[Gen-Streitfall] EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGRETS THE REQUEST FOR A WTO PANEL ON GMOS

[Martin Sundermann]

Hallo Miteinander,
hier einmal eine vernünftige PE "unserer Kommissare",
Martin

EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGRETS THE REQUEST FOR A WTO PANEL ON GMOS
August 18, 2003
European Commission Press Release DN: IP/03/1165
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/0
3/1165|0|RAPID&lg=EN;
Argentina, Canada and the U.S. have requested today the establishment of a
WTO Panel on the EU´s approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said: "We have been in what we found a
rather constructive dialogue with Argentina, Canada and the U.S. on this
issue. We regret this move to an unnecessary litigation. The EU's regulatory
system for GMOs is clear, transparent, reasonable and non-discriminatory. We
are confident that the WTO will confirm that the EU fully respects its
obligations."
David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection stated:
"Only a month ago we updated our regulatory system on GMOs in line with the
latest scientific and international developments. Clear labelling and
traceability rules are essential to help restore consumer confidence in
GMO's in Europe.² David Byrne recalled that it is the lack of consumer
demand for GM-products that accounts for the low sales of GMOs in the EU
market. ³Unless consumers see that the authorisation process is up to date
and takes into account all legitimate concerns, consumers will continue to
remain sceptical of GM products."
EU Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallström added: "There should be
no doubt that it is not our intention to create trade barriers. But my
concern is that this request will muddy the waters of the debate in Europe.
We have to create confidence among citizens for GMOs and allow them to
choose - and this is what our new legislative framework is designed to do.
The EU stance on GMOs is in line with WTO rules."
The European Union has a clear and transparent framework (Directive
2001/18/EC, repealing Directive 90/220/EC, and Regulation 258/97) to approve
and market GMOs and GM-foods in Europe. This involves an independent
scientific assessment in respect of impact on human, animal and plant health
and the environment before being approved for marketing. Companies intending
to market GMOs or foods derived from GMOs in the EU must first submit an
application to a Member State including a full environmental risk assessment
in the case of GMOs or a safety assessment in the case of GM foods. The
assessment is sent to the European Commission who circulates it to all other
Member States. In case of objections the European Commission seeks an
opinion from the relevant Scientific Committee (the European Food Safety
Authority in the future) and takes then a decision. A total of 18 GMOs(1)
and a total of 15 GM foods(2) are marketed in the EU.
Canada and the U.S. on May 13 and Argentina on May 14 this year requested
WTO consultations on the EU´s authorisation system for GMOs and GM foods.
They were notably alleging that the EU had suspended the consideration of
the applications and approval and was maintaining a de-facto ³moratorium² on
new GM varieties. This relates to the fact that since October 1998, no new
GMOs had been authorised for release into the environment under Directive
90/220/EC as the EU's regulatory regime was being updated to better address
the challenges posed by modern biotechnology. The new regulatory framework
was adopted in March 2001 and entered into force in October 2002.
A better labelling and traceability framework for GM-food and GM-feed was
also adopted in July 2003. It aims to respond to citizens' demands for more
and better information on GMOs, and the need to facilitate the freedom of
choice between new and more traditional agri-food products. Therefore, the
EU system is and will continue to be driven by the concern to ensure a high
level of human health protection and appropriate protection for the
environment.
A number of new applications for marketing of GMOs are at an advanced stage
of examination and may therefore be granted over the coming months in line
with EU legislation.
Development of consultations
The EU held the requested consultations with the U.S. and Argentina on 19
June 2003 and with Canada on 25 June 2003. Consultations are the first step
in a WTO dispute settlement. They open a dialogue process between the
disputing parties and aim at finding a positive solution to the issue at
stake. In this spirit, the EU offered to continue the process and used the
opportunity to provide further details on the regulatory framework and the
situation of all pending applications so that any misunderstanding could be
dispelled. To the EU's dismay, upon conclusion of the consultations, the
U.S. immediately announced that the consultations had failed and that they
would request a Panel in the very short run. Further exchanges of
information took place with Canada and Argentina and it was the EU
understanding that these two countries were interested in pursuing the
consultations.
The EU remains convinced that an open dialogue in a constructive spirit
would lead to a positive solution and therefore regrets the move to
requesting a Panel.
The EU (like any WTO Member) has a legitimate right to ensure that GMOs are
only put on the market on the basis of a careful assessment of risks and
proper information to consumers. Several WTO agreements such as the GATT
1994, the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and agreed standards such as
the recently adopted Codex Alimentarius Principles for the Risk Analysis of
Foods Derived from Biotechnology all recognise the right for WTO members to
take the measures at the level they consider appropriate to protect human or
animal health or the environment. Furthermore, the Cartagena Biosafety
Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity recognises the
specificity of trade in biotechnology and thus the right to treat GMOs in a
cautious way.
Many countries around the world have adopted a case by case authorisation
process for GMOs and GM-foods; some are even maintaining moratoria on
growing GM-crops.
The allegation that the EU is hindering the great cause of ending hunger in
Africa is not founded. A large number of countries suffering a shortage of
food have requested main donors of food aid to avoid GM food. As all
countries, they have the legitimate right to decide which level of
protection they need to prevent unintentional dissemination of GM seeds.
The EU policy in food emergency situation is to source food aid to the
greatest extent possible in the region to contribute to the development of
local markets and match the local consumption habits. Food aid should be
about meeting the urgent humanitarian needs, not about promoting economic
interests.
In the US itself, in a study of February 2002, the American National Academy
of Sciences also concluded that there are a number of inadequacies in the
U.S. regulation of GM plants.
Americans, by a huge margin, want genetically engineered foods to be
labelled. According to a July 2003 ABC News telephone poll of 1,024 adults,
in fact, a whopping 92 percent of Americans support labelling.
The EU authorisation system is clear, transparent, non-discriminatory and
has already proven that it provides access to the EU market. Many countries
are looking at the EU regulatory framework to develop their own policy.
Background
WTO consultation and dispute settlement procedures
The first step in a WTO dispute settlement is a request for consultation
from the complaining member. The defendant has 10 days to reply to the
request and shall enter into consultation within a period of no more than 30
days (unless otherwise agreed by the 2 parties). The consultation should aim
at finding a positive solution to the issue at stake. If the consultations
fail to settle the dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the
consultation request, the complaining party may request the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) to establish of a Panel (however, the complaining
party may request a panel during the 60 day period if the 2 parties
considers that the consultations have failed to settle the dispute).
Once the panellist are nominated, the complaining party has normally between
3 and 6 weeks to file its first written submission and the party complained
against another 2/3 weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a second written
submission follow. On average a panel procedure lasts 12 months. This can be
followed by an appeal that should not last longer than 90 days. In a case
such as the one at stake here, the necessity of hearing scientific experts
may prolong the timetable.
For more information go to:
See also IP/03/681 of 13 May 2003
http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/europa/index_en.php
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/gmo/gmo_index_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/biotechnology/index_en.htm

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/gen-streitfall/attachments/20030819/4324b2b5/attachment.htm>