EurActiv,
21. Nov 2006: EU
accepts trade ruling on GMOsReuters,
21. Nov 2006:
EU won't appeal WTO ruling on GMO moratoriumFriends
of the Earth Europe, 21 Nov 2006: EU
refuses to fight WTO ruling on GM foodsOn May
17th 2003 the United States, supported by Canada and Argentina, made
a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about the European
Communities de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs).
"Regarding EC-level measures, the US and Canada asserted that the moratorium
applied by the EC since October 1998 on the approval of biotech products has
restricted imports of agricultural and food products from the US and Canada.
Regarding member State-level measures, the US and Canada asserted that a number
of EC member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech products
even though those products have already been approved by the EC for import and
marketing in the EC."
On Tuesday
February 7, 2006 the dispute panel sent it's preliminary ruling
and recommendations to the Parties for review. It finds that the European Union
and six member states had broken their obligations under WTO rules by not complying
with their own approval procedures and barring certain genetically modified
crops and foods from their markets.
The WTO panel consists of
three persons: Mr. Christian Häberli (chairman), Mr. Mohan Kumar,
Mr. Akio Shimizu. The final
decison is expected later this year or early 2007.
The findings emphasise that “the Panel did not
examine: whether biotech products in general are safe.”
The panel found that the EC moratorium on approvals for 27 GM crops between
1998 and 2003 were an “undue delay”and against the provisions of
the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS).
Safeguard measures taken by member states Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,
Italy and Luxembourg during the de facto moratorium were ruled to fail to meet
WTO requirements because their arguments and evidence did not include risk assessments
that rebutted the risk assessments of the “relevant EC scientific committees”.
The panel, after hearing scientists, had concluded that for the 27 GMOs at dispute
there was actually sufficient scientific evidence to conduct a proper risk assessment.
Therefore precautionary
measures, which would be acceptable in the absence of such means of risk assessment
were actually inadequate.
Most charges of the plaintiffs however have been either dismissed or it was
determined that no ruling was necessary on them. As long as the 1000 pages of
reasoning are not public a detailed analysis of the case seems impossible.
On September 29th 2006 the WTO published the final ruling on the case, which basically upheld the key points of the preliminary ruling. Any parts of the verdict can now be appealed within 60 days by the EU as well as by the plaintiffs. In this case an appelate body would have to reconsider the ruling, which might take another year or so.
On November 21st 2006 the European Union decided, not to appeal the ruling of the WTO dispute settlement body. "Despite many reservations as to the argumentation and conclusions of the panel report, the EC has decided not to appeal," the Commission wrote to the WTO.
EurActiv,
21. Nov 2006: EU
accepts trade ruling on GMOs
Reuters,
21. Nov 2006:
EU won't appeal WTO ruling on GMO moratorium
Friends
of the Earth Europe, 21 Nov 2006: EU
refuses to fight WTO ruling on GM foods
Greenpeace
International September 2006, Genetic
Engineering and the WTO
Analysis of the EC-Biotech Case: A step backwards for international environmental
law, but not the end of GE restrictions
IATP-Press
Release, 29 Sept 06: WTO
Biotech Ruling Threatens Precautionary Approach
Friends
of the Earth Europe, 29 Sept 06:
Transatlantic
biotech trade war: "No winners"
EC-Biotech:
Overview and Analysis of the Panels' Interim Report,
by Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), March 2006