Media coverage of the WTO Interim ruling (in reverse chronological order):

Agriculture WTO Panel to Issue Final Ruling In Dispute Over GMOs in Early May

WTO Reporter, 31 Mar 2006, by Daniel Pruzin.

GENEVA--A World Trade Organization panel is due to issue a final ruling in early May in the dispute over the European Union's alleged moratorium on the market authorization of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The four parties in the dispute--the EU on one side, the United States, Argentina, and Canada on the other--have submitted written comments on the panel's interim report circulated Feb. 7 (26 WTO, 02/8/06). Because of the complexity of the 1,050-page interim ruling, the parties were given extra time to submit their comments and criticisms. The panel will take these comments into account before circulating the final ruling.

WTO panels rarely alter their interim conclusions in the final report, and legal experts following the case believe the panel in the GMO dispute will maintain its preliminary findings. The experts have described the ruling as "well-crafted" since it gives both sides reasons to claim victory while avoiding the politically charged question of whether GMO products are safe (29 WTO, 02/13/06).

The ruling will only become official once it has been circulated to the entire WTO membership and formally adopted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. Because the ruling must be translated into the WTO's three official languages (English, French, and Spanish), officials said the ruling may not be circulated until sometime shortly before the WTO's annual summer break in August. The parties will have 60 days from the date of adoption by the DSB to decide whether to appeal the panel's ruling.

In its interim ruling, the panel upheld claims from the United States, Argentina, and Canada that the EU maintained an effective de facto moratorium on approvals of GM foods between 1999-2003, violating the requirement that the authorization requests be processed without "undue delay" under the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). The panel also agreed with the co-complainants that marketing or import bans on GMO products in six EU member states -- France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, and Greece -- were in violation of WTO rules.

The panel, however, said the co-complainants failed to prove that the EU's assessment procedures were not appropriate in relation to the actual risk posed by GM products, that there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify its assessment procedures, and that the EU failed to apply its procedures in a consistent manner by subjecting biotech products and products produced using biotech processing aids to different approval requirements.

The panel also refused to rule on whether GM foods are generally safe or not, and whether an EU moratorium on GM foods still existed even though the European Commission has approved a handful of biotech products for use over the past year.

'Leaked' WTO report stirs GM food controversy

FoodNavigator.com, 3 March 2006.

A pressure group has alleged that a leaked confidential WTO ruling on the recent GM food trade dispute shows that many pro-GM arguments were lost.

UK-based environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) claims that the 1,000-page report, distributed earlier this month only to the countries involved in the dispute, reveals that despite claims to the latter, the US, Canada and Argentina in fact failed to win most of their arguments. But biotech industry body EuropaBio has slammed the pressure group for spreading "mischievous nonsense" and trying to frighten people.

"What I sense is that Friends of the Earth and others are making statements about the WTO suggesting that it is forcing people to have things they don't want, when this is not the case at all," Simon Barber, director of the plant biotech unit (PBU) of EuropaBio, told FoodNavigator.

"Argentina, Canada and the US were concerned that the full democratic process was not being used properly. People are not being forced to have things they do not want."

FoE however insists that the alleged leaked report, which Barber says he has not read, is the report that the biotech industry didnt want the public to see.

"It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for," said FoE Europe GMO campaigner Adrian Bebb.

"Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food."

The WTO ruled last month that any European ban on GM imports contravened the rules of free trade. But according to FoE, the WTO did not rule on two of the most important questions before it, namely whether GM foods are effectively the same as non-GM foods, and if they are safe.

The FoE also claims that the WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.

But Barber claims that FoE is purposefully mixing up the argument.

"It was the industry's view that the regulatory process was not being properly implemented, and that some Member States were following illegal bans. "Environmental protection has never come into this discussion. The only thing being challenged was the trade rules."

In any case, FoE argues that the WTO is not and should not be the appropriate body to deal with conflicts between trade rules and environmental protection.

The pressure group has now launched an online action today calling on the governments to reject the WTO as a forum to decide on what it calls "environmental trade disputes".

