NZ government urged to defend EU against US law suit
A despicable attack on Europe with a $1.8 billion lawsuit by the US shows that the American biotech industry and US
government do not have the public's health or consumer rights at heart. In taking this action the US has chosen to
intimidate the largest Union in the world, and New Zealand should terminate its previous support for this US attack via
the WTO.
"It is no fault of Europe that the safety of genetically engineered foods has not been proven and that GMOs have a
deleterious effect on the environment" said Claire Bleakley of GE Free (NZ) in food and environment. "We are asking that
the New Zealand government immediately remove its signature to this law suit".
There is now clear evidence that America's regulatory bodies have been remiss in allowing GE foods on the market without
adequate independent safety tests. Recent incidents include Monsanto's Yieldgard BT corn grown in the Philippines,
linked to illness in about 100 people. Residents from Sitio Kalyong suffered headache, dizziness, extreme stomach pain,
vomiting and allergies. Their blood tests found a high antibody reaction to BT toxins. In mid April 2004 the diocesan
Social Action Center raised a new fears that the controversial crop might have again caused the illnesses that hit last
year, when at least a dozen residents in a farming community experienced some of the same symptoms.
Health Minister Annette King has acknowledged there are no diagnostic tests for the impact of ingesting GE foods.
Medical practitioners whose patients show clinical signs of allergies have no ability to assess the effects of GE foods.
This is a serious concern in the light of findings that have shown damage to organs and immune systems in animals that
have eaten GE foods. The British Medical Association say children, the elderly and people with digestive problems and
diabetes are all more susceptible to ingested transgenic foods. "It is wrong for New Zealand to be backing the US attack
on European consumers when they share our values and buy our GE-free products" says Claire Bleakley. "How can the
government claim to make decisions based on principle when they intend forcing unwanted experimental GE foods on
unwilling customers." ENDS Contact Claire Bleakley 06 308 9842 April 27, 2004 The Guardian
The US has demanded that the EU abandon its ban on the growing of genetically modified crops and pay at least $1.8bn
(GBP1bn) in compensation for loss of exports over the past six years.
The challenge is outlined in papers filed to the World Trade Organisation that have been seen by the Guardian.
The WTO is now facing the biggest case in its history, one that could spark a damaging trade war between the US and
Europe and split the international community.
Although the US announced it intended launching the case last year, many believed it was bluffing and trying to bully
the EU into giving way on the issue of unfettered trade in GM.
But the papers, which were sent to the WTO last week, accuse the EU of imposing a moratorium on GM products in 1998
without any scientific evidence and in defiance of WTO free trade rules. The EU has until the end of May to reply before
a WTO panel meets in June to adjudicate.
If it finds in favour of the US, the body will decide what trade sanctions can be imposed to force Europe to fall in
line. The US has said it has lost $300m a year as a result of lost maize imports and would expect sanctions against the
EU to help recoup the sums.
The affair has worldwide significance because if the US can force the EU into submission, then no country will be able
to keep GM out without facing trade sanctions. But there is strong consumer resistance to GM in Europe and several
countries have introduced rules banning imports of individual GMs, either for growing or in food.
These countries, Austria, France, Luxembourg, Germany, Italy and Greece, are all cited by the US in the case presented
to the WTO.
In its submission it says that none of these bans can be legal. This is probably the strongest part of the US case
because the trade rules allow countries to ban products on health or environmental grounds but they need to provide
evidence.
The papers say that the EU "can present no scientific basis for a moratorium" and that the "product specific bans ...
are not based on science and are thus inconsistent" with Europe's obligations under WTO agreements.
Britain has sought to avoid these trade sanctions by supporting the introduction of GMs at every opportunity and saying
it is treating the growing of crops on a case-by-case basis. This led the government this year to ban the growing of GM
oilseed rape and sugar beet on environmental grounds but to permit the growing of GM maize under strict conditions.
The case brought to the WTO will not be affected by the meeting of EU agriculture ministers yesterday which ended with a
likely lifting of a ban on one specific variety of GM maize.
In its defence to the American action, the EU can argue that the effective moratorium of five years in making any
decision on the future of crops was to allow time for crop trials to test the effect on the European environment.
WTO officials are aware that imposing draconian penalties on Europe for adhering to the overwhelming wishes of its
people is likely to make it even more unpopular.
On the other hand, the US is determined to press the case and even if this fails it is set to bring a second case to
prevent GM foods being labelled and traceability of crops being mandatory.
Both these elements became EU law this month and are likely to form a second case to the WTO as a "restraint" of trade
if victory is not total in round one.
The looming WTO sanctions place increasing pressure on ministers to show willing by allowing some crops but do not
remove the objections to the EU stance from across the Atlantic.
One of the key issues will be the attitude of the wider world.
According to the US, Australia, China, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, New
Zealand, Norway, Thailand and Uruguay have an interest in the case. But exactly what these countries will say to the WTO
is unclear.
Sue Mayer of Genewatch said: "This is politically a nightmare for the WTO. Does it accept that the EU has the right to
listen to the will of its peoples and be very cautious about the way it introduces GM – including spending five years
completely overhauling its regulatory processes, or does it give in to a technical argument from the US that rides
roughshod over the wishes of millions of Europeans? It is anyone's guess what the consequences might be."