Can a WTO member nation ban the import of genetically modified foods, or does such a prohibition amount to an illegal barrier to free trade? Seattle will host the showdown.
by Jen Soriano
World Trade
or Globalization
and the Maquiladoras Hot Button:
Genetically Modified Foods Do countries have the right to keep genetically modified foods off of their
supermarket shelves? The issue has sparked popular protests and diplomatic
fireworks in recent months -- and is emerging as a key issue for the World Trade
Organization's Seattle summit.
Genetically engineered crops can produce higher yields, create their own
natural pesticides and result in more nourishing food -- but critics say they
also have the potential to cause vast damage to the environment and human
health. The issue strikes a visceral chord: European Greenpeace activists have
taken to hacking down swaths of genetically modified corn and soybeans, a French
farm activist and friends in rubber fish masks began a series of rallies outside
Washington supermarkets this week, and more mainstream groups have launched
protests in Britain and elsewhere.
For the trade bureaucrats, the question is whether, under existing WTO
agreements, countries can keep genetically modified products off the market in
response to their citizens' concerns about ecological safety and public health,
or whether doing so would constitute an illegal barrier to free trade. The
stakes are high: Some 80 million acres of genetically modified crops were
planted around the world last year, including at least half of the soybean
acreage and one third of the corn crop in the US. The biotechnology industry has
invested billions in developing such organisms.
The trade conflict sprouted in late June, when the European Union effectively
banned the approval of all new genetically modified organisms. Shortly
thereafter, a Brazilian judge suspended imports of US produce giant Monsanto's
genetically engineered soybeans until a complete ecological impact study is
completed.
In response, the US is proposing a reinterpretation of existing WTO rules. In
essence, it wants any country seeking to ban genetically altered products to
come up with concrete scientific evidence of their harmfulness, not simply
outraged public opinion. "We cannot let others hide behind unfounded,
unwarranted scientific claims to block commerce in agriculture," said Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Glickman.
But critics retort that limiting the traffic in genetically altered foods is
warranted precisely because so many scientific questions remain unanswered.
Preliminary research by Cornell University scientists has shown that pollen from
genetically modified crops can potentially harm insects like the monarch
butterfly. Other researchers have identified a risk of herbicide-resistant genes
"migrating" into nearby weeds, possibly resulting in a new strain of
poison-proof "superweeds." Many environmental scientists say more research is
required to assess the seriousness of these problems.
The question of whether genetically modified foods are directly hazardous to
human health is at this point largely hypothetical, though consumer advocates
say that's because it could take years for such health problems to emerge.
Advocates and some scientists agree that the primary potential hazard of
genetically altered foods lies in the possible transfer of antibiotic-resistant
genes to bacteria in people's organs, a process which could lead to the growth
of antibiotic-resistant disease strains. Also of concern is the potential for
new toxins and allergens to be produced by foreign proteins in genetically
modified foods.
The widespread sentiment that genetically modified foods were being shoved
down people's throats without regard to these environmental and health concerns
led to a popular backlash against "frankenfoods" in Europe this year. That, in
turn, sparked consumer protests in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and other
countries. The protesters have been heard: Britain now requires all shops and
restaurants to notify customers about genetically modified ingredients in their
food. In September, Japanese importers announced they would switch to supplying
only non-genetically modified crops to domestic food manufacturers. And in the
most drastic precautionary move to date, EU commissioners have halted approvals
of new genetically altered organisms for at least the next two years, or until
stricter risk assessment rules come into place.
If the WTO adopts the rule-changes the US is pushing, then the US will be
able to challenge the EU ban. If the WTO's ruling in another case involving beef
hormones is any indication, however, the EU may face an uphill battle. In 1998,
a WTO appellate panel ruled against a European ban on hormone-treated beef,
claiming the EU lacked scientific evidence of danger to human health. The EU
refused to retract the ban, and is now facing retaliatory tariffs on mustard,
cheese, and other goods exported to the United States.
While ministers debate the semantics of regulations for biotechnology,
biosafety advocates will be in Seattle urging the WTO to jump off the biotech
bandwagon altogether. Dawkins of the IATP says biotechnology regulations are
currently negotiated by a distinct international body, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and that the WTO should not usurp this process.
"The WTO is not the preferable venue for establishing standards for
genetically modified crops," Dawkins says. "The WTO has a commercial mandate and
the ministers making decisions have expertise in trade, but not in molecular
biology, environmental science, food safety, or human health."
Nov. 24, 1999
More WTO Coverage:
World Domination?
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
