Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 5 • 21st March 2002
EU, China Biotech Regulations Under Microscope at WTO
EU, China biotech regulations under microscope at WTO
China’s and the EU’s biotechnology regulations were among the issues of discussion at the meeting of the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) on 15 March and the WTO Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) at its meeting on 19-21 March.
EU labelling and traceability rules
Argentina, Canada, Australia, the US and others (including Israel, Jordan, Singapore and Egypt) expressed concern regarding the draft EU labelling and traceability requirements for genetically modified (GM) foods — proposed by the European Commission and currently under discussion in the European Council (see BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July 2001) — at both the TBT and SPS Committees. The US reiterated its criticism that the proposed rules were not workable, not enforceable, costly and more trade-restrictive than necessary (and therefore not compatible with WTO rules; see also BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 24 January 2002). They also pointed out that the aim of the proposed rules appeared to be confused, mixing up the protection of the environment, the protection of health, and consumer protection against deception. Furthermore, the US raised the issue of possible impacts on third countries — in particular in the developing world — that import US products for processing and re-export to the EU. In addition, the US questioned the need for tracing and labelling GM foods produced from what they referred to as “biotechnology events”, but not containing traces of GM ingredients (eg oil made with GM soy).
The latter point was also picked up by Canada who said that the proposed regulations could be discriminatory as they would only apply to foods derived ‘from’ GMOs (eg GM soy oil), but not to foods made ‘with’ GMOs (eg certain wines and cheeses made with GM enzymes). In response, the EC argued that the proposed rules where not discriminatory as they equally applied to all food products from all countries. Regarding the continued EU de facto moratorium on the approval of GMOs (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 7 March), Canada reiterated its belief that the moratorium did not have a scientific basis. Using GM canola as an example, Canada argued that no health, food safety or environmental reasons existed to block its approval, especially in light of two favourable opinions from the EU’s Scientific Committee on Plants, and highlighted the significant trade loss that had resulted from the failure to approve GM canola.
The EC stressed that the proposed rules aimed to ensure consumer safety and social acceptance of GM foods, to allow consumers to make an informed choice, and to monitor potential environmental effects. Also, the EC argued that labelling and traceability were not restricted to GM foods, but were required for all food products (as set out in new EU food safety law, see BRIDGES Trade Biores, 7 March 2002), and that the proposed rules simply specified in more detail the labels required for GM products. The EC added that the proposed labelling and traceability regulations could, at the earliest, be finalised by the end of the year, but that discussions were likely to continue into the next year. Regarding comments raised by WTO Members, the EC said it would take them into account and respond in writing. Norway supported the EC’s proposed rules, arguing that they followed the Codex Alimentarius Commission (see related story, this issue), the Biosafety Protocol and OECD guidelines.
China’s GM regulations
The US, Canada and Argentina also addressed China’s recent biotechnology regulations, which require importers of agricultural biotechnology products to apply for official safety verification approval from China’s Ministry of Agriculture, a process that could take up to 270 days complete. The regulations where originally scheduled to enter into force on 20 March, but have been temporarily waived mainly in response to US concerns. Instead, preliminary safety approvals will be issued to foreign firms during a transition period of nine months (20 March - 20 December 2002). Traders will need to apply for a temporary certificate for each cargo, which will be granted within 30 days of the application. So far, however, no permit has been issued to the approximately seven firms that have applied for certificates.
While welcoming the interim arrangement, Canada and the US used the Chinese regulations as an example for the importance of transparency and notification. In particular, they argued that the Chinese rules, whose details were announced on 7 January, did not leave a reasonable time for compliance, and that China had not developed the regulations in a transparent way. In response, China contested that the new regulations had been developed prior to its WTO accession when China had not been under transparency obligations.
“China drags feet on GMO certificates, markets fret,” REUTERS, 21 March 2002; ICTSD Internal Files.