• Home
• About GeneWatch
• GM Crops and Food
  • Introductory Guide
  • Research and Development
  • Developing Countries
  • EU Authorisation
  • WTO dispute
    • Background
    • Detailed timeline
    • Submissions
  • Contamination and Coexistence
  • Environmental Liability
• Human Genetics
• GM Animals
• Laboratory and Industrial Use
• Research Agendas and Patenting
• Biological Weapons
• Publications
• Press Releases
• Online orders

You are in GM Crops and Food → WTO dispute → Background

Background

Introduction

On May 13th 2003, the US together with Canada and Argentina challenged Europe’s moratorium on GM crops and foods. Arguing that their GM products were being unfairly discriminated against, they will be challenging the precautionary principle in decision making about GM crops, that is supposed to be embedded in European decision making. The case adds to tensions that already exist surrounding the WTO and the way in which trade rules operate.

Whilst the US say the case is being brought because the moratorium has damaged their trade interests, it is quite clear other factors are at play including that:

• the US want to send a strong message to other countries warning them not to consider bans on GM crops;
• powerful US agricultural interests and biotechnology companies had to be appeased;
• the stage needed to be set to challenge labelling of GM foods once new European regulations come into force;
• the US want an excuse to attack the use of a precautionary approach in international law

Historical context

By 1998, there was growing public opposition to GM crops and food across Europe. There was also increasing debate around the science of genetic modification. A number of Member States were expressing concern at the levels of uncertainty and had utilised a clause in the Deliberate Release Directive allowing a Member States to ban a GMO from its territory if it has new or additional evidence of harm to the environment or human health. This unease came to a head at the meeting of the EU Council of Environment Ministers in June 1999. France, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg stated they would effectively block any new authorisations until the Deliberate Release Directive (90/220/EEC) was revised and that there was legislation in place to cover the labelling and traceability of GMOs. France, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden felt this de-facto moratorium would be illegal. However, they stated that they would take a 'thoroughly precautionary approach in dealing with new authorisations and not to authorise the placing on the market of any GMO until it is demonstrated that there is no adverse effect on the environment and human health'.

The EU Member States that created what became known as the de-facto moratorium called for a number issues to be addressed;

1. clarity of the rules surrounding the licensing of GMOs and GMO products;
2. due to the inability to give an absolute assurance of safety, a facility to immediately remove any product from the market place - via the implementation of traceability systems - should a health or environmental hazard arise.
3. a comprehensive labelling system to provide the consumer with the ability to choose to eat a GM product or not and demonstrate that traceability was in place.

In October 2002, the revised EU Deliberate Release Directive (200118/EC) came into force. In September 2003, two new EU Regulations concerning the authorisation, traceability and labelling of GMOs and GMO derived products became law. However it will take until Spring 2004 for the new authorisation regulations to be implemented and longer for the traceability and labelling regulations due to a need for another EU Directive to deal with mechanisms of identifying and labelling each individual GM line.

Since the revision of the Deliberate Release Directive, applications to market GMOs have been resubmitted and are currently being assessed. No applicant is known to have complained in anyway about applications being unduly held up.
The WTO Dispute

Argentina, Canada and the US have bought separate cases to the WTO (Ref. DS293, DS292 and DS291 respectively). These cases are, however, essentially the same and the panel which was established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on the 18th August 2003, will deal with the three together.

Each country stated that, regarding EU-level measures, the moratorium maintained since October 1998 on the approval of biotech products had restricted the imports of agricultural and food products. Regarding the EU Member State-level measures, the complainants said that a number of EU Member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech products even though those products have already been approved by the EU.

In addition, in commenting on its complaint the US expressed;

"its concern that the [EU] measures were hindering the worldwide development and application of agricultural biotechnology – a technology which, according to the US, has great promise for raising farmer productivity, reducing hunger and improving health in the developing world, and improving the environment."

And Argentina added;

"that agricultural products account for over half of Argentina's total exports, and that it is the second largest producer and exporter of biotech products in the world."

They went on to say "the [EU's] behaviour discourages the introduction of the biotech process, and that it is particularly detrimental because the [EU] has the ability to influence other WTO members".

Several other countries have also registered as Third Parties in the case (they have an interest in the outcome and therefore wish to make comments): Australia, China, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Thailand, Uruguay, Chinese Taipei. It is not clear what these countries’ positions are, but, on the face of it, they appear to be supporting the US case.

WTO Press Release 18 August 2003

↑ Top