U.S. Challenges Europe on Genetically Modified Food

By ELIZABETH BECKER

ASHINGTON, May 13 — The Bush administration filed a lawsuit today at
the World Trade Organization to force Europe to lift a moratorium on
genetically modified food, a move that was threatened earlier this
year but postponed during the debate over the war in Iraq.

The suit will further heighten trans-Atlantic trade tensions following
several recent rulings against the United States in cases brought by
Europe at the W.T.O. over American steel tariffs and tax shelters for
American corporations overseas.

The administration was backed by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, of
Illinois, and other senior Republican and Democratic lawmakers who
have been promoting the lawsuit for months. American farmers have led
the complaints, saying they have invested in the expensive technology
to raise genetically modified crops only to see one of the biggest
markets — Europe — closed to their products.

In announcing the case, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade
representative, said the administration was not trying to counter the
W.T.O.'s previous decisions favoring Europe. "I'm absolutely denying
that," he said.

He said the administration had simply run out of patience waiting for
the European Union to lift what he said was a five-year-old moratorium
that had blocked several hundred million dollars of American exports
into Europe and was spreading unfounded fears in the developing world
that could benefit from the increased yield of genetically modified
crops.

"In developing countries, these crops can spell the difference between
life and death," Mr. Zoellick said. "The human cost of rejecting this
new technology is enormous."

Mr. Hastert said the cost to American farmers could be calculated. He
estimated that the loss was $300 million in corn exports alone.

"There's no question in my mind that the European Union's
protectionist, discriminatory trade policies are costing American
agriculture and our nation's economy hundreds of millions of dollars
each and every year."

But European officials said today they were dumbfounded by the
American suit. They said there was no moratorium on genetically
modified food.

"The U.S. claims that there is a so-called `moratorium,' but the fact
is that the E.U. has authorized g.m. varieties in the past and is
currently processing applications," said Pascal Lamy, the top European
trade official.

"So what is the real U.S. motive in bringing a case?" Mr. Lamy asked.

At the center of this debate, if not the lawsuit filed today, is a
growing disagreement between the United States and Europe over what
steps are necessary to protect public health and the environment.

European consumers are far more wary of genetically modified food than
Americans and many object to what they consider aggressive American
promotion of those foods, which is seen as influenced by American
agribusiness.

The European Union is demanding that genetically modified food be
labeled as such. They also want to be able to trace the origins of the
food back to the producer. Both of these measures are in place in
Europe for a wide variety of food products.

The United States opposes such labels and tracing mechanisms, saying
they are too costly and impractical. The Bush administration made
similar arguments last week against a new European proposal to test
industrial chemicals before they are put on the market as a precaution
to protect public health and the environment.

Margot Wallstrom, the European commissioner for the environment said
the European legislature would complete its legislation to require
labeling and methods for tracing food and animal feed that is
genetically modified.

"This U.S. move is unhelpful," she said. "It can only make an already
difficult debate in Europe more difficult."

Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman said today that the case was
brought to protect American farmers and ranchers who want to expand
the market for genetically modified crops.

"With this case, we are fighting for the interests of American
agriculture," she said. This case is about playing by the rules
negotiated in good faith. The European Union has failed to comply with
its W.T.O. obligations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/in...partner=GOOGLE

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.

US-led Deep Throat coalition starts to crumble

Attempts by the United States Administration to force Europe to accept
GM food and crops have been dealt a blow after Egypt announced that it
would not be part of a WTO challenge to the European Union's de facto
moratorium on approving new GM licenses.

The Egyptian Government says that it has taken its decision because it
recognizes "the need to preserve adequate and effective consumer and
environmental protection."

On 13 May the United States said that it would be joined by Argentina,
Canada and Egypt in filing a World Trade Organisation (WTO) case
against Europe over "its illegal five-year moratorium on approving
agricultural biotech products" [1].

But the Egyptian Government says that it has decided "not to become a
party" to the WTO complaint. In a letter [2] it says "The Government
of Egypt took this decision in conscious emulation of the need to
preserve adequate and effective consumer and environmental
protection, and with the desire to reduce further distortions and
impediments to international trade that may result due to the further
pursuit of this matter within the WTO".

Europeans are concerned about the threat that GM crops pose to food,
farming and the environment. There are also fears about the long-term
health impacts from eating GM food. Opinion polls show that 70% of the
European public don't want GM food and 94% want to be able to choose
whether or not they eat it (Eurobarometer 2001).

Friends of the Earth Europe's GM campaigner Geert Ritsema said: "We're
delighted that Egypt has withdrawn from this US attempt to force GM
food and crops into Europe. Countries should be allowed to choose what
they eat and what they grow in their fields. The United States should
withdraw its WTO challenge, and stop trying to bully Europe over
GMOs."

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

Notes:
1. http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2003/05/03-31.pdf
2. Letter available from Friends of the Earth.
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2003/letter.gif

Battle Over Biotechnology Intensifies Trade War
The New York Times, USA,
by Elizabeth Becker with David Barboza
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/business/29BIOT.html

DATE: May 29, 2003

Battle Over Biotechnology Intensifies Trade War

WASHINGTON, May 28 - President Bush said last week that Europe's
opposition to genetically altered crops was a threat to efforts to end
world hunger.

But even many critics of Europe's stance say that the president's
argument does not stand up and that the dispute needs to be understood
for what it is: a multibillion-dollar cross-Atlantic battle over
agricultural trade.

The disagreement will be played out this week at the meeting in France
of the leading industrial countries. It pits European leaders, who say
they are worried about the safety of importing genetically altered
crops from the United States, against the Bush administration, which
insists that Europe's attempts to block the crops are an illegal trade
tactic.

