EU's Resistance to GMOs Hurt the Poor

The bitter dispute between the U.S., Canada, andrecognizes that countries are entitled to regulate
Argentina, on one hand, and the European Union (EU),crops and food products to protect health and
on the other, over the latter's restrictive policiesenvironment. The agreement requires, however,
towards genetically modified foods reaches what is"sufficient scientific evidence" to support
likely to be an acrimonious peak this week when thetrade-restrictive regulations on crops and food
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules if the EU hasproducts to protect the environment.
violated trade rules by blocking foods produced usingThe EU's argument in the WTO dispute is greatly
modern biotechnology techniques. Acrimoniouseroded by the fact that various scientific bodies
because the EU is preemptively threatening tohave, repeatedly, vindicated GMOs. For example, the
dishonor the verdict if it's in favor of the U.S., CanadaUnited Kingdom-based Institute for Food Science and
and Argentina. The EU is keen on blocking geneticallyTechnology (IFT) - an independent body for food
modified foods without scientific justification.scientists and technologists - has declared that
The dispute dates back to the spring of 1998 when"genetic modification has the potential to offer very
five EU member states -Denmark, France, Greece,significant improvements in the quantity, quality and
Italy and Luxembourg - issued a declaration to blockacceptability of the world's food supply."
GMOs approvals unless the European CommissionIn 2004, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), a
(EC) proposed legislation for traceability and labelingdivision of the National Academy of Sciences (NAC),
of GMOs. A year later in June 1999, EU environmentissued a report in which it found that genetic
ministers imposed a six-year de facto moratorium onengineering is "not an inherently hazardous process,"
all GMOs. The official moratorium has since lapsed butcalling fears of the anti-biotech crowd "scientifically
EU's recalcitrance towards GMOs and obstructionunjustified."
remains.In June 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO)
EU's ban on GMOs has exasperated the U.S., Canadareleased a report that acknowledged the potential of
and Argentina - leading growers of crops with GMOgenetically modified foods to enhance human health
enhancements - to initiate a WTO dispute settlementand development. The report, Modern Food
process against the EU in May 2003, arguing that theBiotechnology, Human Health and Development,
moratorium harmed farmers and their exportnoted that pre-market assessments done so far
markets, particularly for corn and soybeans, andhave not found any negative health effects from
which are critical sources of revenue for farmers.consuming GM foods. Surely, no respectable scientific
Now, the WTO's verdict is due today(February 7,body would endorse a flawed innovation.
2006). They have already reported it will be theThese findings may help to explain why agricultural
longest report document of its kind. This suggestsbiotech innovators and product developers continue
that EU political pandering may have seeped into theto thrive. Cropnosis - a leading provider of market
WTO process complicating what should be a simpleresearch and consultancy services in the crop
trade dispute resolution. This is unfortunate for moreprotection and biotechnology sectors - estimates that
than just the two parties involved.the global value of biotech crops stands at $5.25
The stakes are too high, not only to the parties inbillion representing 15 percent of the $34.02 billion
dispute, but to the entire world, and especiallycrop protection market in 2005 and 18 per cent of
developing world. The dispute is not just anotherthe $30 billion 2005 global commercial seed market.
transatlantic trade skirmish. At stake are consumers'The International Service for the Acquisition of
rights to have real choices with regard to their food,Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), in a report
and farmers' freedoms to use approved tools andreleased early this year, reveals that since the
technologies to safely produce those food choices.commercialization of the first GM crop a decade ago,
The EU has never justified its restrictive policies1 billion acre of land, in 21 countries, is under biotech
towards GMOs, which makes everybody questioncrops. In 2005 alone, the global area of approved
the motive behind GMOs ban. When it slapped abiotech crops was 222 million hectares, up from 200
moratorium on GMOs, the EU cited undefined safetymillion acres in 2004. This translates to annual growth
concerns as the reason for the drastic action. Theirrate of 11 percent.
own scientists and regulators have repeatedlyThe lucrative nature of GM crops - they yield high
addressed and dismissed the safety issues for theseand require less pesticides and herbicides - is driving
GMO crops. Were similar undefined, precautionarymany developing countries to embrace them.
principle standards applied to other growing practicesHowever, many, especially in Africa, where agriculture
- such as organic - Europe would have to similarly banconstitutes 30 per cent of the continent's Gross
all foodstuffs.Domestic Product (GDP), have been reluctant
In the absence of verifiable scientific justification tocultivate GMOs for fear of losing their European
block GMOs from its territories, the EU is guilty ofagricultural markets. This is why Europe's accession to
violating the Agreement on Technical Barriers toGMOs remains critical to Africa's adoption of GMOs.
Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on the ApplicationThe EU, by default, is preventing many poor
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), tocountries to benefit from GMOs.
which it is a signatory. The SPS, particularly,