Monsanto and trade talks team

Irish Times, 3 March 2006 (letters to the editor):

Madam, - Your edition of February the 23rd contained a report of a press conference held by those opposed to genetically modified crops, especially the new breed of potatoes, being grown experimentally in this country.

The headline was "Monsanto link to trade talks delegation denied". In the body of the report Sean MacConnell states that "the Department of Agriculture yesterday denied a claim by Independent Senator David Norris that a representative of the chemical company Monsanto was on the official Irish delegation to the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong last December".

I stand by my statement. I cannot understand how the Department of Agriculture can deny such a claim. I have been provided with a list of the Irish delegation, a photograph and eye-witness accounts. The person in question is a full-time employee of Monsanto, being a senior political adviser to its operation in Brussels.

In recent years Monsanto has managed to insert representatives into Irish delegations. They are provided with full accreditation, badges, access to all areas, etc.

Another newspaper carried a similar denial but in this the Department of Agriculture indicated that the Monsanto representative was not part of a Department of Agriculture delegation. I never said she was. She was part of the Irish delegation as a whole. - Yours, etc,

Senator David Norris, Seanad Éireann, Dublin 2.

Irish Senate, transcript of Order of Business discussion, 23 February 2006

Senator David Norris:

I wish to raise a matter that I hope many Members of the House will be interested in, genetically modified food and experiments that are proposed for County Meath involving a German potato crop. It is of no relevance to Irish agriculture. I ask for a debate on the issue, and I would like the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, to be present. I stated at a press conference yesterday that a senior representative of Monsanto was included in the Irish delegation to talks in both Hong Kong and Cancun. This representative was given full accreditation. A representative of The Irish Times telephoned the Department about the matter and was told this was not true. The Cathaoirleach would not allow me to name the person and I will not do so. I have a photograph of her as part of the delegation. She had access as a delegate to areas to which she should not have had access. Her title is the director of government affairs, Europe-Africa, Monsanto Services International. She is based in Belgium and I have a hard copy of the list of delegates.

An Cathaoirleach: We will have a debate on the matter.

Mr. Norris: She was brought in under the cloak of IBEC.

An Cathaoirleach: They will be very important points in the debate. We cannot have a debate during the Order of Business.

Mr. Norris: We must get the truth, not more obfuscation and bluster.

A Senator: Name her.

Mr. Norris: It is incumbent on newspapers of record such as The Irish Times to probe and not just accept the prevarication of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Leaked report: U.S. misled the world on biotech foods "victory"
WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GM foods

Friends of the Earth press release, 28 February 2006.

BRUSSELS (BELGIUM) / WASHINGTON DC (US) 28 February 2006 - Friends of the Earth International made available online today a confidential World Trade Organization ruling on the trade dispute on biotech, or genetically modified (GM) foods. [1]

The 1000-page report, which was distributed earlier this month only to the countries involved in the dispute, was leaked to Friends of the Earth, which published today February 28 a preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin'. [2]

The leaked report reveals that:

- despite claims of victory by the US Administration and the biotechnology industry -widely reported in the media in February 2006- the three countries that started the trade dispute against the European Union (US, Canada and Argentina) failed to win most of their arguments;

- the World Trade Organization (WTO) did not rule on two of the most important questions, namely whether GM foods are effectively the same as non-GM foods and if they are safe.

"The WTO ruling is not a victory for the US administration and the biotech giants. Countries around the world should continue to enforce tough legislation protecting their citizens and the environment from the risks of genetically modified crops," said Juan Lopez, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International.

According to Friends of the Earth International the WTO is not and should not be the appropriate body to deal with conflicts between trade rules and environmental protection since it ignores the internationally recognised 'Precautionary Principle' and considers only trade principles.

The leaked WTO report argues that:

* Europe's 4-year moratorium on GM Organisms (GMOs) only broke trade rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.

* There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over 20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by the WTO Panel.

* National bans by EU member states broke trade rules because the risk assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO requirements;

"This is the report that the WTO didn't want the public to see. It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for. Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food. They failed and now is the time to build a consensus that the WTO, with its business-only agenda, is the wrong place to decide on what people eat and how we protect our environment." said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels.

