'Europe's continued blocking of GM imports is illegal, unjustified and
founded on ignorance'
Plenty of pundits have had a go at America's decision to join several
other major food-producing nations in asking the European Union (EU) to end its moratorium
on approving agricultural biotechnology products. Several have even
accused the US of recklessly starting a "trade war". But almost no one
has
taken the time to assess the merits of the arguments or the strength of
the US case.
The fact is that the overwhelming preponderance of legal and scientific
evidence supports the US decision to challenge the EU over its stance on
agricultural biotechnology.
Over the course of the past five years, the EU has consistently violated
World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules that require measures regulating imports to
be based on sufficient scientific evidence, and mandate that regulatory
approval procedures be operated without undue delay.
EU member states have blocked regulatory approval of new agricultural
biotechnology products since 1998, and have done so without presenting any
scientific evidence demonstrating a danger to human health, as required by
the WTO. The Unite States and others, in bringing this case to the WTO, are simply
seeking to ensure that the EU applies a scientific, rules-based review and
approval process for agricultural biotechnology products.
Simply put, the EU moratorium has no scientific basis. Bioengineered foods
currently on the market have been shown to be as safe as conventional
varieties. As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300
million Americans have been eating bioengineered corn and soya beans for
years. No adverse consequences have ever been reported. The Royal Society
and even the EU itself acknowledge that biotech foods on the market pose
no threat to human health.
Many leading scientific organisations and institutions in the UK
acknowledge the benefits that bioengineered crops could bring to the
environment and the world's food supply. However, as in any debate
concerning the wider use of a new technology in society, there are those
who disagree. But the prominent arguments used against the commercial
development of bioengineered crops in the UK often cite undocumented
anecdotal evidence or play on unfounded fears.
The record should be set straight. This is why the British government's
decision to launch a public dialogue at several regional venues is to be
applauded. Providing a structured forum that allows the arguments to be
presented - both pro and con - should help address many of the
public-interest concerns related to this issue.
The EU moratorium has ramifications far beyond Europe. The EU's refusal to
meet its WTO obligations is slowing down the adoption of a beneficial
technology, and developing countries have already suffered negative
consequences.
In the autumn of 2002, some famine-stricken southern African countries
balked at US food aid because of ill-informed health and environmental
concerns, as well as fears that the countries' exports to Europe would be
jeopardised by "contamination" of local crops. Those who stand to
benefit
most from agricultural biotechnology - the poor and undernourished in
developing countries - do not have time on their side.
The spillover effects of the EU moratorium threaten to negate the benefits
of biotechnology, which can help stimulate agricultural productivity and
raise living standards in developed and developing countries alike.
Farmers worldwide have recognised the economic, agricultural and
environmental benefits of biotech crops. These plants yield more from the
land and can thrive in poor soil. Up to 80% of some crops in Africa are
presently lost to drought. Biotech drought-resistant crops can help
produce food in developing countries struggling to feed their populations.
Increased use of agricultural biotechnology can also yield substantial
environmental benefits. Farmers utilising biotech crops can reduce soil
erosion and pesticide use. Biotech crops create more hospitable
environments for wildlife, including streams and rivers spared from
chemical pesticides. Farmers who are able to increase crop yields on
existing land will be less tempted to encroach on tropical rainforests and
other fragile natural habitats.
Those who claim that the US is trying to force biotech foods on consumers
have got the argument backwards. It is the EU's unilateral, illegal and
unjustified actions, taken without any scientific, health or environmental
basis, which constrain choice and opportunity worldwide. The US and others
want EU regulations that maximise consumer choice while at the same time
protecting consumer health and safety.
A recent Guardian leader said that "getting GM food into Europe does not
mean people will buy it". Well, that may end up being the case, but we
think it's a decision the EU should let the people of Europe make for
themselves.
William Farish. US ambassador to the UK
Reprinted from The Guardian June 4, 2003
