WTO Public Symposium 2003: Session VI - WTO and GMOs

Organized by Greenpeace

GTN ISSUE BACKGROUND >> Greenpeace,  GMOs

Panelists and Viewpoints

Panel Moderator: Stephen Porter, CIEL

On May 13th, 2003 the US launched a dispute settlement case through the WTO against the EU on the genetically modified foods moratorium. This conflict raises many issues. The role of the precautionary principle (1) and regulatory flexibility are key concerns. But more practically, as a complicating issue, this dispute poses a risk for the Doha Agenda and its timeline because adding yet another non-development, contentious issue to the agenda may prevent real progress. MEAs dealing with GMOs are also drawn into the debate. For example, the Biosafety Protocol, which allows bans of GMOs, just received its 50th ratification and will enter into force during the middle of the Cancun Ministerial. The chairman briefly reviewed these recent events, then passed on the discussion to each of the panelists.

Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Science Advisor, Greenpeace International GE Campaign
“The US GMO Complaint: Preemptive Strike on Consumer Freedoms”

The first panelist, Dr. Stabinsky, an environmentalist and geneticist, made two points. First, she outlined the non-scientific nature of regulations of GMOs in Europe. Second, she discussed reasons for the US complaint and investigated its timing. Before delving into these issues, however, she put the GM debate into the context of foreign policy.  The US, she explained, is extremely interested in foreign policy and using adversarial and unilateral tactics to get what it wants. Dr. Stabinsky thinks that in the case of the WTO complaint the US will lose in the court of public opinion around the world, just as it has for other actions over the past year.

The actual complaint, she explained, lacked a scientific component, relatively little evidence to show the safety of GMs. In fact, references to scientific data or investigations into the health impact of genetically modified organisms were conspicuously missing. This may be in part due to the fact the US doesn’t have a formal food approval process based on a consistent submission of evidence.  Therefore, such scientific research into food safety isn't normally done and the lack of such a system means that no such scientific proof was needed to get these products on the US market. According to Dr. Stabinsky, this lack of scientific evidence is sufficient to justify a ban or moratorium. For this reason, she feels that the US complaint is entirely political, especially since the EU moratorium is widely thought to not last another 6 months.

The Biosafety Protocol, and its allowance of bans, is also another reason for the challenge. The US feels particularly threatened by the labeling of GMOs. Reports in the US show that consumers would prefer paying less for GM foods to buying relatively expensive non-GM foods. In conclusion, Dr. Stabinsky says that the complaint by the US is like a pre-emptive strike on consumers and governments around the world.  By challenging the moratorium now, the US may be able to stem any future bans.  Dr. Stabinsky suggested that the US is attempting to create a chilling effect so other countries don’t follow the EU.

Devinder Sharma, Chair of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security
“GMOs: Machinations at Play for Control over the Global Food Chain-Perspectives from the South”

Devinder Sharma began her presentation by stating the prediction that by the year 2010 there will be 1.4 billion hungry. She explained that this is not due to a lack of food or bad insufficient technology. Therefore the problem cannot be solved through increased food production.  She cited the the produce and perish problem in India, where farmers have been committing suicide because there are no buyers for their crops. In Africa, Sharma explained, commercial interests pushed GM crops as a solution to famine. This was to make money, not improve social conditions. Food technology is not a solution to the hunger problem. These commercials interests also hold the genetic codes for genetically modified foods. They charge agricultural research institutes to buy them or do research with them. Many institutions that represent developing countries don’t have sufficient funds to spend for this. Sharma fears that we are heading towards a future where agriculture is controlled and manipulated by a select few companies.

To conclude, she cited the fact that although every fourth farmer in the world is Indian, India is still a country where many people can’t get the food they need to live. But with GM food, the “gene revolution will bypass the hungry”.

Aileen Kwa, Focus on the Global South
“GMO, Industrial Agriculture and the Impact and Small Farmers' livelihoods in the South”

Aileen Kwa focused her speech on the process by which trade and agricultural liberalization has led to systematic erosion and elimination of the rural agrarian economy in developing countries and the hunger that problem creates.  Using Thailand as her prime example, Kwa walked the audience through the problem.  Thailand is Asia’s only net food exporter, with 35% of the world’s rice exports.  Yet the farmers of Thailand are in debt, stuck in a debt cycle as agriculture gets into the hands of bigger producers.  She fears that GMOs and their high input costs will only aggravate this problem.

GM have more costs than benefits, especially since it is already difficult for small farmers to enter the export market.  For example, Kwa cited a study by the National Family Farm Coalition that states that GM crops need more pesticides than non-GM crops and that they also have problems with low yield.  USDA results also fail to find a significant increase in yield with the use of GM seeds.  This has also been verified by studies done in India.  

In conclusion, Kwa explained that there is grassroots work to look for alternatives to GM foods. She believes that sustainable production may be attained with intensification of biodiversity and labor.  Kwa also discussed briefly the implications of current negotiations on agriculture for developing countries, specifically her concerns that the EU is shifting subsidies between boxes and about the US Farm Bill.  But, she added, if agricultural rules were improved, small producers would have a better chance to participate in the global market.

Dr. Caroline Lucas, MEP, Greens
“GMOs: Co-existence or Contamination? — The implication of lifting the EU Moratorium”

Dr. Lucas began her remarks by citing an article in the Economist that had been published the week of the Symposium concerning the GM dispute. She then explained that the duty of labeling and traceability of GM food is that of the producers. If they can achieve the proper labeling standards then there will not be a price difference between GM and non-GM foods. In her opinion, she thinks that once the ban is lifted and GM food reappears on the European market the general public will continue to reject it. She cited a 2001 poll that 74% of European consumers don’t want GM foods and 94% of consumers would like to have the choice between GM and non-GM. 

Lucas continued her intervention by saying that there is plenty of evidence that GM crops are a threat to the environment.  She thinks it is too soon to allow them on the market because of dangers of contamination and an absence of liability laws to deal with that hypothetical possibility.  By having the moratorium, the EU has been able to take the opportunity to develop new legislation (such as stronger safeguards and labeling) to prevent problems when the ban is lifted. 

The next topic she addressed was the US challenge to the EU moratorium.  The US, she explained called the ban illegal, an unwarranted trade barrier, and a decision not based on science.  The European Commission says the US challenge itself was legally unwarranted.  Some think that the US action is more to challenge other countries than the EU.  Opponents of the dispute also say that better labeling and tracing technology for GMs will just increase biotech companies’ profits.  Just because GM foods are traceable and can be labeled doesn’t mean they make sense.  For example, Dr. Lucas proposed the possibility that GM contamination could take away the choice to eat non-GM foods.

Further Comments by Panelists and Delegates

The Farmer's Perspective

A number of Australian Farmers in the audience were willing to share stories of their experiences with genetically modified crops. An individual who grew BP cotton said that GM cotton is a key tool towards reaching a purely organic state, as they have already helped him decrease his use of pesticides. He is simultaneously experiencing greater efficiencies of yield in bail per acre.

The Economic Argument

A delegate from Zambia explained that farmers from his nation are concerned about their capacity to produce, but also their ability to export. He explained that by shifting from biologically to genetically manipulated crops they will lose competitive advantage.

Mexican Corn Situation

A delegate from the Mexican Organization of Free Trade addressed the audience about the Mexican maize situation. He explained that GM corn has contaminated rustic maize and corn. The GM revolution has undermined the lifestyle of Mexian farmers.

(1) The precautionary principle stipulates that when an activity raises threats to harm human health or the environment, actions should be taken to end it even if some proof of cause and effect is missing