Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 15 • 10th October 2002
GMO Update: Southern Africa; EU Regulations
GMO Update: Southern Africa; EU Regulations
SADC Summit Provides Guidance On GMOs
On 3 October, this year’s summit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) concluded in Luanda, Angola. In their final communiqué, member states endorsed the SADC Council of Ministers’ decision to set up an Advisory Committee on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) "to develop guidelines to assist member states guard against potential risks in food safety, contamination of genetic resources, ethical issues, trade related issues and consumer concerns". Governments also noted that member states were at liberty to take a position to accept or reject GMO grain coming as food aid. In the event that a member state accepted this grain, it should undertake awareness campaigns to ensure that GMO maize was not planted and also ensure that all GMO maize was milled into flour before any distribution to beneficiaries. As a long-term measure, member states should develop capacity to deal with GMO issues particularly for testing and monitoring. Of the six countries affected, Zambia has formally refused GMOs, while others such as Zimbabwe have accepted them, but with strict controls.
SADC was established in August 1992 in Windhoek, Namibia, to replace the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). It currently groups 14 member states; Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A free trade protocol was signed by the SADC countries in 1996.
US Steps Up Pressure Ahead Of EU GMO Directive’s Entry Into Force
As the date for the entry into force of the revised EU directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment approaches (17 October), the US is reported to have stepped up pressure on the EU to restart the approval process for GMOs, effectively on hold since 1998. US Undersecretary of State for Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson, speaking at a conference on 25 September, described the de facto moratorium as a " threat to the trading system", which was based on political considerations and not on sound science. "It is widely recognised as an unlawful act," he added. "It really is incumbent on EU decision makers to fix this problem." He did not specify, however, whether the US was going to challenge the moratorium at the WTO if it was not lifted. As Sarah Thorn of the Grocery Manufacturers of America pointed out, "a WTO case is a big issue — and not an easy issue". Thorn said that the preferred course of action would be to finalise science-based standards for GMO products at the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which could then be used as a basis for government regulations.
Under the new Directive 2001/18/EC, new market approvals of GMOs will be granted for a fixed period up to ten years. New approvals will be subject to strict environmental risk assessments on a case-by case basis, including long-term cumulative effects of GMOs on human health, the environment and the food/feed chain. Furthermore, the Directive provides full traceability of GMO products at all market stages and labelling of all GMO products, including those derived but no longer containing GMOs. Whether the approval process will be restarted will depend on agreement by EU member states. Several, however, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, France and Italy, continue to oppose a lifting of the ban until the traceability and labelling requirements — proposed by the European Commission and currently being discussed by the European Parliament (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July 2002) — enter into force (expected in spring 2003 at the earliest).
"US steps up pressure on EU to allow imports of GMOs ahead of key Oct. 17 date," INSIDE US TRADE, 3 October 2002.