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