The fact that the two editorials quoted below are from US
media, cannot be hidden to the observant European reader.
Indeed, both editorials are from US based Wall Street Journal.

But, maybe more interestingly, the observant reader will also
well realize that one of the editorials (and I shan't insult any
reader by pointing out which ;-) is coming out of the European
edition, while the other one must be from the US edition
of the Wall Street Journal.

-------------------------------

*Modified Food Fight*
Wall Street Journal Editorial May 13

The Bush administration is expected to announce today that it is
filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization over the
EU's five-year-old moratorium on approvals of new genetically
modified crops. This will no doubt be taken as yet another
sign that President Bush is a unilateralist, trampling over
European concerns and prerogatives, etc.

Now, we yielded to no one in criticizing the president's steel
tariffs. But the truth here is that the U.S. has been more than
patient with the EU's foot-dragging. The case looked set to be
filed in January, but was held up at the last minute in a
fruitless attempt to try to keep the Europeans on board the Iraq
boat. That didn't really work out. And last week, the EU threw
down the gauntlet on its own blockbuster WTO case, giving the
U.S. Congress until the end of the year to resolve the EU's
complaint about the tax breaks of foreign subsidiaries of U.S.
companies.

But even so there are those who argue that the U.S. should avoid
rankling European sensibilities at a time when Iraq's
reconstruction is still being debated. The good news is, the
do-nothing crowd appears to have lost the debate.

The conventional wisdom on GM foods in Europe is that Europeans
don't want American "Frankenfoods" anyway, and so in keeping them
out the European Commission and the member states are only doing
their citizens' bidding. But the evidence for this is hard to
find. Yes, there are polls that indicate some apprehension, but
that seems to have more to do with basic human resistance to
change than any deeply felt fear of genetically modified crops.

The commission approved over 20 GM crops for sale in Europe prior
to the moratorium, and price surveys in Europe indicate that foods
currently labeled "GM free" enjoy no price premium compared to
those that are not labeled. Whatever the polls say, European
consumers are not ponying up for the comfort of knowing that
their corn chips are free from the dreaded GM.

To the extent that there is concern, this no doubt comes from
the EU's own ban. It gives the impression -- one belied by the
EU's own extensive scientific research, as Gregory Conko notes
nearby -- that there's something to be concerned about. Since
that's not true, the quickest way to dispel those fears is to
lift the moratorium.

The other canard is that the moratorium will be lifted faster
if the EU is left alone. But there's little evidence of that,
either. Health Commissioner David Byrne has called the moratorium
unsupportable, but so far to little effect. The prospect of losing
a case that the EU has no chance of winning -- since its own
science says the moratorium has no basis -- may be just the nudge
it needs. The U.S. complaint to the WTO is long overdue.

--------------------------------

*Genetic Food Fight*
Wall Street Journal Editorial, May 15


The Bush Administration's trade record is far from spotless,
as we've often pointed out. But its decision this week to file
suit at the WTO against the European Union's moratorium against
genetically modified crops starts a very useful food fight.

The ban is almost certainly illegal under WTO rules, it has no
basis in science and it is hurting some of the poorest and
hungriest countries in the world. A number of African countries,
most prominently Zambia, have been pressured by the EU ban into
refusing food aid from the U.S., for fear that American GM food
will "taint" their own crops and leave them shut out of European
markets.

In support of the case, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick
mustered some 3,000 scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners,
all of whom maintain that the EU's biotech protectionism amounts
to junk science. The complaint is joined or supported by more than
a dozen other countries.

The EU knows that the ban is insupportable legally and
scientifically. Three years ago, Environment Commissioner Margot
Wallstroem called it "illegal and not justified," and Health
Commissioner David Byrne has been saying the same for years.
In response to fear-mongering in the late 1990s by countries
like France and Germany, the commission launched a six-year
study of the safety of GM foods. Its conclusion, published last
year, was that they not only pose no threat but are in many cases
safer and more environmentally friendly than traditional crops.

They're safer because the genetic modifications are tightly
controlled to achieve a certain aim, such as pest resistance,
rather than the result of random mixing of strains or crops in
the hope that a valuable hybrid will emerge. They are more
environmentally friendly because the modifications often allow
for higher yields (meaning less land under cultivation) and
reduced pesticide use due to pest resistance.

Yet when some countries banned the import of even EU-approved
genetically modified crops five years ago, the European Commission
stopped processing applications for approval of new GM strains.
Now the EU says all it wants is an adequate labeling and
traceability regime.

What this means in practice, however, is that all crops -- and
not just GM products -- will have to undergo costly and unnecessary
testing at each stage of production to check for the presence of
GM foods. The European greens behind this boondoggle may hope it
will drive up the price of GM-derived products, but the requirements
are so stringent that they'd drive up the price of all food in Europe.

The labeling requirement is merely a scare tactic. If it's truly
a question of consumer choice, then a voluntary "GM-free" labeling
system would allow those who really care to pay extra for the comfort
of avoiding "Frankenfood," without forcing all consumers to pay for
their paranoia.

Unfortunately for Europe's environmentalists, price surveys in Europe
indicate that products currently labeled "GM-free" enjoy zero price
premium relative to unlabeled products. In other words, for all the
huffing about how important the issue is to European consumers, no one
seems willing to pay anything extra for protection from the dread GM.

What we have here is the spectacle of timid European politicians and
bureaucrats flacking for a handful of misinformed and radical -- and
no surprise, mostly French -- environmentalists. If there were ever
such a thing as a just trade war, this is it.