AFTER months of sabre-rattling, the US last week brought a transatlantic trade war closer by challenging the legality of the European Union鈥檚 unofficial 鈥渕oratorium鈥� on genetically modified crops. Yet its action could spectacularly backfire, galvanising opposition in Europe just as it was beginning to soften.
In 1998, the EU shelved further approvals of GM crops pending new regulations. Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg went much further, banning the import and cultivation of some approved GM crops 鈥� illegally according to the US. So only the handful of GM crops approved before 1998 can be sold or grown in the EU, and then only in certain member states.
The first set of new EU regulations, governing approvals, came into force last October, and 19 applications are now under consideration. Two GM cottonseed oils are already on sale after being approved in December.
Advertisement
The second wave of EU legislation, covering labelling and traceability, looks set to be approved in July. The six member states behind the moratorium have promised to lift their bans once these laws are in place.
But the US, backed by 12 other countries, is no longer prepared to wait. Last week it asked the World Trade Organization to examine the case. WTO rules allow states to ban imports to protect human, animal or plant life, or health, but only under certain conditions.
鈥淭he US has waited patiently for the EU to lift its moratorium,鈥� says US trade representative Robert Zoellick. 鈥淔or five years we鈥檝e been told by European officials that a change in policy is just around the corner, but around every corner we find a new roadblock.鈥�
Even if the case is successful, it will not necessarily help US producers regain their share of the EU market. 鈥淭hey are picking a fight they can win in court, but not in the market,鈥� says Phil Evans of Britain鈥檚 Consumers鈥� Association. 鈥淚t will almost certainly harden attitudes.鈥� Others agree. 鈥淭he action has all the hallmarks of big American business running roughshod over consumer opinion,鈥� says Deirdre Hutton, chair of the National Consumer Council.
Consumer resistance in Europe is already a big factor. The GM soya variety grown in the US is approved for sale in the EU, for instance, yet imports have halved since 1995 as supermarkets have switched to non-GM sources.
And the EU鈥檚 proposed labelling laws, which have been criticised for requiring GM food to be labelled even when it is highly processed and impossible to distinguish from other food, will make it possible for European consumers to vote with their wallets 鈥� unlike consumers in the US, where GM food does not have to be labelled. At a press conference last week, Zoellick would not be drawn on whether the US would challenge these labelling requirements, pointing out that they had yet to finalised.
The US claims that by taking its case to the WTO it is fighting for consumer choice. 鈥淲e believe consumers have the right to make their own decisions about what products to buy, but they can鈥檛 exercise this right in a system that blocks their access to food that鈥檚 safe and healthy,鈥� says Zoellick.
However, the US does not give other countries the choice of buying either non-GM or approved GM varieties. Only 2 per cent of its maize is segregated, for instance. That means 98 per cent of US maize cannot be exported to the EU, since it may contain non-approved GM varieties. Argentina, which does segregate different varieties, has seen its maize exports to the EU soar (see Graphic).
