, Canada and Argentina on one hand and the European Union on the other—reserve the right to appeal against the verdict, which would be heard by the standing appellate body. The biotech industry, therefore, has not much to cheer.

Moreover, the DSB has not examined whether GM crops and foods in general are safe or not. It also did not deliberate upon whether GM crops and food are "like" their conventional counterparts (within the notion of "like products" under WTO rules). The panel did not question whether the EU has the right to require pre-marketing approval of biotech products and assessment of risks to prior approval on a case-by-case basis. It did not examine the conclusion of the relevant scientific committees of the European Commission regarding safety of specific GM products.

The panel held that the EU applied a general de facto moratorium on the approval of biotech products from June 1999 till the date of initiation of the dispute i.e. August 29, 2003. It said that while the moratorium was itself not a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measure, it slowed down the approval process of GM crops and food and therefore a breach of obligations under the WTO agreement on SPS measures.

The verdict has raised certain issues which need urgent consideration. Is the WTO competent enough to deliberate on health and environment hazards of GM crops and food? Can the WTO's decision override the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety? Should trade be given more importance than the concerns for health and environment safety?

The US and its partners are aware that public opinion in Europe is against the consumption of GM foods. The number of GM-free areas in EU are increasing. Local governments and member states are against the introduction of GM crops and the European Commission cannot force them to accept the same. Greece has banned 31 varieties of GM soya, despite the EC's order to lift the initial ban on 17 varieties. Romania, which is slated to join the EU, has decided to ban GM soya from January 1, 2007.

What message the US intends to give is clear. It wants to market its GM products in developing countries, which are not well equipped to conduct studies on hazards of GM crops and food. It wants that labelling of GM food should not be taken up for giving consumers an informed choice. It is in search of partners who can help in blocking the birth of a global liability regime on GMOs and lift the UN de facto moratorium on terminator technology.

In the last meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol, Brazil and New Zealand blocked the birth of an effective global regime for regulating transboundary movement of GMOs. India and other developing countries should demand strict implementation of the precautionary principles of the Cartagena Protocol.

Source: The Financial Express More