Brussels, 09/10/2002 (Agence Europe) - While, in Washington, the tone is continually rising given the procrastination of Europeans to open the door to GMOs, the European Commission has rejected the battery of criticism launched in Geneva against the legislative framework that it proposes to set in place to strengthen the labelling and traceability rules for genetically modified foodstuffs intended for human consumption and for animal feed. Notification to the World Trade Organisation of these two proposals, that will be put to the test of the Agriculture and Environment Councils next week, caused a whole year of intermittent debates described as "usual" in Brussels and as "a secret trade war via the WTO" by the Friends of the Earth. According to the Americans and others (Australia, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Switzerland) the close screening of this provision highlights many inconsistencies compared to international law, but it is "not necessarily" a preliminary to an attack according to the rules in Geneva as "the texts may still change before they come into effect".
Whatever, local legislation cannot be challenged at the WTO until its provisions have been implemented. "This could take years" for labelling and traceability, it is stressed in Washington where, for now, one is focusing on the 17 October deadline, when the European Environment Ministers will examine both draft regulations, and when directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release of GMOs into the environment will take effect (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.15). This could be the key to lifting the moratorium, something the Americans have been waiting for with increasingly visible impatience for the past four years. "Nothing has happened for years", they insist, with reference to the suspension of the procedure for marketing authorisation for genetically modified maize and oilseeds in October 1998 when France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg and Greece, etc. had invoked the "safeguard clause" to temporarily block deliveries which give rise to considerable consumer mistrust.
"The Commission had formally linked the moratorium to the coming into effect of the 2001/18 Directive and we have the right to hope that it will resume examining requests for authorisations in the light of this new legislation", after 17 October, say the same American sources, forgetting that in Europe emphasis is placed, not only on that directive but on the future provisions on labelling and traceability. The Commission is obviously aware of this pressing expectation - a lack of earning of over $4 billion being spoken of in Washington - and is, according to the Green/EFA group of the EP, preparing to place the Fifteen in front of their responsibility by a declaration to the Environment Council on the lifting of the moratorium (see yesterday's EUROPE page 15). The Americans nevertheless "fear" that the Union should play the game of extensions until the setting up of a labelling and traceability system, "under pressure from certain Member states" that already "make a fairly obscure link" between the freeze on authorisations and these provisions. "We shall not agree to wait yet another year, years even, for things to begin to move", say American sources.
The United States is not, however, remaining arms crossed waiting for the Europeans to end finishing plugging the legislative breaches, that do not allow for the bio-security of food to be assured, an exercise heavy in consequences for their GMO exports, in terms of restrictions, cost, administrative burdens and legal uncertainty. This is one of the main criticisms the Americans have of the future labelling and traceability mechanism. As we stand, it seems vulnerable in relation to international law to more than one trading partner, including developing countries, such as Jordan and Egypt that fear that the future requirements should send the cost of the products sky high and harm their competitiveness, to the detriment of the poorest populations or processing activities undertaken by countries such as Singapore from American deliveries. The United States is far from being alone in speaking of commercial prejudice. A dozen countries have pointed the finger at the very many provisions of "concern" that, according to them, are incoherent, foremost in relation to the Multilateral Agreement on the Sanitary and Phytosanitary System (SPS), as, say the Canadians, Australians, etc., like the Americans, "the scientific basis required" is lacking and the European system of assessing health risks and scientific or technical information "leave room for political interference like that that led to the moratorium on the approval of biotechnological products." In addition, they fear, "Community legislation sets a level of non-risk that could effectively block the regulatory process" in the sense that this zero risk cannot be guaranteed for any product. Many are there too who judge the requirements excessive in relation to the stated objectives and express concern for superfluous or disguised obstacles to trade. In other words, the United States summarises, the project will be onerous to implement, but will not be effective or controllable for that. The Americans call on the Europeans to review their copy to reassess the feasibility of these measures, ensure their reliability, their coherence and fairness, while considering making other provisions with less restrictive effects on trade. This system is legally sound, replied the Commission, referring to WTO rules, the guidelines of Codex and the OECD, as well as the Carthagena Protocol on bio-security. Its objectives are "legitimate" and the means provided for to attain them have nothing excessive about them. This legislative framework is necessary to assure the smooth running of the internal market and reassure European consumers who generally do not want GMOs in their plates, is what is being said in substance. Its detractors have, however, secured that the project be notified under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary System agreement, in other words that it be examined from the sanitary angle (doubtless the weakest point of the mechanism) and not only as technical obstacle to trade. The European Commission has thus it seems tried to avoid this double sifting by putting forward consumer expectations, environmental vigilance and the functioning of the internal market, rather than its sanitary objectives. The debate skidded off track in the end towards the question of the moratorium, the United States declaring itself "frustrated" by the lack of "any change to the situation" and promising to "consider what to do next". Canada is on the same wavelength.