*EPF213 05/13/2003
Text: USTR Details Urgency of Ending EU Ban on Biotech Food
(Ban defies WTO rules, EU's own laws, USTR says) (2500)

Following is a text released May 13 by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on the European Union (EU) moratorium on approvals of agricultural biotech products for planting or import:

(Note: In the text, "billion" equals 1,000 million.)

(begin text)

The EU Ban On Agricultural Biotech Products is Illegal

"We have already waited too long to act. The moratorium is illegal and unjustified ... the value of biotechnology is poorly appreciated in Europe."

-- Margot Wallstrom, EU Environment Commissioner, July 13, 2000

Since the late 1990s, the European Union [EU] has pursued policies that undermine the development and use of agricultural biotechnology.

In the late 1990s, six member states (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg) banned imports of corn and rapeseed approved by the European Union. Although these actions were a violation of European law, the European Commission refused to challenge the bans.

Then, in 1998, member states began blocking EU regulatory approval for new agricultural biotech products.

This moratorium effectively prohibits most U.S. corn [maize] exports to Europe. In addition to violating EU law, the moratorium clearly breaches World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Specifically, the WTO requires that measures regulating imports be based on "sufficient scientific evidence" and that countries operate regulatory approval procedures without "undue delay."

WTO rules do not require automatic approval of biotech foods. At present, however, the EU refuses to grant new approvals. This plainly violates the EU's WTO obligations.

The U.S. simply wants to EU to apply a scientific, rules-based review and approval process to agricultural biotech product applications.

The U.S. case is not an attempt to "force" acceptance of biotech foods on European consumers. It is Europe's actions, without any scientific, health or environmental basis, that deprives consumers of choice.

The Need to Act Now: The Effects of Europe's Policies Are Spreading

"The affluent nations can afford to adopt elitist positions and pay more for the food produced by so-called natural methods; the one billion chronically poor and hungry people of this world cannot. New technology will be their salvation, freeing them from obsolete, low-yielding, and more costly production technology."

-- Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, 1970 Nobel Laureate

The EU moratorium on agricultural biotech approvals has ramifications far beyond Europe. The spread of beneficial biotechnology is slowing, and developing countries have already suffered negative consequences.

In the fall of 2002, some famine-stricken southern African countries balked at U.S. food aid because of ill-informed health and environmental concerns as well as fears that the countries' exports to Europe would be jeopardized by "contamination" of local crops.

Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique refused U.S. food aid made of the same wholesome corn that Americans eat every day. Zimbabwe and Mozambique eventually accepted U.S. food aid after making costly and cumbersome arrangements to mill donated corn so that African farmers could not try to grow it; governments feared their exports to Europe would be jeopardized. Zambia continues to refuse U.S. corn.

Edith Ssempala, Uganda's ambassador the United States, said she worries that "if Uganda accepts the GM [genetically modified] banana, the European Union will retaliate and refuse to buy [our] food exports." (National Public Radio, January 23, 2003.) This fear has prevented Uganda from taking advantage of biotech bananas developed in Belgium.

"Europe has surplus food and has never experienced hunger, mass starvation and death on the scale we regularly witness in Africa. Africans can speak for themselves ... The African continent, more than any other urgently needs agricultural biotechnology."

-- Dr. Florence Wambugu, Kenyan scientist and former Director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications

Biotech Products Are Safe and Healthy

"There is no particular risk connected with the technique of creating GMOs ... [biotech crops] have been rejected in Europe, although there has never been a health problem ... or damage to the environment."

-- French Academy of Medicine, December 2002

"For the EU, there is no reason to believe that GM food is inherently unsafe to human health."

-- European Union press statement on food crisis in Africa, August 23, 2002

As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million North Americans have been eating biotech corn and soybeans for years. No adverse health consequence has ever been reported.

The EU itself acknowledges that biotech foods on the market pose no threat to human health. In a letter to House [of Representatives] Speaker Dennis Hastert, EU Ambassador to the United States acknowledged that biotech corn examined by its Scientific Committees "is as safe as conventional corn."

