WTO rules against EU in pivotal GM case
GM crops and foods, according to the WTO but will the ruling change
The world trade organisation agreed with the United States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between June 1999 and August 2003 had been put in place.
And although Brussels again began authorising imports of GMOs in May 2004, only seven crops and foods were the green light. Further bans were imposed by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Greece.
The pro-GM nations argued these prohibitions were not scientifically justified and thus contrary to WTO rules. The US food industry has persistently said that the EU ban has cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales.
The EU on the other hand has consistently denied the existence of a moratorium, citing that no official communication to this effect has ever been made.
"Contrary to US claims, the EU is one of the largest importers of GMOs and derived food and feed," said the Commission in a statement yesterday. "The EU is the largest soybean and soy meal importer and the fact is that soy imports consist largely of Monsanto Round-Up Ready soybean, which is cultivated in all the main soybean global producers, i.e. the US, Brazil and Argentina.
"The claim that the there is a moratorium on approval of GM products in Europe is self-evidently untrue."
Europes position is that a tough regulatory framework must be in place in order to carry out strict monitoring of GM products after their initial release to market.
"The US appears not to like the EU authorisation regime, which it considers to be too stringent, simply because it takes longer to approve a GMO in Europe than in the US," said the Commission.
"The EU believes that such regulatory oversight is of utmost importance to address any potential failure of the regulatory system, such as those that have been experienced in the US in the recent past when non-approved GMOs such as Starlink GM maize, or Bt 10 GM maize entered the US food chain."
In any case, the WTO ruling may prove more symbolic than effective, given that the EU claims it has no ban on safe GM products in any case. More importantly, widespread consumer rejection of GM products will likely mean that the technology remains untouchable for many manufacturers and retailers.
It is clear that Member States still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable. The Commission has asked EU members over ten times to vote on authorising a GMO food or feed product, but in the large majority of cases, there was no agreement or simple deadlock.
Luxembourg, Greece and Austria consistently vote against GMO approvals.
Both sides now have one week to ask the panel for a review of the interim report. The period of review must not exceed two weeks.
During that time, the panel may hold additional meetings with the two sides.
A final report submitted to the two sides will become the Dispute Settlement Bodys ruling or recommendation, unless a consensus rejects it.
Having lost, the EU must follow the recommendations of the panel report or the appeals report. It must state its intention to do so at a Dispute Settlement Body meeting held within 30 days of the reports adoption.
If complying with the recommendation immediately proves impractical, the EU will be given a reasonable period of time to do so. If it fails to act within this period, it will be subject to retaliation measures and will have to enter into negotiations with the US, Canada and Argentina in order to determine mutually-acceptable compensation for instance, tariff reductions in areas of particular interest to the complaining side.
Public opinion in Europe is still firmly against GM. The ruling will probably not lead to an increase in GM imports in the short term. But trade sources argue that the ruling is still vitally important because it sends a message to other WTO members, which have been taking a similar line to that of the EU, and could now face legal action.