The trade dispute heated up after an intense lobbying effort here in
Washington, where some of the nation's most powerful interest groups -
farmers, the food industry and giant biotechnology companies - have
been pressing the administration to take on their case at a time of
heightened tensions between the United States and Europe.

Lawyers and lobbyists for some interest groups have descended on the
White House and Capitol Hill over the last few weeks to influence
policy makers and lawmakers, and in some cases, to simply remind them
of the importance of the Farm Belt in the next election.

Some of the biggest agriculture and biotechnology companies have
invested billions of dollars over the last decade to develop
genetically altered crops. Nearly 100 million acres of farmland in the
United States are now planted with genetically altered crops, and
agriculture officials say farmers have lost at least $1 billion over
the last five years because they have been unable to export some
biotechnology crops to Europe.

"We've been very patient with the Europeans, but their use of this ban
as a trade barrier sets a precedent for countries around the world,"
said Mary Kay Thatcher, director of public policy at the American Farm
Bureau Federation.

"We rely on export markets for one-third of our crops; this is a
nightmare," she added.

Last week, the United States filed the equivalent of a lawsuit at the
World Trade Organization, arguing that Europe's effort to block some
genetically altered crops violated international trade rules.

At the Group of 8 summit in France this week, the Bush administration
is expected to press its case that Europe accept genetically altered
crops.

But instead of arguing in the name of Monsanto - the giant of
agricultural biotechnology companies - or American farmers, Mr. Bush
and his aides will raise the issue of fighting world hunger.

In a speech last week he accused Europe of hindering the "great cause
of ending hunger in Africa" by banning genetically modified crops.
Administration officials say that such moves by Europe encourage
African nations to reject technology that could save millions of
lives.

That has upset European diplomats who are negotiating a compromise on
biotechnology.

"It is quite shocking of Mr. Bush to tell us to follow his lead on
African aid when the United States gives one of the smallest
proportion of its gross domestic product for global development than
any other wealthy nation," said a senior diplomat here. "This has not
helped us."

Pascal Lamy, the top European trade official, even challenged the
notion that Europe has a moratorium, saying that Europe is on the
verge of completing new regulations that could open up the Continent
to more genetically modified crops.

Europe approved the sale of genetically altered soybeans in the
1990's, but then in 1998 Europe instituted a moratorium on approving
new biotechnology crops like certain varieties of genetically altered
corn. So while soybeans have been largely unaffected by the
moratorium, corn exports have been harmed.

Several agriculture experts who want to lift European restrictions
said that the problem would not be solved by opening up Europe's
market.

"It's quite a stretch to tie the problem of the ban against
genetically modified food in Europe to starving children in Africa,"
said Dan Glickman, who served as secretary of agriculture in the
Clinton administration. "It is also a bit provocative to say the
Europeans don't care about world hunger."

Scientists also agree.

"In general, that is not the case at all," said Pedro Sanchez,
director of tropical agriculture at the Earth Institute at Columbia
University.

"The main problems in Africa have to do with soil fertility," he said.
"Until you solve the soil problems, it doesn't matter whether you use
conventional or genetically modified seeds."

Backers of genetically altered crops say that they have been properly
tested and that there is no scientific evidence that they pose a risk
to humans or the environment.

Mickey Kantor, the first trade representative for President Clinton
and a lawyer whose firm represents Monsanto, says the trade dispute
has grown beyond complaints from biotechnology companies.

"It's not just about the industry anymore," he said. "It is a
technology that can have a positive effect on world hunger."

If the biotechnology companies had done more for poor countries, that
argument might hold, said Peter Pringle, author of the coming book,
"Food, Inc.," (Simon & Schuster 2003).

Instead, he writes in his study of biotechnology, "while the industry
claimed that their products would save the world from malnutrition,
seed companies created only crops that made money for themselves and
the wealthier farmers who could afford the premiums."

The current trade debate centers on opposing views about food safety
and the need to test a product before it is put on the grocery shelf.
How this dispute is resolved could determine the future course of
agriculture, according to many agriculture economists.

Genetically altered crops, which have been biologically altered to do
things like release their own insecticide, are already planted on more
than 140 million acres worldwide, mostly in North and South America.

But consumers and regulators in Europe worry that the crops could pose
a threat to humans or the environment.

Five years ago, Europe placed a moratorium on approving biotechnology
crops. In preparing to end the moratorium, Europe is planning to
impose new rules and regulations to trace crops back to their origin
and label all genetically modified products, a move that could make it
more difficult for Americans to export their biotechnology crops to
Europe.

America's two biggest agricultural exports - corn and soybeans - could
be greatly threatened by the new regulations to label the product,
industry officials say.

"We think that's the equivalent of putting a skull and crossbones on
the packages, saying these things are bad," said Bob Callanan, a
spokesman for the American Soybean Association in St. Louis.

American exports of corn to Europe have virtually dried up because
corn farmers have widely adopted a form of biotech corn that kills
pests.

"We went from about a 1.5 million metric ton market in 1998 to 23,000
metric tons, so it's pretty much been obliterated," said Hayden
Milberg, director of public policy at the National Corn Growers
Association, which is based in St. Louis.

The corn industry estimates that it has lost more than $1 billion
since the moratorium.

Some farmers are questioning the administration's strategy for opening
the European market.

Harvey Joe Sanner, the director of the Soybean Producers of America,
said Europe was the largest export customer for soybeans last year and
he criticized some of the stronger remarks made by Robert B. Zoellick,
the United States trade representative, in the current dispute.

"We are very concerned with the harsh rhetoric of late by Mr.
Zoellick," he said in a statement today. "I am wondering how brilliant
it is for a key government official, who should be promoting sales of
U.S. soybeans, to use such derogatory terms in describing our largest
single buyer."