Transcript U.S. – EU GMO Case DS291 - International Trade Relations

U.S. – EU GMO Case
Measures Affecting the Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products
DS291
VS.
Nana Konadu
Sara Majroh
Brooke Markley
Conventional Plant Breeding
Has Been Around for Centuries
Plumcot
(plum x apricot)
Desired traits:
Early 20th Century
•Better tasting
•Higher quality
•Higher yielding
•Resistance to extreme
temperatures
Triticale
(wheat x rye)
19th Century
•Resistance to viruses,
fungi, bacteria, insects
•New products entirely
Genetic Engineering Takes Conventional
Breeding to a Whole New Level

Instead of breeding, new varieties
are developed by cutting and moving
snippets of DNA from one plant,
animal or microbe to another in a
process called gene splicing

Unlike traditional crossbreeding
techniques that simultaneously
introduce many genes (including
unwanted genes), genetic engineering
uses just the gene for a specific
desirable trait
Source: http://agribiotech.info/issues/science-and-agricultural-biotechnology
First Biotech Tomato Marketed in 1994
FLAVR
SAVR
FDA declares a tomato developed through
biotechnology to be as safe as tomatoes bred by
conventional means
Source: Agricultural Biotechnology Center, Information Series, “Tomato,” August 1996
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5283/2194.pdf

GMO’s in Major Food Crops
Current GE traits (corn, cotton, soybeans)
Insect resistant – Bt corn
 Herbicide resistant – Round-up Ready Soybeans
 Both insect and herbicide resistant


Future possibilities
Ability to thrive in acidic soils
 Ability to fix nitrogen (less fertilizer use)
 Crops to produce medicines and vaccines
 Improved nutritional content

Sources: http://www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp AND
Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute, Center for
Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002
What Does the Future Hold?
Population
Billions
MMT
600
6
500
5
400
4
300
3
200
2
100
1
0
1960/61
1965/66
1970/71
World Corn Production
1975/76
1980/81
1985/86
World Corn Consumption
1990/91
0
1995/96
World Population
Source of production and consumption data: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Production, Supply and Distribution
Source of population data: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat
The Science Behind It

Numerous organizations, researchers and scientists have
determined that biotech foods pose no threat to humans
or the environment:
 French Academy of Medicine and Pharmacy
 French Academy of Sciences
 Declaration on biotech foods cosponsored by 3,200
scientists
 Joint study conducted by seven national academies of
science (National Academies of Science of the United States,
Brazil, China, India and Mexico, plus the Royal Society of
London and the Third World Academy of Sciences)
Source: Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute,
Center for Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002, pg 3
GMO Cons

Anti-biotech groups highlight the negative:




Other reasons





Soybean with Brazil nut gene
StarLink corn case
Butterflies die when force-fed pollen from Bt corn
Unintended consequences
Ecological damage?
Fear of the food supply being monopolized by large
multinational seed and agrochemical companies
Messing with Mother Nature
Basic public apprehension – “Frankenfood”
Sources: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/Qs_As.asp
Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute, Center
for Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002, pg 5-6
Greenpeace Luxemborg, 2008
EU Opposition

Stems from EU’s distrust in their government’s
ability to ensure the safety of their food
Mad cow outbreak in the 1990’s
 Other food contamination problems



In October 1998, the EU stopped approving
new biotech products for planting or import
What is their reason?

Regulate first, ask questions later
Source: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/Qs_As.asp
The U.S. is Adversely Affected
Corn Exports to the EU
Year
Argentina
U.S.
Soybean Exports to the EU
Brazil
U.S.
1995
$528,423
$3,364,107
$3,073,057
$9,828,670
1996
$584,717
$2,079,779
$3,121,094
$8,585,001
1997
$919,427
$1,748,941
$4,637,269
$7,860,981
1998
$1,434,189
$284,485
$5,439,613
$6,718,244
1999
$2,032,393
$218,975
$6,105,764
$6,494,976
2000
$2,494,837
$294,781
$6,374,650
$6,926,489
2001
$1,411,654
$135,266
$9,916,571
$6,926,489
2002
$1,496,081
$113,832
$9,277,296
$7,131,057
2003
$2,057,977
$128,150
$9,797,346
$5,830,384
Source: Eurostat, Statistical Office of the European Communities,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/external_trade/data/database
GMO Growth in the U.S.
Planted Corn Acreage
2000
2003
2009
25%
40%
85%
Biotech
Conventional
Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board,
Acreage Report, 2000-2009
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applicaitona
http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/publications/briefs/37/pptslides/default.html
U.S. and Cooperating Countries File
WTO Case Against EU Moratorium
on Biotech Foods and Crops
May 13, 2003
EU’s Illegal, Non-Science based Moratorium
Harmful to Agriculture
and the Developing World
What is the issue?