Friends of the Earth Europe today launched a cyber action (http://www.bite-back.org/objection/our_food.php) urging the public to call on their Governments to reject the WTO as a forum to decide on environmental trade disputes and to support the right of countries to ban GMOs.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International GM coordinator, Tel: +34-6-25980582 (Spanish mobile number)

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO expert, Tel: +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile number)

David Waskow, Friends of the Earth US Tel: + 1 202 492 4660

NOTES TO EDITORS:

[1] The WTO report is available online in two parts at: www.foeeurope.org/biteback/WTO_decision.htm

[2] The Friends of the Earth preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin' is online at www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/WTO_briefing.pdf.

ICSA criticism of WTO and Nitrates Directive

The Guardian, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary. 18 February 2006.

The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association (ICSA) has slammed the decision by the WTO to uphold the complaint against the EU policy on GMOs up to 2003. This complaint was brought by the USA, Canada and Argentina, who are opposed to GM restrictions employed in various EU member states.

"This decision will increase the pressure on the EU commission to fast ótrack its GM approval process which is already underway anyway," explained ICSA general secretary Eddie Punch. "This is a retrograde step which risks undermining consumer confidence in the superior quality of naturally produced European foods. Furthermore, individual regions and member state must be entitled to declare themselves GM ó free zones in order to meet market demands for GM- free products. "This is another example of WTO being very narrow minded and flawed in terms of its objectives," continued Eddie Punch, "and the decision adds to the suspicion that WTO is unduly influenced by big multinationals to the detriment of family farming, the consumer and the environment."

Meanwhile ICSA president Malcolm Thompson has said that the Nitrates Directive is now so complex and bureaucratic that it seems unworkable. He explained that while nobody is against strict environmental rules, a regulation can only be successful if it is workable, practical and fair.

"The problem with the Nitrates Directive is the unreasonable bureaucratic loading it puts on farmers and which will apply to even the most environmentally conscious farmers," said Malcolm Thompson. He added that "a further complication is the reluctance of the EU to ratify the 60% farmyard improvement grant."

GM Food Goes on Trial
The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust.

AlterNet. 16 February 2006. By John Feffer.

The fundamental rule of retail is: The consumer is always right. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has once again disregarded this rule by declaring the majority of European consumers wrong.

In poll after poll, Europeans have voiced their skepticism of food that's been altered at the genetic level. Their governments initially responded with a moratorium on new GM products and subsequently adopted a Europe-wide policy on product labeling. But in its latest ruling, the WTO did some labeling of its own, declaring Europe's cautious policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO) an unfair barrier to trade.

The 800-page report, the longest decision in the WTO's short history, has not yet been released to the public. But the U.S. government and its co-plaintiffs, Canada and Argentina, are already treating it as a historic ruling. The European Union, on the other hand, has dismissed the report as simply a ruling about history, since it lifted its moratorium against GMOs in 2004. Still unclear is how the ruling will affect different regions within Europe that continue to declare themselves GM-free.

The Europeans will likely appeal the ruling. If it still goes against them, they may well steal a page from their other longstanding dispute with the United States over hormones in beef: Pay the penalty and maintain the cautious policy.

What's the big deal? you might ask. They say tomato and we say GM tomato, so let's forget about the whole thing. But the United States has been downright pushy in its approach to biotech. The Agency for International Development (AID) is a big booster of GM, and some offending grain has found its way into shipments of food aid to GM-wary countries. The Trade Representative's office pushes GM through bilateral and multilateral treaties. The State Department tries to twist arms through rather undiplomatic letters of protest, like the one it sent to Nicosia in July when new EU member Cyprus proposed to put GM food on separate shelves at grocery stores.

This pushiness is not simply a byproduct of the usual missionary arrogance of Americans. The underlying story is that biotech has hit a few roadblocks.

In 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the rate of growth of GM crops was 11 percent. That might seem like a lot. But it's the slowest growth rate since GM was introduced in the mid-1990s. The rate is down from 20 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2003. Even taking into account the saturation of certain markets -- GM soy, for instance, now accounts for 85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States -- such a slowdown translates into lost revenue for biotech firms and less buzz for the movement as a whole.

Governments around the world remain circumspect. Even China, which has moved quickly on some GM crops like cotton, recently stepped back from commercializing GM rice in November, citing safety concerns.

Responding to pressures from the Japanese and others, Monsanto pulled back from bringing GM wheat to market in 2004. The Europeans, meanwhile, point out that 131 countries back their cautious approach, for that is the number of signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This international treaty, attached to the Convention on Biological Diversity, underscores the right of each country to make a sovereign decision on how to handle the cross-border trade in GM products and technology.

Even here in the United States, where the largest amount of GM food is grown, biotech is showing a certain failure to thrive. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a report last year pointing out that the industry is not pushing new products through the U.S. regulatory system. Meanwhile, the biotech industry still opposes relatively simple reforms that would boost consumer confidence here in the United States.

"We do not have a mandatory pre-market approval process for GM crops at the Food and Drug Administration," CSPI's Gregory Jaffe points out. "We only have a voluntary consultation process. We're the only country in the world with such a process."

If governments are wary, the public is even more so. Contrast the WTO process with a very different trial that took place in Mali last month. Facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and Development, 43 Malian farmers grilled 14 international experts and then debated among themselves the merits of biotech. After five days of deliberations, they decided that GM was not for them. Citizen juries held elsewhere in the world -- in Brazil and in Karnataka and Andra Pradesh in India -- have produced similar verdicts.

A case can certainly be made for GMOs. GM crops are popularly used in South America along with no-till agriculture, a technique that both prevents soil erosion and reduces the amount of fuel used in farming. By cutting down energy inputs in farming, according to one recent report, GM crops may have contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas production equivalent to removing nearly 5 million cars from the road annually. Scientists are developing GM crops that can desalinate fields and even turn color in the presence of landmines. New techniques, such as RNA interference technology, rely on the cell's own underutilized capacities rather than introducing foreign genes.

The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust. The farmers of Mali and the legal experts of the WTO have both spoken. Ultimately, consumers might have the final word. Inspired by the Europeans, labeling laws are spreading around the world. No matter how hard the United States lobbies or the WTO deliberates, if a GMO label translates into a skull and crossbones in the public mind, then supermarkets won't be able to give the stuff away.

America's masterplan is to force GM food on the world
The reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was to prise open lucrative markets elsewhere

The Guardian, 13 February 2006. By John Vidal.

Just a few years ago, World Trade Organisation officials used to act hurt when described by social activists as irresponsible, secretive bureaucrats who trampled over national sovereignty and placed free trade over the environment or human rights. But that was when the global-trade policeman ruled on disputes that had little bearing on Europeans.

The WTO court's latest ruling will greatly increase the number of people who believe the organisation needs radical reform, if not burial. This week three judges emerged after years of secret deliberation to rule that Europe had imposed a de facto ban on GM food imports between 1999 and 2003, violating WTO rules. The court also ruled that Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg had no legal grounds to impose their own unilateral import bans. "Europe guilty!" shouted the US press. "This is glorious news for the Bush administration," said one blogger.

Actually, the judges said much more, but in true WTO style no one has been allowed to know what. A few bureaucrats in the US, EU, Argentina and Canada have reportedly seen the full 1,045-page report, and an edited summary of some of its conclusions has been leaked. But no one, it seems, will take responsibility for the ruling, which may force the EU to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate some of the world's most heavily subsidised farmers, and could change the laws of at least six countries that have imposed GM bans.

In fact the US has mostly won a lot of new enemies. Rather than going away, as the biotech companies and Washington fervently hoped, the opposition to GM foods seems to have been growing since 2004 when the case was brought to the WTO. Europe, its member states and its consumers all rejected the ruling last week, making the WTO look even more out of touch and incompetent to rule on issues about the environment, health and consumer choice.

The European commission, which has been trying to force GM crops into Europe over the heads of its member states, says the ruling is "irrelevant" because its laws have already been changed. Meanwhile, individual countries who dislike being told what to eat or grow by the EC as much as the WTO say they will resist any attempts to make them accept GM.

