HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Lori Wallach
May
15, 2003
The
Bush administration announced on May 13 it will formally challenge Europe’s
moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
This
case will become Exhibit No. 1 in the growing worldwide attack on the WTO’s legitimacy.
The fundamental issue here is democracy: The people eating the food or living
in the environment that could be affected must decide domestic policy, not some
secretive WTO tribunal of three trade experts.
Indeed,
polling shows that a majority of Europeans and Americans want GMO foods to be
segregated from non-GMO foods and labeled so that consumers have a choice. The
science on the long-term health and environmental effects of GMOs is
incomplete, making limits on GMOs a prudent policy to avoid possibly
irreversible damage to public health or the environment. Many U.S. laws, such
as our drug approval process, also require the manufacturer to prove a product
safe before it is allowed on the market (not that the government must prove it
is dangerous).
Europeans
who don’t want to eat GMOs or fear GMO crops’ environmental threats have
democratically enacted these values and passed a policy to segregate and label
food made with GMOs. The moratorium is an interim measure while the individual
E.U. countries debate implementation of that policy. Because the Europeans
apply these same rules domestically -- in the same manner that they do to
imports -- there is no trade discrimination and thus there really is no trade
issue here.
However,
although there is no trade discrimination in this situation, there is a viable
WTO case to be made in attacking the E.U. GMO moratorium. The WTO contains
extensive subjective, value-oriented rules constraining signatory countries’
domestic food-safety policies that limit the subject matter, level of
protection and design of domestic food safety policies. One such WTO rule puts
the burden of proof on countries seeking to regulate a product to show it is
dangerous. This WTO rule means that policies based on the Precautionary
Principle -- that a manufacturer must show a product safe over the long term
before it goes on the market -- are forbidden. The Bush administration today is
putting the interests of its agribusiness supporters over many of the values it
purports to seek for the world: democracy, accountability and openness.
The
Bush administration, and before it, the Clinton administration, have promised
the American public that global trade deals will not and cannot undermine
domestic laws. Yet time and again this has proved false. Until this GMO food
challenge was launched, the focus this year had been on the Bush
administration’s sneaky New Year’s Eve attempt to dramatically weaken the
popular U.S. "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling regulation in the name of
complying with a trade ruling. Now Europeans are seeing GMOs being forced down
their throats by the powerful WTO dispute system.
Lori Wallach is director of Public
Citizen’s Global Trade Watch (www.citizen.org/trade/).