page 20

setting limits for gmos

united states uses wto to intimidate

juan lopez villar, foe europe

The United States and biotech corporations are stepping up pressure to expand the penetration of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) into markets worldwide. Increasingly, the threat of WTO (World Trade Organization) action is used to weaken GMO moratoriums. Fortunately, resistance to these threats is also growing.

us pressures croatia on proposed ban
In June 2001, four Croatian ministries agreed to a draft law to ban GMOs and GM products until a more specific regulatory framework is in place. However, the US has mounted increasing pressure on Croatia to drop the draft law since September 2001.

This pressure was illustrated in a leaked memo dated November 28 obtained by Green Action/FoE Croatia. The memo, from the US Embassy in Zagreb to the Croatian Ministry of Environment, clearly favours US trade interests above Croatia's right to environmental protection in stating that “if such a ban is implemented, the US government must consider its rights under the WTO.”

US intimidation around GMOs must come to an end. In December 2001, Friends of the Earth and ANPED denounced US attempts to bully the Croatian government to drop its planned GMO moratorium during a Roundtable on Biosafety organized by the Croatian Environment Ministry in Zagreb.

us opposition to eu legislation mounts
The above-mentioned US memo also "suggests caution in implementing European Union biotech directives, which require substantial infrastructure and institutional capacity to carry out". Not only is the US discouraging countries from adopting EU-style legal frameworks around GMOs, it is also trying to undermine proposed EU legislation on labeling and traceability and is pressuring the EU to lift its GMO moratorium.

Commenting to the WTO on recent proposed EU traceability and labeling regulations, the US identifies as the “core problem facing the European Union in biotechnology” as the fact that EU Member States have the final say in the authorization procedure. The US states that recent proposals fail to address this “problem” and complains that “decisions will still be made through political process” and therefore “individual Member States will continue to be able to hold the approval process hostage to political concerns”.

A recent EU opinion poll shows that 94.6 percent of citizens want the right to choose when it comes to GM foods, a right that can be ensured through labeling and traceability of GMO-derived products.

a global assault
In addition to the mounting opposition to EU legislation on GMOs, the Washington administration and pro-biotech countries have in recent months stepped up pressure on any country seeking strict legislation on GMOs. Leaked Argentinean government documents obtained by FoE illustrate how Argentina and its biotech companies are pressuring Bolivia to drop its moratorium on Bmo releases at the end of 2000. China, Korea and Thailand are also being pressured by the US about planned GMO labeling laws. Regrettably, US threats about WTO action already led to Sri Lanka's abandonment of a proposed GMO ban that should have been implemented in September 2001.

resistance on the rise
In the face of US lobbying, Croatian Environment Minister Bozo Kovacevic said in January this year that the nation will draft legislation to ban production and limit imports of food containing GMOs. According to Kovacevic, “the US government is lobbying for the interests of US companies, and that is their right. Our duty is to protect our interests and follow the legislation of the European Union”.

The EU appears to be standing firm in the face of US pressure, determined to implement the legal framework around GMOs that the US is trying so strenuously to undermine. China also seems determined to implement a labelling scheme for GMOs.

precautionary principle
The above cases expose the WTO as an instrument used by the US government and biotech corporations to force acceptance of GMOs around the world. This interference, which imposes US trade priorities over the environmental and health priorities of other nations, is indefensible. Every nation should have the right to use the precautionary principle and to establish moratoria on GMO introduction until adequate regulatory frameworks, effective monitoring and enforcement capabilities are in place. Only then can sound biosafety regulation be ensured.