Moratorium on approval of biotech products

Unnecessary delay in the approval of applications


EC legislation
Member State marketing and import bans

Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxemborg
Source: European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
Request for Consultations by the United States, May 20, 2003, WT/DS291/1
http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments/t/G/TBT/D28.doc
Position of U.S.
“EU should apply a scientific, timely, rules-based review and
approval process to agricultural biotech product applications
as required both under the WTO agreement”
Claims:
 Existence of a general moratorium


Product specific measures


October 1998 to May 2003
“undue delay”
Member state marketing/import bans

Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria
Associated cases DS292 (Canada) and DS293 (Argentina)
Source: World Trade Organization,
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm
Position of EC
Defends the legitimate right of each State to establish and apply regulatory
regime to ensure that GMOs are only put on the market on a basis of a
careful assessment of risks, appropriate control and monitoring
measures, and proper information to consumers.

EC denies the existence of a moratorium

Delays are not “undue”
 Lack of application response or incomplete response to regulatory
questions about GMOs

Precautionary principle
 UN Cartagena Protocol
 Taking preventive action
Source: Suppan, Steve “U.S vs EC Bio Tech Products Case, Backgrounder on WTO Dispute”
Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, September 2005
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=76644
WTO Issues

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Agreement

Article 2: Basic Rights and Obligations

Article 5: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the
Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection
Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts
WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm
WTO Issues

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Agreement con’t
■
Article 7: Transparency
■
Article 8: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures
■
Article 10: Special and Differential Treatment
■
Annex B: Transparency of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations
■
Annex C: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures
Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts
WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm
WTO Issues

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) 1994
Article I: General Most-Favored-Nation Treatment
 Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation and
Regulation
 Article X: Publication and Administration of Trade
Regulations
 Article XI: General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions

Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts
WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm
WTO Issues

Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement
(market access)

Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement:
ensure that regulations, standards, testing and
certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles
Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts
WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm
What did the Panel find?
November 21st, 2006
DSB adopted the panel reports




Panel found EC applied a general de facto moratorium from 1999 to 2003
 EC acted inconsistently under Annex C(1), first clause and Article 8 of
SPS Agreement
 Recommendation is to have EC bring moratorium into conformity
 Not inconsistent with: SPS 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 2.2 or 2.3
Product specific measures
 EC acted inconsistently under Annex C(1)a, first clause and Article 8 of
SPS Agreement
 Recommendation is to have EC bring relevant product specific measures
into conformity
 Not inconsistent with: SPS 5.1, 5.5, and 2.2
Safeguard measures were not based on sufficient scientific evidence
 EC acted inconsistently under Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
 Recommendation is to have EC bring the relevant safeguard measures into
conformity
Source: InternationaltradeRelations.com,
http://www.internationaltraderelations.com/WTO.GMO%20Panel%20(Conclusions%20U.S.)%20(Sept.
%2029,%202006).htm
Implication Status
Case is unresolved and arbitration has been suspended
No sanctions have been applied





January 14th 2008
 the EC and the US had reached an agreement on procedures under
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
Jan 17th 2008
 US made a retaliation request after RPT expired
February 6th 2008
 EC objected the US retaliation request
Feb 8th 2008,
 Case referred to arbitration under Article 22.6
Feb 18th 2008
 Proceedings were suspended and will be resumed after completion of
Article 21 and 22 DSU compliance procedures
In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had
resulted in approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports to the European
Communities. ($200 - $300 million per year)
Source: WTO, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm
Global Trade

Impact on developing countries
 Refuse to GE crops and seeds that can aid
starving populations

Impact on other international agreements
 Panel did not take the UN Bio safety
protocol into account
Questions??