Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 4 • 7th March 2002
Will the EU Ban on Genetically Modified Organisms Stand?
Will the EU Ban on Genetically Modified Organisms Stand?
As the US appears to be preparing for a possible case at the WTO against the EU over its de facto moratorium on approvals of the commercial release of genetically modified organisms (GMO) into the environment, Robert Madelin of the European Commission announced that the EU would restart the approval process for GMOs in October 2002. It remains unclear, however, whether EU member states will actually agree to lift the de facto moratorium in autumn. Meanwhile, EU Environment Ministers at a 4 March meeting of the Council of the European Union debated the new environmental liability regime put forward by the European Commission, which both ministers and NGOs criticised as too weak as it did not specifically take into account liability for GMOs.
Approvals to restart, Commission says
Robert Madelin from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade told reporters that the approval process for GMOs would restart on 17 October this year, by which date EU Members are required to have implemented the EC Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment (see Background, below). It remains unclear, however, whether the European Commission will be able to convince countries to lift the de facto moratorium as several EU Members, including France and Luxembourg, have in the past refused to do so until legislation on traceability, labelling and liability was in place, which is not expected until 2003 (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 October 2001).
Liability regime seen as too weak
At the Council of European Union meeting on 4 March, the 15 EU Environment Ministers discussed the new environmental liability regime, proposed by the European Commission in January as part of its effort to break the deadlock. The proposed regime has been widely criticised for the lack of specific references to GMO-related liability, with some calling for a separate liability regime for GMOs. In response, European Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallström defended the regime, arguing that “where the use of the GMO would be found to be inconsistent with the authorisation given for it, resulting environmental damage would indeed be covered by the new liability rules.”
Ministers and conservation groups are concerned that releasing GMOs into the environment could have unforeseen long-term consequences such as ‘genetic pollution’, the creation of ’superweeds’ or detrimental effects on non-target species. The environmental liability regime has to be approved by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament before it becomes law; a process that is expected is expected to take at least two years before the two institutions have agreed on a final version of the legislation.
US considers options for WTO challenge
The US Special Agriculture Negotiator Allen Johnson and the Assistant for Agricultural Affairs Jim Murphy met with the USDA Agriculture Biotech Planning Committee in mid-February to discuss options for filing a case against the EU at the WTO. One option would be for the US not to file a case until October, when EU legislation on the release of GMOs into the environment takes effect and countries might lift the moratorium. A second option would be to ask for formal WTO consultation on the moratorium and put the EC on notice about the alleged WTO inconsistency of the moratorium. The US — the world’s largest exporter of GMO products — has long been dissatisfied with the EU GMO regime, which it claims has resulted in export losses to US corn growers of about USD 200 million annually. The US furthermore argues that mandatory labelling and traceability requirements of GMO products would be incompatible with WTO rules as they would be unnecessarily trade-restrictive due to the high costs of segregating GMOs from non-GMOs (see BRIDGE Trade Biores, 24 January 2002)
Background
Since spring 1998, no new GMOs have been authorised for planting or use in the EU due to a “de facto” moratorium, which was declared by several EU Environment Ministers (Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg) based on the argument that regulations at the time (ie Directive 90/220/EEC) were not sufficient for controlling the release of GMOs into the environment. As the result, the EU adopted the Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs to replace Directive 90/220/EEC (see BRIDGES Weekly, 20 February 2001). Under the new Directive new market approvals of GMOs will be granted for a fixed period up to ten years. New approvals are 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. The Directive, however, does not set out rules for how these provisions can be made operational and does not include liability rules, which has led some EU Members to declare that they would not lift the moratorium until the question of traceability, labelling and liability had been solved. In response, the European Commission has proposed new EU regulations on labelling and traceability which are currently being discussed in the EU Parliament.
“GMO Debate Heats Up in Europe; Countries, Groups Chide Commission”, BIOTECH WATCH, 27 February, 2002; “EU aide sees biotech approvals resuming in fall,” REUTERS, 4 March, 2002; “EU liability proposal too weak say ministers”, ENVIRONMENT DAILY, 5 March 2002; “USTR prepares WTO case on EU Biotech, Mulls Decision on Launch” INSIDE US TRADE, 22 February 2002.