Penn-Riyad-Rejrat
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
WTO Consultation
Issues
The Position of the Parties
The Legal Inconsistency
Panel Decision
Timeline
Since the ruling
International Implications of the Ruling
Genetically modified organism
Genetically modified foods
Genetically engineered organism

What is GMO?


Genetically Modified Organism or Genetically
Engineered Organism
Why create biotech products?


Less likely for bug infestation
Preserves shelf life


On May 13 2003, the US together with Canada
requested consultations with the EC
concerning certain measures implemented by
the EC and its member states affecting imports
of GM agricultural and food imports.
The EC member states delaying imports
included:
Austria
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Italy
 Luxemburg


The EC member states that created what
became known as the moratorium called for a
number issues to be addressed:



Clarity of rules in licensing of GMOs and GMO
products
Inability to give an assurance of safety
A comprehensive labeling system to inform
consumers about the GMO product.

The U.S. stated that EU’s “defacto moratorium”
starting 1998 affected the approval of biotech
products pertaining to
the imports of agricultural products.
 the imports of food products.


The US claimed that a number of EU member
states maintain national marketing and import
bans on biotech products

even though these products have been approved by
European Union.

The Complainant, the United States (DS 291),
Canada (DS 292) and Argentina (DS 293)
stated that the moratorium violated the
following provisions/agreements:




WTO agricultural
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) agreements and
General Agreement Tariffs and Trade.

The U.S. believed that:

The EC’s failure to approve any GMO products
between October 1998 and August 2003 constituted a
de facto moratorium on product approval.

With this moratorium, the EC had violated its
obligations to the WTO and specifically had failed to
adhere to the standards required by the SPS
Agreement.

The Moratorium was a violation of:
 Article 5.5 and Article 2.3 of the SPS agreement
 Article 5.5 - prohibits “arbitrary/unjustifiable distinctions if


such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised
restriction on trade.”
 Article 2.3 - forbids the application of SPS measures “in a
manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on
trade.”
Annex B(1) and Annex C(1)(b)
 which requires all SPS regulations to be published promptly.
Annex C(1)(a)
 no “undue delay” and treatment in a no less favorable
manner for imported products than for like domestic
products.


The EC argued:
 In the similar case of the U.S.-Shrimp decision, the WTO
panel also relied upon other international treaties and
agreements.
 the definitions and effects of toxins, additives,
containments, and pests were narrowly defined by the
complaining parties as described in the SPS agreements
and codex standard 193.
 Under Article 5.1 of the SPS agreement, it is important to
note that “measures be based on assessments.”
Assessments are not legally binding.
The EC argued that the U.S., Argentina and Canada
narrowly applied the “risk assessment” implications in the
SPS agreements.



On July 12, 2004 the panel told the DSB that it
would not be able to submit a report in six
months.
Due to the scientific difficulty, the Panel was
not able to complete its report until September
29, 2006.
This panel’s ruling is by far the longest panel
report in WTO history - over 800 pages long.
Panel had a mixed ruling:


The EC was in violation of the SPS agreement Annex
C(1)(a), first clause with regards to:



the “undue delay” in the completion of the approval
process for the biotech products,
the delays in the approval process for a number of specific
products (24 of the 27 issues filed were found in violation)
The EC member states were in violation of article 5.1 of
the SPS agreement:


the “safeguard” measures were not “based on” a “risk
assessment”
and these measures could not be justified under article 5.7.
STAGES
DATE
Consultations
May 13, 2003
US requested the establishment of the panel
Aug 7, 2003
DSB established the panel
Aug 29, 2003
Panel reports were circulated to Members
Sept 29, 2006
DSB adopted the panel reports
Nov 21, 2006
EC announced its intention to implement the rulings
Dec 21, 2006
W/ reasonable period of time (12 months from Nov 21, 06)
Reasonable period of time expired
Nov 21, 2007
US & EC modified reasonable period of time to Jan 11, 08
Nov 21, 2007
Reached agreement on proc. under Art 21 and 22 of DSU
Jan 17, 2008
US suspended concessions and other obligations –Jan 17-08, EC
objected and referred to arbitration u/ Art. 22.6 of DSU
Feb 6, 2008
US & EC suspended arbitration & went back to Art 21 & 22
Feb 15, 2008

Case can set precedent in the
following areas:




food safety
public health and
environmental health issues.
Case may set precedent
By developing countries which
don’t have regulatory regimes
for GMOs or
 By regulation for other
industries such as chemicals








“European Communities: Measures Affecting The Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products.” World Trade Organization. n.d. Web. 20 March 2010.
“Interpreting WTO Law and the Relevance of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements in EC Biotech.” Center for International Environmental Law. n.d.
Web. 13 March 2010. < http://www.ciel.org/ Publications/BIICL_ECBiotech_7Jun07.pdf>
Lester, Simon. "International Decisions." The American Journal Of
International Law. Vol. 101, No. 2 (April 2007): pp 453-459
SPS Agreement. 1994. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay
World Trade Organization. World Trade Organization. Web. 20 March 2010.
“U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically
Modified Food.” The Pew Charitable Trust. December 2005. Web. 20 February
2010.
U.S. vs. EC Biotech Products Case. WTO Dispute Backgrounder. The Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Trade and Global Governance Program.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.