The European Commission's Directorate-General for Research has stated that, "Research on the GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed ... has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment .... Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods." (DG Research Press Briefing, October 8, 2001)

In November 2000, the European Commission acknowledged that "no peer-reviewed scientific article reporting adverse effects on human health as a result of eating GM foods has appeared ...." (Working Document of the European Commission, November 2000)

A joint report from the national science academies of the UK [United Kingdom], the United States, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico stated, "GM technology should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers."

Every year, more than 500,000 children go blind for lack of sufficient Vitamin A. Iron deficiencies are responsible for anemia among millions of women and children worldwide. Biotech crops currently in field trials could help reduce these numbers.

Biotech Products Can Spur Agricultural Productivity

"We, the undersigned members of the scientific community, believe that recombinant DNA techniques can contribute substantially in enhancing quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment .... We hereby express our support for the use of recombinant DNA as a potent tool for the achievement of a productive and sustainable agricultural system."

-- Declaration organized by Dr. C.S. Prakash, Tuskegee University, signed by 3,200 scientists worldwide, including 20 Nobel Laureates

Farmers worldwide have recognized the economic, agricultural and environmental benefits of biotech crops. These plants yield more from the land and can thrive in poorer soils. About 145 million acres were planted with biotech crops in 2002. Of this, about one-quarter was in developing countries.

Up to 80 percent of some crops in Africa are lost to drought. Biotech drought-resistant crops could help produce food in developing countries struggling to feed their populations.

Worldwide, about 45 percent of soy, 11 percent of corn, 20 percent of cotton and 11 percent of rapeseed are biotech crops. In the United States, 75 percent of soy, 34 percent of corn, and 71 percent of cotton are biotech crops.

The United States is the largest grower of biotech crops in the world, with 96.3 million acres currently under cultivation. Other leading biotech food producers are Argentina, with 33.3 million acres; Canada, with 8.6 million acres; and China, with 5.2 million acres.

12 other countries grow more than 1 million hectares (about 2.5 million acres) of biotech crops each year. They are South Africa, India, Spain, Mexico, Indonesia, Honduras, Australia, Romania, Uruguay, Bulgaria, Colombia, and Germany.

"If imports like these biotechnology crops are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial to reject the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late."

-- Former President Jimmy Carter

Choice: Let Consumers Decide

"I have absolutely no anxiety ... I am worried about a lot of things, but not about modified food."

-- Dr. James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA structure, February 25, 1999

The United States is not trying to "force" foods on consumers, in Europe or elsewhere. Consumer choice is a fundamental tenet of U.S. policy. The United States seeks government regulations that maximize choice while protecting consumer health and safety.

The EU moratorium constrains choice and opportunity by denying consumers the option of purchasing foods grown through agricultural biotech methods. This illegal and unjustified ban has no scientific basis.

The evidence suggests that, when given the choice, many consumers will purchase biotech foods. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, the total amount of land under cultivation with GM crops grew by 12 percent in 2002, continuing a half-decade of consumer-driven double-digit growth.

The rising popularity of organic foods in the United States suggests that some consumers are willing to pay more for non-biotech foods. Yet many consumers do choose biotech foods even when they are sold beside organic crops.

Biotech Crops Benefit the Environment

"I'll say this without reservation. We've lost less soil on our farm in the past ten years than we used to in one year back in the 1970's when we would plow."

-- Gordon Wassenaar, biotech corn and soybean farmer, Jasper County, Iowa

Pesticide Reduction: "In the U.S. in the last 8 years, we have reduced the consumption of pesticide by 46 million pounds of active ingredients in cotton and corn while increasing yield and reducing production costs."

-- Dr. C.S. Prakash, Professor of Cellular Plant Biotechnology, Tuskegee University

Soil and Water Conservation: No-till acreage -- farmland in which plowing of soil is reduced or eliminated -- has increased by 35 percent since biotech crops were introduced. As a result, biotech crops have reduced soil erosion by 1 billion tons per year, according to the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). Further applications of conservation tilling using biotech crops could save up to $3.5 billion in water treatment and storage costs per year.

