Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 10 • 19th March 2002
European And Chinese Biotech Rules Under The Microscope At WTO
Biotechnology regulations in the EU and China and were among the topics of discussion at meetings of the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) on 15 March and the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on 19-21 March.
EU labelling and traceability rules
Regarding the 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) — Argentina, Canada, Australia and the US enquired after the objectives of the proposal, questioning how the requirements are meant to protect consumer health. The US furthermore questioned the rationale behind extending the regulations from food to feed. Canada, for its part, stated that the proposed regulations could be discriminatory as they would only apply to foods derived from GMOs (e.g. oil made from GM soy), but not to foods made with GMOs (e.g. certain wines and cheeses made with GM enzymes). In response, the EC argued that the proposed rules were not discriminatory as they applied equally 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.
In its statement, the EC stressed that the proposed rules aim to ensure consumer safety and social acceptance of GM foods, and to allow consumers to make an informed choice. The EC furthermore pointed out 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 next year. Regarding comments raised by other WTO Members, the EC said it would respond in writing.
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. The regulations where originally scheduled to enter into force on 20 March, but have been temporarily waived in response to US concerns (see BRIDGES Weekly, 12 March 2002). While welcoming the interim waiver granted by China, Canada and the US used the Chinese regulations as an example of 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.
SPS Committee to discuss biotech and equivalence
China’s import regulations for GMOs, the EU de facto moratorium on the approval of new agricultural biotechnology products, and labelling and traceability of food and feed products derived from GMOs are also on the agenda of the SPS Committee meeting on 19-21 March (see G/SPS/N/EEC/149 and 150; searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org). Delegates will also discuss a work programme to further the implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement on the equivalence of SPS measures in different Member states, as instructed in the Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 adopted in October 2001 (see G/SPS/19). BRIDGES Weekly will report on the outcomes of the meeting in next week’s issue.
ICTSD Internal Files.