Report of meeting between the EU Commission's DG Trade and Civil Society Groups

DG Trade and Civil Society Meeting

On 22nd February 2005 the European Commission's DG Trade held a civil society dialogue meeting to discuss the WTO dispute. GeneWatch UK attended that meeting and the following is a summary of the views expressed by DG Trade.

Evidence from the scientific experts

The European Commission explained that, in their view, the scientists' evidence was generally supportive of their case particularly because they:

  • explained how scientific knowledge had evolved since the late 1990s and how we are now better placed to evaluate the risks;
  • endorsed the importance of a case-by-case approach;
  • emphasised how environmental impacts depended upon both the GM organism and the environment it was used in. Information which is relevant to assessing the risks in one area may not be in another;
  • highlighted how debated on GMOs had stimulated awareness of the impact of agriculture on ecosystems and that the way in which GMOs were assessed might be extended to other developments;
  • confirmed that the issues raised by Member States about GMO marketing applications were relevant at the time and this had led to increased understanding and underpinned the development of international standards.

Europe's case

The European Commission says that the issues have become narrowed down since the first submissions were made. Europe's main case is that a formal moratorium never existed and that during a period of fast development in the technology and with awareness of the issues increasing, taking a cautious approach was appropriate and acquiring more knowledge and resources takes time

Significantly, in their second submission, Europe had added an additional argument should their main case be rejected by the panel. This argument is that the case is now ‘moot' because two marketing approvals have been made since the complaint was made by the USA, Canada and Argentina. The submission says” The European Communities has taken the view that if a measure is no longer in existence, the Panel should not rule on it.“

This seems to confirm fears that Europe has caved into pressure from the USA and made approvals in response to the WTO challenge. The approvals were given by the European Commission for Bt11 and NK603 GM maize despite lack of agreement by the Member States.

A second challenge?

Europe now feels that the situation has 'cooled down' and the possibility of a second complaint in relation to labelling and traceability regulations has receded. After the US election, there has been less noise about this in Washington as efforts are being made to repair relations between the USA and Europe after the Iraq war. It is thought Canada would face internal political difficulties in bringing such a case, but that Argentina would be disappointed if such a case was not brought. Because the US biotechnology, food and farming lobbies have wanted a challenge for some time, it is probably too soon to be confident that this will not arise.

↑ Top