International trade of genetically modified foods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:39, 30 June 2003

Revision as of 17:23, 30 June 2003

Line 39:

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).

ButOne thecounter starvationto isthis not the only interrest the USAargument is lookingthat at.much Ifof the foodresistance isto theGM problem,food thein USAdeveloping couldcountries alsocomes sendfrom theconsumers, money.rather Butthan the money is used by the american government via the WFP mainly to help theirfrom farmers by buying the overproduction and giving it to the UN-organisation. Many farmers lostwho marketshare after changingchanged to genetically modified food becauselost ofmarket theshare because sceptical consumers inwould otherno countrieslonger buy their products.

AndAnother additionallyEuropean response to the "immoral"claims fact:of The'immorality' is that the EU is givinggives 7 times more in development aid thenthan 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]].