Transcript Document

Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMO’s)
Jennifer Takach
Joshua Richter
Natasha Simanich
ITRN 603
Professor S. Malawer
8 March 2006
1
GMO Issue – A brief background
• Technological innovation and market
integration have changed the global
scene in a political, economical, and
ecological aspect.
• Changes involving technological
innovation have brought about many
ethical, legal, scientific, and
institutional issues.
2
What is “Genetically Modified”?
The modification of the genetic characteristics of a microorganism,
plant or animal by inserting a modified gene or a gene from another
variety or species.
• Food Organisms:
– Crops
– Livestock
– Fish
• Non-food
applications:
– Forestry
– Horticulture
3
Associated Risks of GMO’s
Human health Ecological
risks:
Risks:
Economic
Risks:
Allergy/
Toxicity
Changes in
nutritional
composition
Cumulative effects
on many new foods
Costs of health/
ecological damage
Major economic
displacements
Loss of
business(consumer
choice)
Loss of trade/trade
barriers
Gene Flow
Effects on nontarget species
Effects on
ecological balances
4
Associated Benefits of GMO’s
Human health Ecological
Benefits:
Benefits:
Economic
Benefits:
Nutritionally
improved foods
More food security
Plant-produced
vaccines
Welfare of Human
health and Ecological
benefits.
Benefits of trade, to
sellers and
consumers
Reduced need for
agricultural
chemicals
Soil
conservation/improve
d soil quality
More efficient
production(less land
needed for food)
5
International Law on GMOs
U.S.(Complainant)
The FDA examines the safety
of foods and food additives.
The USDA checks the
influence of the environment,
and the approval of the EPA is
also required. Restrictions on
labels are imposed for
products that contain nonconventional ingredients.
Canada
In October of 1999,
restrictions on labels were
imposed when products
contain non-conventional
ingredients.
Furthermore, data must be
submitted according to the
safety, food, and medical
supplies rule.
E.U. (Respondent)
The European Parliament had
the bill about a label approved
about all genetically modified
food and feed in July, 2002.
Use of GMOs is heavily
regulated.
China
Genetically modified food
health bill requires that the
food manufactured from the
materials originating in a
GM crop and a GM crop
should be labeled. And the
safety examination must be
approved by the department
of Agriculture.
Japan
GMO’s used in food since
1997. April 2001, Japan
Agricultural Standards
method incorporated label
system. Food Sanitation
Law requires the label
system of the same
contents as the JAS method
by welfare Ministry of Labor.
Australia & New Zealand
A duty of labeling was
imposed about the
agricultural products and
the processed food in
December, 2001.
6
WTO Agreements Involved in the Dispute
– Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures
Agreement
• Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement
– GATT 1994
• Articles I, III, X, and XI
– Agreement on Agriculture
• Article 4
– Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
• Articles 2 and 5
7
Codex & the SPS Agreement
• Codex Alimentarius Commission - –
–
–
–
–
Establishes food and safety standards within the SPS
Provides a “burden of proof” on scientific data
Agrees upon various ways of reducing risk
Provides consistency in risk management decisions
Establishing expert scientific guidance
• Adds to the SPS Agreement –
– Agreed upon international food and safety standards
– Establishes scientific guidelines
– Leaves room for interpretation through burden of proof
and different ways of reducing risk
8
The Complainants
United States
Canada
Argentina
–
–
–
–
–
Case Filed in 2003
EU had an unfair 6 year moratorium.
Not scientifically justified
Violates SPS
Oppose EU food labeling and traceability regulations.
9
10
The Respondent
European Union
•
“every country has the sovereign right to make its own decisions
on GMOs in accordance with the values prevailing in society.”
•
2004: Labeling and Traceability Rules
11
Panel Formation
• August 29th, 2003 – Single panel established by the DSB.
• March 4th, 2004 – Director-General composed the panel.
• The decision due date has been postponed numerous times
for various reasons:
– More time for countries to prepare rebuttals.
– Panel’s decision to seek scientific and technical experts.
– Panel to finalize their report.
• Currently, the due date of the official decision from the
Panel is the end of March 2006.
12
Panel’s Unofficial Ruling
• February 7th, 2006 – Announced that the 6 year moratorium
was a trade violation.
• Final decision will officially be announced later this year.
• Still concern over how the EU will handle this decision.
– U.S. concerns with labeling.
– E.U. grocery stores stance.
13
Current Trade and Related Issues
• Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)
SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives,
contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms,
and it is not clear if potential risks from GMO foods fit
into one of those categories(hard to have scientific
certainty)
• Trade issues on global level result from different
regulations in different countries
• Institutional issues
• WHO CAN SAY WHAT IS BEST FOR SOCIETY?
14
Current Trade and Related Issues
• The benefits of GM Technology is not yet
reality (most agricultural production
happens in developed countries)
• Few GMO products so far benefit
consumers
• Harder for developing countries to use
GMO crops on small scale farming
15
GMO’s in the NATIONAL Interest…
US Interests in GMO Exports
•
Trade and Economic Related - –
–
–
–
•
US Patent Protection on Bio-engineering
Access to markets (US is the single major producer of biotech products)
As a result, US Corn & Soybean exports are threatened (high GMO content)
Unscientific Trade Restrictions
Regulatory Oversight - – Crops and food products are regulated by 14 separate laws in the U.S.
alone!
