|
|
 
|
As Europe simmers over war, some push for a food fight (Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- Justin Gillis,
Washington Post, 02/01/03:
Pressure is mounting on the Bush administration to launch a trade battle
with Europe over genetically altered crops, with farm groups and their
congressional allies declaring that the nation has compelling moral and
economic reasons to do so.
At the same time, some in Washington are urging caution, warning that the
nation could strain relations with allies over a peripheral issue when it
needs every friend it can get as it prepares for war with Iraq.
The Bush administration's public statements suggest that it is moving
toward suing Europe in the World Trade Organization, setting off what could
be a lengthy battle. While virtually no one believes Europe can be induced
to accept additional gene-altered crops any time soon, many people in
Washington have concluded that making an example of the Europeans in a
trade suit would help stop the spread of anti-biotechnology sentiment to
other countries.
Trade sources said administration lawyers are working on the case, but are
not likely to file a lawsuit until they get clearance from President Bush
and his Cabinet. Two trade experts following the issue closely said a group
of Cabinet secretaries is scheduled to take up the issue as soon as Monday.
But it has been three weeks since Robert B. Zoellick, the nation's top
trade ambassador, declared his desire to sue, and farm advocates, growing
impatient, are peppering the administration with letters demanding
immediate action.
"The European Union's moratorium on agricultural biotechnology has been in
place for over four years with no end in sight," said a letter to President
Bush this week that was signed by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
and nine other congressmen.
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and
an advocate for farm interests, told the publication Inside U.S. Trade this
week that the administration should "get off of its duff and make a decision."
At the same time, warnings to move slowly, if at all, have come from
surprising quarters in recent days -- including some of the
administration's ideological allies in its effort to open world markets.
Clyde Prestowitz, once a trade expert in the Reagan administration and now
president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington group that
advocates trade liberalization, has warned that a suit over biotech crops
could backfire by inflaming European public opinion and causing domestic
political difficulties for U.S. allies.
"It will be a disaster. It's just going to feed anti-American sentiment in
Europe," Prestowitz said. The rest of the world would see the suit as
"another case of American bullying," he said.
Starting in the mid-1990s, U.S. farmers planted millions of acres of corn
and soybeans genetically engineered to resist weeds and insects. Domestic
consumers have raised few objections and the crops are used to make many
food products. But resistance in Europe has been intense, with opponents
dubbing the plants "Frankenfoods" and major grocery chains refusing to sell
them.
To create biotech crops, one or two genes are added to the tens of
thousands of genes in a plant, giving the plant the ability to make, for
example, a protein that fights off worms. Such proteins are readily broken
down in human digestion. U.S. regulators, including the Food and Drug
Administration, have concluded that biotech food is safe to eat, though
some environmental questions linger.
A few biotech crops are approved for sale in Europe, but when a political
controversy over the issue erupted in the late 1990s, most countries
imposed moratoriums on approving more. They did not pretend to base the
decision on scientific assessments. Recently, many scientific groups in
Europe, including the French National Academy of Medicine, have said the
food is safe.
Visiting Washington the other day, the French minister of agriculture,
Herve Gaymard, said the European public was traumatized in the 1990s by
public-health scandals, including mad-cow disease, which scientists believe
caused cases of a rare human disease when it was spread through British
beef. Scientists told the public there was little to worry about, only to
be proven wrong. Gaymard counseled patience as the European public slowly
regains its confidence in science.
"You can imagine how much the Europeans have been shocked," Gaymard said,
adding that public opinion is nonetheless beginning to move on the issue of
gene-altered crops. "Wait a little bit until there is more acceptability of
these products, and then the question will be naturally settled."
The administration view is that the United States has waited more than a
little bit already, and the time for tougher action is at hand. "In my
position, I've waited two years to try to see if we could work with them
quietly and make improvements," Zoellick said three weeks ago. "I don't see
things getting improved."
Many legal experts say the administration, if it decides to sue in the
World Trade Organization, would have a compelling case. To prevent
countries from using safety concerns as a pretext for protecting domestic
markets from foreign competition, the world's trade rules require that bans
or restrictions imposed in the name of public health be based on scientific
evidence. The World Trade Organization, in Geneva, would not be able to
compel Europe to accept the crops even if the United States won, but it
could authorize retaliation against European imports into this country.
Some experts in Washington fear a trade suit could backfire, however. "The
more you try to force them, the more you're going to provoke a fight," said
Julia Moore, a researcher at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars who supports the technology but not the tactic of suing.
Some experts see geopolitical implications. The biotech-foods debate
comes as the Bush administration is trying to win European support for war
against Iraq.
Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, "is probably not over
there thinking about soybeans in connection with Iraq, but she should be,"
Prestowitz said, calling for a "a lot more quiet discussion" with the
Europeans. "We have allies in Europe. We don't give them much to work with."
A tipping point in American sentiment came recently, when several African
countries balked at accepting gene-altered American grain meant to feed
starving people, saying they feared the grain would contaminate their
domestic seed supply and hurt future exports to Europe.
A recent letter to the White House from the National Corn Growers
Association and the U.S. Grains Council said, "This is not only an
agricultural issue, but also one that fundamentally challenges the
humanitarian ideals of developed nations to help starving people around the
globe." | |
