article

The European Union and the United States have strong disagreements over the EU's regulation of genetically modified food. The US claims these regulations violate free trade agreements, the EU counter-position is that free trade is not truly free without informed consent.

In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the 1990s created consumer apprehension about food safety in general, eroded public trust in government oversight of the food industry, and left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality.

This has further fueled widespread (*) public concern about genetically modified organisms (GMO), in terms of potential environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health, and safety of consumers. Critics of GM foods contend that there is evidence that the cultivation of genetically modified plants may lead to environmental changes.

Many European consumers are demanding the right to make an informed choice about whether or not to consume GMO foods. Some polls indicate that Americans would also like labeling, but it has not yet become a major issue. New EU regulations should require strict labeling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives such as directive 2001/18/EC were designed to require authorisation for the placing GMO on the market, in accordance with the precautionary principle. (see also Tax, tariff and trade).

A 2003 survey by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of people in all countries surveyed felt that GM foods were "bad". The lowest scores were in the US and Canada, where 55% and 63% (respectively) were against it, while the highest were in Germany and France with 81% and 89% disapproving. The survey also showed a strong tendency for women to be more opposed to GM foods than men. *

In 2002, Oregon Ballot measures gave voters in that state one of the first opportunities in the United States to directly address that issue. The measure, which would have required the labeling of genetically engineered foods, failed to pass by a ratio of 7 to 3.

Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, member of the German Green Party and vice president of the Landwirtschaftsausschuss (committee of agriculture) of the European Commission said on the 1 July 2003: "In America 55% of the consumers are against GM food and 90% in favor of a clear labeling."

European Ban

In 1999, a 4-year ban was pronounced on new, genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed to new controls on GMOs that could eventually lead the then 15 members bloc to re-open the Union's markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labeling controls for genetically modified goods that will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see Mandatory labeling).

Agricultural Trade Market Between USA and Europe

The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods.

The value of agricultural trade between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of the 21st Century, and some in the U.S., especially farmers and food manufacturers, are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade.

In 1998, the United States exported $63 million worth of maize to the EU, but the exports decreased to $12.5 million in 2002.

The drop-off might also be due to falling commodities prices, less demand due to the recession, U.S. maize being priced out of foreign markets by a strong dollar, and importing countries' reaction to the planned invasion of Iraq. Similar European public opposition to Israeli treatment of Palestinians has also affected Israeli food exports. However, American farm industry advocates blame the EU's ban.

European Proposal over Genetically Modified Food

The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety* proposal, adopted in the summer of 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003, has deep cultural roots that are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community. It requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes.

The new European tax, tariff and trade proposal would particularly affect US maize gluten and soybean exports, as a high percentage of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US maize and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002).

The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought to rest on labeling rather than food aid. Many European consumers are asking for food regulation (demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified), while the American agricultural industry is arguing for free trade and is strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different to those the European promotes."

The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States does not require labeling, Europe should not require labeling either. They claim mandatory labelling could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over conventional food. Europe answers that the labeling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.

The American agricultural industry also complains about the costs implied by labeling.

Official US complaint with the WTO

The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some Americans to breach World Trade Organisation rules. Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the European position toward GMO was thought of as "immoral" since it could lead to starvation in the developing world, as seen in some famine-threatened African countries (eg, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique) that refuse to accept US aid because it contains GM food.

Zoellick's critics argue that US concern over Third World starvation is merely a cover for other issues. Some money for development aid is used by the American government via the World Food Programme (WFP) to help their farmers by buying up overproduction and giving it to the UN organisation. GM-scepticism interferes with this program. American farmers lost marketshare in certain countries after changing to genetically modified food because of sceptical consumers.

Another European response to the claims of immorality is that the EU gives 7 times more in development aid than the US, yet its economy is less than 10% bigger than America's, and its GDP/head much lower than that of the US.

In May 2003, after initial delay due to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration officially accused the European Union of violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. Robert Zoellick announced the filing of a formal complaint with the WTO challenging the moratorium after months of negotiations trying to get it lifted voluntarily. The complaint was also filed by Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Uruguay. The formal WTO case challenging the EU's regulatory system was in particular lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Aventis and big agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

EU officials questioned the action, saying it will further damage trade relations already strained by the U.S. decision to launch a war against Iraq despite opposition from members of the U.N. Security Council. The US move was also interpreted as a sanction against the EU for requesting the end of illegal tax breaks for exporters or face up to $4 billion in trade sanctions in retaliation for Washington's failure to change the tax law, which the WTO ruled illegal four years ago.

Ratification of the Biosafety Protocol by the EU Parliament

In June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a three-year-old U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in genetically modified food, expected to come into force in fall 2003 since the necessary number of ratification was reached in May 2003. The protocol lets countries ban imports of a genetically modified product if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton. It makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits.

Jonas Sjoestedt, a Swedish Left member of the EU assembly, said that "this legislation should help the EU to counter recent accusations by the U.S administration that the EU is to blame for the African rejection of GM food aid last year."

The United States did not sign the protocol, saying it was opposed to labeling and fought import bans.

Lifting of the Ban

On July 2, 2003, the European parliament approved two laws that will allow the EU to lift its controversial ban on GM food. The first law will require labeling for GMO-containing food above 0.9%. It will be applied for human food and animal feed as well. However, animals fed with transgenic cereals will not be included in the labeling. The second law will make mandatory labeling of any food containing non-authorized GMO (in the Union) over 0.5%. This amount will be set for 3 years. After 3 years, all food containing non-authorized GMO will be banned. Traceability of GMO products will be mandatory, from sowing to final product. It was expected the ban would be lifted in the fall of 2003. However, on the 8 December 2003, the European Commission rejected approval of a controversial genetically modified sweet corn.

Six countries were in favour (33 votes - Spain, UK, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Ireland) three abstained (25 votes - Germany, Belgium, Italy), while six countries voted against (29 votes - Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, France).

The new GM sweet corn, BT-11, produced by Syngenta was modified to produce its own insecticide and is also resistant to herbicide. It was rejected for the following reasons:

  • The new labelling and traceability regulations are still not in place.
  • The proposal did not include post-approval monitoring of health effects.
  • Some safety questions have not been fully addressed.

Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe said, "There is clearly no scientific consensus over the safety of this modified sweet corn. The decision not to approve it is a victory for public safety and common sense. The European Commission now has the opportunity to re-think its position. The public doesn't want to eat GM foods and question marks remain over its safety. The Commission must put the well-being of European citizens and their environment before the business interests of the US Government and the biotech industry."

The approval of that GMO corn would have been de facto considered as a lift of the moratorium on new GMO foods. A decision to lift the moratorium might occur in spring 2004.

Effect of Cultural Differences between US and Europe

The U.S. population has historically placed a considerable degree of trust in the regulatory oversight provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its agencies. There is little tradition of people having a close relationship with their food, with the overwhelming majority of people having bought their food in supermarkets for years. But the 2003 survey by the Pew Research Centrer showed that even in the U.S., 55% see GM food as "bad" food.

In Europe, and particularly in the U.K., there is less trust of regulatory oversight of the food chain. In many parts of Europe, a larger measure of food is produced by small, local growers using traditional (non-intensive & organic) methods (see local food).

See also: Trade war

Significant Decision Due Soon

The World Trade Organization has made a preliminary ruling that European Union restrictions on genetically engineered crops violate international trade rules. The United States, Canada, and Argentina together grow 80 percent of all biotech crops sold commercially, by which the EU regulates such crops. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence finds the crops safe.

External links

European Union law | International trade | genetically modified organisms

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "International trade of genetically modified foods".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world