•
Farmers & Producers - – GMO and non-GMO crops are combined in the crop handling systems – to
separate would be costly and in some cases impossible
– Not only crops but food products could be effected
– Labeling & tracing regulations are not necessary and are misleading
16
GMO’s in the NATIONAL Interest…
•
The Science - – GMO’s are as safe as natural counterparts
– Supported by 3200 international scientists (including 20 Nobel
Laureates)
– 81 EU research projects resulted in no greater risk of GMO’s than
conventional counterparts
•
Food aid is the same content as what US consumers eat!
•
The benefits of GMO’s - – Reduction in use of pesticides, increased productivity, more crops
yields on less land
– Environmental and ecological testing is completed before
commercialization of GMO’s
– Bringing vital food and vitamin resources to poor/starving nations
•
International Benefits - – Feed the poor – stop food hunger!
17
GMO’s – One European Reaction
“It is so much simpler to condemn
something than to attempt to understand
it. We have a ‘fine tradition’ in Europe of
burning those people we do not
understand, whether they be witches or
heretics, for it is much easier to do this
than to try and understand them.”
J.E. Beringer
“EC-sponsored research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms”
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol (UK),
18
GMO’s - - INTERNATIONAL Interests…
International Interests in GMO
Scientific Research
• Trade and Economic Related - – Rights of Farmers to have access to genetic resources and
biotech benefits
– Scientific studies not conclusive enough in the emerging
science
– Concern over Monopolization
• Regulatory Oversight - – Labeling for consumer choice and benefit
– Traceability standards in every step of the process
– Emerging laws and regulations dealing with the scientific
principles and dissemination of GMO products
19
GMO’s - - INTERNATIONAL Interests…
• The Science - – Long-term effects unknown
– Allergenicity & Antimicrobial resistance
– Creation of new species as a result of
modern science
• Farmers & Consumers - – Causal – Non-GMO food scares in
Europe in mid-1990’s
– Public Health & Safety may be effected
by unknown risks
– Lack of Knowledge in LDC’s
20
Proposed Solution
•
Moratorium was a violation of fair trade laws.
•
EU has a right to regulate and monitor agricultural products.
– Feasible Timeline Needed.
– Traceability Agreement.
– Label Agreement.
•
Educate EU citizens on GM food benefits.
•
US has a right (under WTO trade rules) to access EU markets with
agricultural products.
•
Internationally recognized health, food, and safety standards
(Codex @ WTO) in order to reasonably conclude risk assessments
and benefits of GMO’s.
21
Food For Thought
•
The following international consumers to a recent Washington State
University study found that they are in favor of GMO products and
crops if the benefit is enhanced nutrients (although their knowledge of
risks associated with GMO is directly related to their response)…:
–
–
–
Chile
Mexico
India
22
Afterthoughts
• Technological advances have assisted with productivity
levels, food and production resources, and environmentally
safe products.
• There are risks associated with GMO’s, however, can be
scientifically reduced.
• Many international standards on food safety that may be
counter to what national standards exist.
• Benefits of GMO’s yet to be realized by LDC’s.
• Increased Consumer awareness programs – Labeling /
education.
• Despite WTO ruling that GMO restrictions are in violation of
the trade agreements, there is still much uncertainty as to
the length of this dispute.
23
Conclusion & Implications
• Scientific data is now a part of trade disputes.
– There is no scientific evidence either way which makes
GMO’s so controversial.
• The EU has taken the precautionary approach
and doesn't want to include GMO’s until proven
safe.
• The US claims that science can not progress until
is being applied.
What does the future hold?
24
Discussion Question - Labeling
• Do you think that the EU
should be allowed to label
GM food at their grocery
stores?
• How would labeling effect
consumers and GMO
producers?
25
Works Cited
•
Ahearn, Raymond, “US-European Union Trade Relations: Issues and Policy
Changes”, 23 December 2004, Congressional Research Service, pg. 9-10.
-
BBC News. “Q&A: Trade battle of GM food.” February 8th, 2006.
- http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/46
90010.stm
•
Beringer, J. E., “EC-Sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified
Organisms”, Data Sheet
– http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/general-intro.html
•
Borak, Donna. “WTO Rules against EU on GMO’s” Washington Post. February 8,
2006.
– http://binas.unido.org/binas/regs.php
•
“Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge US Agricultural Exports”, General
Accountability Office, GAO-01-727
•
“Evaluation of Codex”, Codex Alimentarius,
– www.codexalimenatrius.net/web/evaluation_en.jsp
•
Larson, Alan P., “Discussion on the WTO Case on the EU Biotech Moratorium”,
Foreign Affairs Press Release, 14 may 2003,
– http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/20557.htm
26
Works Cited
•
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. August 2004.
– http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2
•
Questions and Answers on U.S. Food Aid Donations Containing Bio-Engineered
Crops”, Fact Sheet, US Agency for International Development, 10 January 2003,
– www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/16736.htm
•
“Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origins joint FAO/WHO…”,
World Health Organization, 29 May – 2 June 2000, pgs. 12-14, 49.
– www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/ec_june2000/en/index.html
•
Siv, Sichan, “Bio-Engineered Crops”, Statement at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, 27 August 2002.
– www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/13587.htm
•
World Trade Organization. Dispute Settlement DS291.
- http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm
•
“20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods”, World Health Organization, Question
13 & Question 17
– www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
27
28