“[African] countries have not
adopted biotechnologies not because of EU
restrictions, but rather for other reasons,
such as lack of suitable
technologies, and lack of regulatory
laws and capacity. Consequently, no
sub-Saharan African nation joined the
US
challenge to
Europe
's ban,
and
even
Egypt
withdrew from
the complaint.”
Third World
Network:
“Genetically modified crops and sustainable
poverty
alleviation in
Sub-Saharan
Africa
: An
assessment of current evidence”, 2003.
The first shots in the transatlantic
trade war over Europe 's position on GMOs
were fired in May 2003, when the US, Canada
, Argentina and Egypt registered a formal
complaint with the World Trade Organization
(WTO). They complained that Europe 's
moratorium on new products and the various
national bans were a barrier to trade
costing the US an estimated $300 million in
lost exports. The complainants were backed
up by a number of third parties including
Australia , Chile and Mexico .
To date, the dispute has hardly gotten
off the ground. In August, the US,
Argentina and Canada requested that the WTO
form a Dispute Panel, the usual next stage
in any trade conflict. However, attempts to
decide who should sit on the Panel have
slowed the process, with each side
repeatedly rejecting the other's
suggestions. By the end of 2003 there was
still no agreement about the identity of
the panelists
Eventually, once the panel has been
selected, it will take evidence (in secret)
from both sides before coming to a ruling
towards the end of 2004. Notably absent in
the process will be civil society
representatives, who are prevented from
officially participating and even from
knowing what is being discussed. While
informal sources in Brussels expect a WTO
ruling against Europe 's restrictive stance
on GMOs, the EU will have the right to
appeal. The WTO Appellate body will then
reconsider the case and come to a final and
legally binding ruling 3-6 months after the
first ruling. If Europe loses, it will have
to comply with the ruling: either adapt its
legislation or face heavy trade
sanctions.
This battle is not only about Europe :
the Bush administration claims that the
European moratorium is not only harming US
farmers but also stopping developing
countries from adopting the controversial
technology. However Egypt , the only
African country originally supporting the
US position, withdrew even before the
consultation process began. In a letter to
the European Consumers'Organization, the
Egyptian government announced its decision
not to proceed “in conscious emulation of
the need to preserve adequate and effective
consumer and environmental protection”. The
move angered US trade negotiators, who
reportedly tore up a draft free trade
agreement with the North African
country.
The European Commission has issued
statements “regretting” the US move. They
also take issue with President Bush's
accusations that European policy is
hindering hunger relief in Africa , calling
the allegations “not founded”. In one of
their statements, the Commission points to
opinion polls in the US that show “a
whopping 92 percent of Americans support
labeling”.
Friends of the Earth Europe's Bite Back
Campaign:
www.foeeurope.org/biteback/index.htm
