WTO Ruling on Genetically Engineered Crops Would Override International, National and Local Protections

Ruling Favors U.S. Biotech Companies Over Precautionary Regulation

Press Release from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
February 7, 2006

Minneapolis - As reported in the media today, a preliminary ruling issued by a World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute resolution panel would be a major step back for the democratic rights of national and local governments to set their own environmental and human health regulations when there is scientific uncertainty, said the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The ruling, which has not yet been made public, concerns a U.S., Canadian and Argentine government challenge of a European Commission (EC) regulatory system that delayed the commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) crops until further scientific evidence of their environmental and health safety was available. The EC system has approved GE crops for commercialization since the dispute was filed in 2003.

“Beyond GE crops, the WTO ruling as reported sets a broad precedent to inhibit the ability of WTO member states to set food safety, public health and environmental health measures where there is scientific uncertainty about the adequacy or quality of data submitted for commercialization approvals,” said Steve Suppan, IATP Research Director and author of a backgrounder on the case.

If the lengthy ruling remains unchanged before its final publication, it will likely be used as a legal tool against GE bans passed in European Union member states, in several Asian and African WTO member countries, and even in a few U.S. counties.

The reported WTO ruling at least indirectly challenges the authority of the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which authorizes its member countries to take a precautionary approach to regulating GE crops when there is scientific uncertainty. While the dispute plaintiffs are not among the Protocol’s 131 member states, dozens of WTO members are, so the ruling could conflict with their Protocol commitments, including those implemented at a national and local level.

“It’s disappointing that the WTO would seek to override democratic decisions at literally all levels of government,” said Dennis Olson, Director of IATP’s Trade and Agriculture Project. “There is already a broad international consensus on how to handle GE crops at the international level established at the Cartagena Protocol. This consensus acknowledges that each country has the right to regulate GE crops based on precautionary principles, to require labeling of GE crops, and to protect farmers and others from unfair liability arising from the release of GE crops into the environment and food distribution system. Now, the WTO’s unelected legal tribunal, at the request of the U.S. government, has chosen to pre-empt a strong democratic international consensus.”

The WTO ruling comes on the heels of a scathing U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector General report which found that the USDA did not require inspections of field tests of experimental GE crops, didn't assure that crops were destroyed after the tests were finished, and often didn't even know where the tests were being conducted. Nearly every independent review of the U.S. regulatory system regarding GE crops has found significant deficiencies. The National Research Council published critical reviews of the U.S. regulatory process in 2000, 2002 and 2004. The flaws of the U.S. regulatory system and the unknown risks of GE crops are outlined in an amicus brief filed in the WTO case by the Center for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth - U.S., Defenders of Wildlife, IATP, and the Organic Consumers Association. It is available at: tradeobservatory.org.

“The WTO dispute panel is set up to view regulations strictly in a framework designed to facilitate trade, not to realize public or environmental health objectives,” said Suppan. “The U.S. government and the biotech companies may claim that the ruling proves that GE crops are safe for human consumption and the use of GE seeds is an environmentally beneficial agricultural practice. But the ruling covers no such thing: much less does it support the profoundly flawed U.S. regulation of GE crops.”

It is unlikely the case will increase U.S. food sales to Europe. Europe still requires labeling of GE crops, and there is overwhelming consumer sentiment for GE-free foods there. U.S. wheat growers, recognizing that European and Asian consumers do not want GE crops, successfully blocked the approval of GE wheat in the U.S. in 2004. However, there is a real danger that the ruling could be used to force sales of GE products in developing countries, who have less leverage to stand up to political pressure from the United States government.

Steve Suppan’s backgrounder on the WTO case is available at: tradeobservatory.org.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works globally to promote resilient family farms, communities and ecosystems through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.