Wildlife Protection: Biotech crops can create more hospitable environments for wildlife, including fish living in streams and rivers spared from chemical pesticides. In addition, research shows that biotech crops do not negatively impact species such as the monarch butterfly.

Drought-Resistant Crops: Biotech rice currently under development is about twice as resistant to drought and salt water, and will withstand temperatures about 10 degrees lower than, conventional rice. Farmers are able to grow biotech rice in fields where cultivation once was impossible, according to Ajay K. Garg, a Cornell University researcher and author of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 26, 2002.

"Through the development of GM cotton, we can reduce the use of pesticides by more than 80 percent ... and can reduce pesticide poisoning cases by 90 percent."

-- Professor Guo Sandui, Chinese Academy of Sciences and inventor of Chinese GM cotton.

Five Years of U.S. Patience, Five Years of European Delays

"The moratorium has no legal basis and the Commission has addressed this situation in its various proposals because it leaves the EU open to criticism for constantly moving the goalposts."

-- Beate Gminder, spokeswoman for EU Health Commissioner David Byrne, 10/17/2001

April 1990: The EU adopts Directive 90/220, which establishes an approval process for products of agricultural biotechnology.

May 1995: First US approval of a commercially significant biotech soybean, called Roundup Ready, in the U.S.

1994-1998: The EU authorizes 9 crop products/plants, mostly varieties of corn, soybeans, and oilseeds. But the process becomes progressively more difficult and politicized.

February 1997: Austria bans a corn variety (Novartis Bt176) that has already been approved by the EU. The Commission refuses to challenge this action. This begins a trend of EU member states placing unchallenged bans on EU-approved products: In 1999, Austria bans two other EU-approved corn varieties, France bans two EU-approved rapeseed varieties in 1998, Germany bans an EU-approved corn variety in 2000, Greece bans an EU-approved rapeseed variety in 1998, Italy bans four EU-approved corn varieties in 2000, and Luxembourg bans an EU-approved corn in 1997.

October 1998: The EU Commission and member states stop approving all agricultural biotech crops. Two biotech carnation varieties become the last biotech crops approved under Directive 90/220.

Commission officials assure the U.S. they will restart the approval process again provided companies submitting applications agree to abide by newly proposed revisions to the approval procedures before they become law.

Applicant companies agree to comply voluntarily with the new procedures, yet the EU approval process does not resume.

June 1999: EU members call for a moratorium on new approvals of agricultural biotech products. EU Environmental Council says a new approval regime should be linked to new rules on labeling of biotech foods and companies ability to trace minute levels of biotech products in food products. Ministers from Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg declare they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that new approvals are suspended until new rules are in place.

June 2000: Another roadblock emerges. French Environmental Minister Dominique Voynet insists on the need for a "liability scheme" for biotech products. Voynet says there are "no divisions among the five member states who voted for a moratorium on GMO's ... [w]e believe there needs to be a liability scheme in place before any new GMOs are approved."

July 2000: EU Environmental Ministers meet at an informal session and support continuing the EU moratorium at least until the Commission prepares proposals for labeling and for tracing minute amounts of biotech products in foods such as vegetable and corn oils. The Commission assures the U.S. that it will develop its proposal by the end of the year and restart the approval process promptly.

July 2001: The Commission produces its traceability and labeling proposals. The Commission assures the U.S. they will lift the moratorium within weeks. Several EU member states again move the goalposts. At an October 2001 informal meeting of the Environment Council, eight Member States -- France, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden -- effectively reject the Commission's plan to consider new authorization and declare that the new regulations must be in force before they will allow the approval process to operate. The Commission's traceability and labeling proposals are unlikely to be implemented before 2004.

October 2002: Directive 2001/18, the successor to Directive 90/220 is implemented on Oct. 17, 2002. EU Environment Commissioner Wallstrom states on October 17: "I have stopped guessing when the moratorium would be lifted. We have put in place the legal framework ... but some member states are opposed to GMOs and they will try to move the goal posts. They will try to find another obstacle."

December 2002: The Council agrees to a Common Position on traceability and labeling legislation. The Danish delegation declares the moratorium should remain in place until the EU has developed and implemented special environmental liability legislation for biotech products.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents