[Gen-Streitfall] WG: [wtogmo] Info: Inside US Trade on the second GMO case

Mo Sep 6 16:44:26 CEST 2004

z.Kt.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: celine.bernard at foeeurope.org
[mailto:celine.bernard at foeeurope.org]Im Auftrag von Alexandra Wandel
Gesendet: Montag, 6. September 2004 16:36
An: Steigenberger Markus
Betreff: [wtogmo] Info: Inside US Trade on the second GMO case

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Inside US Trade on the second GMO case
Date: 	Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:49:12 +0200
From: 	Maria Julia Oliva <joliva at ciel.org>
Organization: 	CIEL
To: 	Alexandra Wandel <alexandra.wandel at foeeurope.org>, Alice Palmer 
<alice.palmer at field.org.uk>, Eric Gall <eric.gall at diala.greenpeace.org>, 
Tobias Reichert <TReichert at wwfepo.org>, Kaul Christina <kaul at skynet.be>, 
Maximiliano Chab <mxchab at hotmail.com>, Carrie Stebbings 
<carrie at fiveyearfreeze.org>, <wtogmo at foeeurope.org>
References: 	<412AFAF1.10906 at foeeurope.org>

AG BIOTECH COMMITTEE TAKES NEXT STEP TOWARDS NEW GMO CASE
_______________________________________________
Date: August 20, 2004

Under the leadership of the American Soybean Association, U.S. businesses
and associations with an interest in biotechnology trade have taken the next
step in their fight for a second World Trade Organization challenge of the
European Union's rules governing trade in genetically modified organisms
(GMO), according to informed sources.

With donations from various members, the Ag Biotech Planning Committee
(ABPC), of which ASA is a member, has hired long-term Washington trade
lawyer Gary Horlick now of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP to
prepare such a case to present to the Bush Administration, these sources
said. ABPC took that step even though the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative has not offered any assurance that it would actually pursue a
case in the WTO, sources said.

The case as now envisioned by industry representatives would challenge the
EU's rules on labeling food products that contain GMOs and tracing GMOs
through the production and distribution process. The case would likely claim
that those rules violate the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS), because they lack a scientific basis and are more trade
restrictive than necessary, sources said.

The EU's traceability and labeling rules went into effect in April this
year, but some observers believe that member states are not yet strictly
enforcing them. However, ASA and other interested U.S. parties have claimed
that the very fact that they are on the books has led European buyers to
shift from U.S. commodities such as soybeans.

The traceability rules ask that shipments to the EU contain precise
information about GMO content when they first enter the European market, a
term that can be interpreted in different ways by member states'
authorities, according to U.S. sources. The labeling rules require that all
products containing GMOs above a 0.9 percent threshold be labeled as
containing GMOs.

USTR has made it clear that ABPC must produce an economic impact analysis of
these EU rules before officials would even look at a possible WTO case,
sources said. If ABPC can provide the economic analysis, USTR would
determine whether to base a potential WTO case on the labeling and
traceability rules itself or on the trade damage that U.S. exporters have
incurred, or on both, according to Craig Ratajczyk, ASA's director of trade
analysis.

The analysis would encompass information on how many European and U.S. food
companies are switching to non-GM products to avoid being targeted by the
new rules and whether exports of GM products to the EU have declined.

He said it could take five months or longer to get this information and then
another five months to prepare the case. By that time, it is likely that a
WTO panel will have issued a ruling on the EU's moratorium on the approval
of new biotechnology products and on member states' bans on GM products
already approved for sale.

According to Ratajczyk, it has been difficult obtaining the information for
the economic impact study, partially because some companies have not yet
completed their own analysis or are reluctant to answer. In addition, there
are substantive difficulties. For example, one of the elements the impact
study will assess is the shift over the past two to three years by food
companies from GM soybean oil which costs about $580 a ton to a more
expensive, non-GM oil such as rapeseed oil, which costs about $745 a ton, he
said. In assessing any data, one has to take into account that the shift
could be due to other factors than the EU rules, such as health
considerations.

TBT rules say that countries' technical regulations and standards should not
be more trade restrictive than necessary or create unnecessary obstacles to
trade. The SPS agreement stipulates that health measures should be based on
sufficient scientific evidence and a risk assessment, and not serve as a
disguised barrier to trade.

According to opponents of the EU's rules, the traceability rules lack a
scientific basis because all the products to which they apply have been
approved by EU regulators as safe. Also, opponents see the labeling rules as
violating the TBT because they are more trade restrictive than necessary to
provide information to consumers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandra Wandel" <alexandra.wandel at foeeurope.org>
To: "Alice Palmer" <alice.palmer at field.org.uk>; "Alice Palmer"
<alice.palmer at field.org.uk>; "Eric Gall" <eric.gall at diala.greenpeace.org>;
"Tobias Reichert" <TReichert at wwfepo.org>; "Kaul Christina" <kaul at skynet.be>;
"Maximiliano Chab" <mxchab at hotmail.com>; <joliva at ciel.org>; "Carrie
Stebbings" <carrie at fiveyearfreeze.org>; <wtogmo at foeeurope.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Info: WTO GMO case will undergo scientific expert advise period

> For your information: The GM case will go on for much longer than
expected:
>
> The Panel has decided that the case raises scientific and technical issues
on which the Panel
> might benefit from expert advice. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 11.2 of
> the SPS Agreement and Article 13.2 of the DSU, the Panel has decided to
ask
> for scientific advice.
>
> The timetable will accordingly be delayed. The selection of the experts
> should be completed by the end of this month.
>
> More details will follow.
>
> -- 
>
> Alexandra Wandel
> Trade and Sustainability Programme Co-ordinator
> Friends of the Earth Europe
> 15, rue Blanche
> B-1050 Brussels- Belgium
> http://www.foeeurope.org, http://www.foei.org, http://www.bite-back.org
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **  * * * ** * * * * * *
> BITE BACK: WTO HANDS OFF OUR FOOD
> Bush is using the WTO to force-feed you genetically modified food. You
> can help stop them: Bite Back! Sign the Citizens' Objection online at
> http://www.bite-back.org
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Alexandra Wandel
Trade and Sustainability Programme Co-ordinator
Friends of the Earth Europe
15, rue Blanche
B-1050 Brussels- Belgium
http://www.foeeurope.org, http://www.foei.org, http://www.bite-back.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **  * * * ** * * * * * * 
BITE BACK: WTO HANDS OFF OUR FOOD
Bush is using the WTO to force-feed you genetically modified food. You
can help stop them: Bite Back! Sign the Citizens' Objection online at
http://www.bite-back.org