|
|
 
|
U.S. Leaders Push Europe to Allow Biotech Crops (Friday, March 28, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service:
WASHINGTON, DC, March 27, 2003 (ENS) - U.S. lawmakers are
urging the Bush administration to formally challenge the
European Union's moratorium on new genetically modified crops.
Official World Trade Organization (WTO) action is the "only
course that would send a clear and convincing message to the
world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology, which are not
based on sound science, are illegal," House Speaker Dennis
Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, told the House Agriculture
Committee at a hearing Wednesday.
The moratorium is "indefensible," and based on prejudice and
misinformation, said Hastert, who sent a letter to President
George W. Bush supporting action through the WTO.
The European Union (EU) has refused to grant import licenses
for genetically modified (GM), or biotech food for the past
four years because many Europeans are worried about possible
health and environmental risks. European Union officials are
not slated to decide on any new policies affecting GM foods
until October.
Rhetoric threatening WTO action by the Bush administration and
its Congressional allies has been building in recent months,
but the debate over the moratorium is far from simple.
GM foods are an emotional issue for many people, with issues of
economics, public health, environmental protection, national
sovereignty and world hunger all playing a role.
Economics is the core issue for the United States, which
produces some two thirds of the world's genetically modified
crops.
U.S. officials estimate the EU ban has cost its agricultural
industry hundreds of millions, including some $300 million a
year in corn sales alone.
They contend the ban is negatively affecting global trade,
slowing development of new GM crops and contributing to famine
in developing countries. It is the effect on famine that has
become a focal point of the argument to force the lifting of
the moratorium.
"This is a trade issue but more importantly, it's an issue of
life and death," said Congressman Frank Wolf, a Virginia
Republican.
Several African nations, such as Zambia and Zimbabwe, have
rejected U.S. food aid because it contained GM corn. These
countries fear the GM corn could end up in crops or be fed to
beef cattle tagged for export to Europe, which could then
reject the African imports.
The European moratorium is having "a chilling effect" on
developing countries who most need the benefits of
biotechnology, said Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a Missouri
Republican and co-chair of the Congressional Hunger Center.
The argument that the EU ban is increasing starvation in the
Third World is "disingenuous," said Jane Rissler, a senior
scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group
of scientists and citizens.
Rissler contends that the biotechnology industry and its
supporters are using starvation in the Third World as a lever
to sell biotech crops to Europe.
"They are playing on the guilt of the First World," she said.
"People are not starving for lack of biotechnology."
It is money, not good will or free trade, that is driving U.S.
policy according to some critics.
The Unite States is "using free trade agreements as the
battering ram to force unwanted [biotech] food and crops onto
the rest of the world," according to Anuradha Mittal,
codirector of Food First: the Institute for Food and
Development Policy, a U.S. based human rights think tank.
GM crops are "likely to make food security worse through
patented control over seeds and by undermining traditional
agricultural practices in the Third World," Mittal contends.
Even the benefits of biotechnology to those who have access to
it are questionable, Rissler said.
"There has not been a single consumer benefit after 10 years of
GM food," she said. "There are promises and there may be some
benefits to farmers and pesticides, but society has not
benefited."
It is clear the rejection of food aid by African nations has
biotech supporters worried that the ripple effects of the EU
ban are turning global opinion against biotech foods.
For example, India rejected food aid last year when
nongovernmental aid agencies could not meet the country's
demand to guarantee the food contained no biotech grains.
Australia is embroiled in a bitter debate over GM crops. It is
slowing the roll out of GM wheat, and both Canadian and
American wheat farmers have expressed concerns.
Some 82 percent of customers "tell us they will not buy GM
wheat," said Louise Waldman, media relations manager for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Of further worry to biotech proponents are recent moves by the
Chinese government, which is exploring labeling measures
similar to those under discussion by European officials.
Still, U.S. officials have not been swayed in their support of
biotech crops, nor in their opposition to labeling, which they
contend would result in higher food costs for consumers and
producers.
House Agriculture Chairman Bob Goodelatte, a Virginia
Republican, met with European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy in
February and said the moratorium can not be replaced with new
regulations on traceability and labeling, initiatives the EU is
actively considering.
"Over the last few years, we have seen country after country
implementing protectionist trade policies under the cloak of
food safety - each one brought on by emotion, culture, or their
own poor history with food safety regulation," Hastert said.
But this steadfast opposition to labeling or traceability
requirements leaves little apparent room for negotiation,
causing many people to contend that the United States is trying
to force feed the world its GM crops.
European officials say that U.S. action through the WTO would
do little to convince the skeptical European public, in
particular as some in Europe try to further open the door to GM
agriculture.
Earlier this month the European Commission said there is little
environmental justification for European Union legislation to
govern the management of genetically modified crops.
It said that no EU member state should be allowed to declare
itself a "GMO free zone," but the ban on new approvals will
remain through at least October.
Opponents of the EU's moratorium argue that the testing in the
United States should be enough to satisfy consumers worldwide
and more than enough to demonstrate that a ban on GM crops
approved by U.S. officials is a non-tariff barrier under WTO
guidelines.
There are no health risks from GM crops that are currently
being consumed in large quantities by many Americans, according
to Hastert.
"No other food crops in history have been tested and regulated
as foods developed through biotechnology," Emerson said.
Others have less confidence in the U.S. regulatory system.
"To imply that the U.S. government has had a strong regulatory
system does not stand up to closer scrutiny," Rissler said. "It
is impossible to know if anyone has gotten sick from GM food."
"It is likely there has not been a huge effect on public
health, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of safety."
The first generation of approved GM crops are "relatively
simple" compared with the next wave, explained Gregory Jaffe,
biotechnology project director for the Center for Science in
the Public Interest, a nonprofit education and advocacy
organization that focuses on improving the safety and
nutritional quality of the food supply.
"The U.S. regulatory regime is currently not set up to really
ensure the safety of biotechnology crops," Jaffe said.
The disparity between the U.S. enthusiasm for GM crops compared
to the criticism much of the rest of the world is evidenced by
recent decisions by the U.S. to allow further trials of
biopharm crops, which have been modified for pharmaceutical
purposes.
These crops raise further health and environmental concerns
that many people believe the current system is unable to
address.
Even so, concerns over GM crops appear to be falling on deaf
ears in the United States, and Hastert assured members of the
committee that he would not be satisfied with anything but an
end to the EU ban.
"The U.S. Government should immediately take a case to the WTO
regarding the current EU moratorium," he said. "After all, the
price of inaction is one we can no longer afford to pay." | |
