Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, IA
02/09/06
U.S. praises WTO ruling
By MATTHEW MURRAY
WASHINGTON --- A recent World Trade Organization ruling found six European
countries guilty of illegally restricting their domestic markets to genetically
modified seeds and foods.
It was a decision met with high praise by lawmakers from Iowa and U.S. biotech
producers.
Despite initial enthusiasm, however, some question just how significant the ruling
might be, in terms of so-called GMOs from the U.S. actually ending up in grocery
aisles across Europe.
"There will probably be a very small market in these countries" for genetically
modified foods, said Chad Hart, an agricultural economist with the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University in Ames.
"Some will adopt GMOs, some will not."
In 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina complained to the WTO that
Germany, France, Greece, Italy, Austria and Luxembourg were violating
international trade rules by restricting the sale of genetically altered food and
seeds produced abroad. The restrictions, the U.S. argued, had nothing to do with
generally accepted scientific research.
The six EU countries said they were simply protecting their citizens from
potentially harmful products.
Lawmakers, including Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, encouraged then
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick to file the complaint. In a statement
this week, Grassley said "for years, the European Union has blocked the entry of
new agricultural biotechnology products, while admitting (they) are safe. That
always struck me as a clear WTO violation. Product safety decisions have to be
based on sound science, not political science."
On Tuesday, the WTO notified the six European, two North American and one
South American countries involved in the dispute of its findings: Scientific
research did not indicate that genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton
were harmful, some news outlets claimed.
Administration officials and lawmakers from Iowa and elsewhere wasted little
time responding to the WTO's preliminary decision.
"The facts on agricultural biotechnology are clear and compelling," said Rob
Portman, the current U.S. trade representative. "We believe agricultural
biotechnology products should be provided a timely, transparent and scientific
review by the European Union, and that is why Canada, Argentina and the
United States brought the case in the first place."
Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, praised the group's decision, calling it
"good news for U.S. agriculture" and indicated, like Portman, that the real winner
in the GMO row may be poor countries.
"The EU's moratorium against biotech crops violates a fundamental principle that
trade rules of this kind must be based on good science and implemented without
unreasonable delays," said Harkin in a statement.
Some also claim that stoking the fears of developing countries could also be a
result of Tuesday's interim report by the WTO.
"The significance of this (preliminary) decision is sending a strong message to all
countries, about the importance in basing your decisions on science," said
Michelle Gorman, director of regulatory affairs at the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
Some environmental groups doubt whether a consumer market even exists in
these six countries, citing Switzerland as a prime example. The landlocked
country put the issue to public vote. It lost.
"U.S agro-chemical giants will not sell a bushel more of their [genetically
modified] grain as a result of the WTO ruling, said Daniel Mittler in a statement.
Mittler is a trade advisor for Greenpeace International.
"European consumers, farmers and a growing number of governments remain
opposed to GMOs, and this will not change --- in Europe or globally," Mittler said.
Contact Matthew Murray at m-murray4@northwestern.edu.