In the past few days Hungary has declared that it is in its economic interests to remain GM-free, and Greece and Austria have affirmed their total opposition to the crops. Italy has called the WTO ruling "unbalanced" and Poland's prime minister has pledged to keep the country GM-free. Local government is even more opposed: more than 3,500 elected councils in 170 regions of Europe have declared themselves GM-free.

There is little the WTO, the EC or the US can do in face of this coalition of the unwilling. If the US again tries to impose its GM products on Europe - as it did in the 90s, sparking the whole debacle - the attempt will backfire. Europe's biotech industry may now try to force the EC to use the WTO judgment to get the six countries with import bans to repeal anti-GM laws, but it will meet an even broader, more determined movement.

In fact, Washington and the US companies are not that bothered by Europe's predictable reaction. Europe has all but dropped off the world's GM map. The companies and the supermarkets know there is little or no demand for GM crops, and that Europe's subsidised farmers are reluctant to alienate the public further by growing them.

It is now clear that the real reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was was to make it easier for its companies to prise open regulatory doors in China, India, south-east Asia, Latin America and Africa, where most US exports now go. This is where millions of tonnes of US food aid heads, and where US GM companies are desperate to have access, buying up seed companies and schmoozing presidents and prime ministers.

More than two-thirds of exported US corn now goes to Asia and Africa, where once it went to Europe. As the Monsanto man said this week about the WTO ruling: "Our feeling is that it's important for countries other than the EU to have science-based regulatory frameworks."

Like the tobacco industry, GM companies are now focusing almost exclusively on developing countries. But here the industry is meeting stiff opposition from powerful unions and farming groups. Brazil has caved in, but Bolivia may shortly become the first Latin American country to fully reject GM. Some Indian states are deeply opposed, and there have been major demonstrations in the Philippines, Korea, Indonesia and elsewhere. India's largest farmers' organisation this week said the result of the WTO verdict would be that the US would become more aggressive in dumping GM food on to developing countries.

The US maintains that through the WTO it has won a great victory for free trade, and passed a significant milestone in US attempts "to have GM crops accepted throughout the world". Perhaps, but the battle is far from won, and in the meantime anyone opposing the crops is being reclassed as an enemy of America.

Within hours of the WTO decision, JosÈ BovÈ, the French farmer who has led European protests, arrived in New York to give an invited talk to Cornell students about GM food - and was immediately sent back to France by the US government.

Groups publish conclusions of WTO dispute
IATP, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace: WTO secrecy an outrage

Geneva/Brussels - 8th February 2006

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace have made the conclusions of the WTO dispute on genetically modified organisms public [1] in order to allow the whole world to engage in the debate on the future of our food.

The groups condemned the secrecy of the WTO and called on governments to ensure that complex health and environmental decisions are taken in a transparent manner by bodies qualified to do so.

"This verdict only proves that the WTO is unqualified to deal with complex scientific and environmental issues. They even say so themselves, claiming that "the panel did not examine ... whether biotech products in general are safe or not". The US administration and agro-chemical companies brought the case in a desperate attempt to force-feed markets with GMOs. But consumers, citizens and farmers around the world do not want GMOs and this ruling will change none of that," said Daniel Mittler, Trade Policy Advisor at Greenpeace International.

"The WTO is keeping its draft ruling secret. This sums up everything that is wrong with the WTO. It is secretive, undemocratic and biased towards business interests. The WTO should be the last institution to decide what people eat and grow in the fields," said Alexandra Wandel, Trade Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.

"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 Steve Suppan, Senior Trade Associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "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 case covers no such thing: much less does it support the profoundly flawed U.S. regulation of GE crops." said Steve Suppan, IATP Research Director and author of a backgrounder on the case.

Notes:

[1] The conclusions and recommendations of the WTO panel report are available at: http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=78475

Backgrounders are available at:

IATP: http://www.tradeobservatory.org
FoE: www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf
Greenpeace: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/WTObriefing0602.pdf

For further comment contact:

IATP: Ben Lilliston, IATP, +1 612-870-3416
Greenpeace: Daniel Mittler, +49 171 876 5345
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163