FOR FOUR YEARS the European Union has refused to license new genetically
modified crops. It has pursued this policy even though Americans eat biotech
products every day without apparent ill effects; even though European tourists
arriving in America do not generally bring suitcases full of non-modified food
with them; even though Europe's own health commissioner says the ban violates
international trade rules; and even though an anti-biotech policy discourages
developing countries from embracing a technology that could greatly boost their
farm output. Last week the Europeans made a show of renouncing their absurd
policy. Unfortunately, it was only a show.
As of last Thursday, the official policy of the European Commission is that it
is willing to consider requests to license genetically modified (GM) products.
But this doesn't mean the commission can remove the obstacles to selling them.
Under Europe's arcane rules, a minority of countries can block the use of GM
food in the whole of the European Union. For the moment, France, Italy,
Greece, Denmark, Luxembourg and Austria form a Luddite caucus that voids the
European Commission's new policy stance.
Perhaps one day this caucus will splinter. Even then, GM products might in
practice be kept off the market by onerous labeling requirements. The Europeans
insist that GM foods should carry a label, even though there's no evidence
genetic modification is a health issue; they reject the saner policy, which is
to invite non-GM producers who want to differentiate their products to come up
with their own labeling regime. The reason they reject sanity is that they are
out to protect their own producers against biotech-powered Americans. When it
comes to European wine and cheese made with GM enzymes, the European position is
that no label is required.
Faced with this outrageous policy, the United States has no good choices. It can
bring a case against Europe at the World Trade Organization, which it would win;
but this might not change European policy given the vehemence of the European
public's suspicion of biotech. On the other hand, remaining passive in the face
of European intransigence sends a troubling signal: that large members of the
World Trade Organization can be allowed to violate trade rules if they have
political reasons to do so. The Bush administration should go for the first
option. It should bring a WTO case against Europe, even though it must accept
the fact that European compliance with the eventual ruling is unlikely; and it
should maintain diplomatic pressure on Brussels to rethink its anti-scientific
prejudice.
Washington Post Editorial
October 28, 2002
