|
#REDIRECT [[Genetically modified food controversies#International trade]]
The [[European Union]] and the [[United States]] have strong disagreements over the EU's ban on [[genetically modified food]], which the US claims violates [[free trade]] agreements.
{{Redirect category shell|1=
In [[Europe]], a series of unrelated [[food crisis]] during the [[1990s]] have created [[consumer]] apprehension about [[food safety]] in general, eroded the public trust in government oversight of the [[food industry]], and left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality. This has further fuelled widespread public concern about [[GMO]]s, in terms of environmental protection (in particular [[biodiversity]]), [[health]] and [[biosafety|safety]] of consumers.
{{R to section}}
}}
Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than [[conventional food|conventional]] products, many European consumers are nevertheless demanding the right to make an [[informed consent|informed choice]]. New regulations should required strict [[Mandatory labelling|labelling]] and [[traceability]] of all [[food]] and [[animal feed]] containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the [[precautionary principle]]. (see also [[Tax, tariff and trade]]).
=== European ban on genetically modified crops===
In [[1999]], a 4 year [[ban]] was pronounced on new [[genetically modified crop]]s. At the end of 2002, [[European Union]] environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs that could eventually lead the 15-members bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a [[DNA code bar]]) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the [[food chain]] should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see [[Mandatory labelling]]).
=== Agricultural trade market between USA and Europe ===
The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over
the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods.
The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of the 21st Century, and some in the U.S., especially farmers and food manufacturers, are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade.
In 1998, the United States exported $63 million worth of corn to the EU, but the exports decreased down to $12.5 million in 2002.
The drop-off might also be due to falling commodities prices, less demand due to the recession, U.S. corn being priced out of foreign markets by a strong dollar, and [[Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq|importing countries]] reaction to the planned invasion in Iraq. But farm industry advocates blame the EU's ban.
===European proposal over genetically modified food===
The [[European Parliament's Environment Committee]] proposal, adopted in the summer of 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003 has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community. It requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labelled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the [[grain]] handling and food production processes.
The new European [[Tax, tariff and trade|tax, tariff and trade]] proposal would particularly affect US [[maize]] gluten and [[soybean]] exports, as a high percentage of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US maize and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002).
The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought to rest on labelling rather than [[food aid]]. Many European consumers are asking for food regulation (demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified), while the American agricultural industry is arguing for [[free trade]] (and is strongly opposed to labelling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation).
[[Lori Wallach]], director of [[Public Citizen's Global Watch]] indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes".
The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, Europe should not require labelling either. They claim [[mandatory labelling]] could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a [[trade barrier]]. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labelled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over [[conventional food]]. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.
The American agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling.
=== Official US complaint with the WTO ===
The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some Americans to breach [[World Trade Organisation]] rules. Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the European position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since it could lead to starvation in the [[developing country|developing world]] as seen in some African countries facing famine refusal to accept U.S. aid because it contain GM food (Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique).
But the starvation is not the only interrest the USA is looking at. If the food is the problem, the USA could also send the money. But the money is used by the american government via the WFP mainly to help their farmers by buying the overproduction and giving it to the UN-organisation. Many farmers lost marketshare after changing to genetically modified food because of the sceptical consumers in other countries.
And additionally to the "immoral" fact: The EU is giving 7 times more development aid then the US, so the US should think before saying that the EU is the reason for people starving.
In May 2003, after initial delay due to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq|war against Iraq]], the Bush administration officially accused the European Union of violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. Robert Zoellick announced the filing of a formal complaint with the WTO challenging the moratorium after months of negotiations trying to get it lifted voluntarily. The complaint was also filed by Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru and Uruguay. The formal WTO case challenging the EU's regulatory system was in particular lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giants like [[Monsanto]] and [[Aventis]] and big agricultural groups such as the [[National Corn Growers Association]].
EU officials questioned the action, saying it will further damage trade relations already strained by the U.S. decision to launch a war against Iraq despite opposition from members of the U.N. Security Council. The US move was also interpretated as a sanction against EU for requesting the end of illegal tax breaks for exporters or face up to $4 billion in trade sanctions in retaliation for Washington's failure to change the tax law, which the WTO ruled illegal four years ago.
===Ratification of the Biosafety Protocol by the EU parliament ===
In June 2003, the European Union Parliament ratified a three-year-old U.N. [[biosafety protocol]] regulating international [[trade]] in genetically modified food, expected to come into force in fall 2003 since the necessary number of ratification was reached in May 2003. The protocol lets countries ban imports of a genetically modified product if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton. It makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the [[precautionary principle]] and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits.
Jonas Sjoestedt, a Swedish Left member of the EU assembly, said that "this legislation should help the EU to counter recent accusations by the U.S administration that the EU is to blame for the African rejection of GM food aid last year".
The United States did not sign the protocol, saying it was opposed to labeling and fought import bans.
===Effect of cultural differences between US and Europe===
The U.S. population has, historically, placed a considerable degree of trust in the regulatory oversight provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its agencies. There is little tradition of people having a close relationship with their food, with the overwhelming majority of people having bought their food in supermarkets for years.
In Europe, and particularly in the U.K., there is less trust of regulatory oversight of the food chain. In many parts of Europe, a larger measure of food is produced by small, local growers using traditional methods (see [[local food]]).
| 