1 / 26

U.S. – EU GMO Case Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products DS291

U.S. – EU GMO Case Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products DS291. VS. Nana Konadu Sara Majroh Brooke Markley. Conventional Plant Breeding Has Been Around for Centuries. Plumcot (plum x apricot) Early 20 th Century. Desired traits: Better tasting

cisco
Télécharger la présentation

U.S. – EU GMO Case Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products DS291

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. – EU GMO CaseMeasures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech ProductsDS291 VS. Nana Konadu Sara Majroh Brooke Markley

  2. Conventional Plant Breeding Has Been Around for Centuries Plumcot (plum x apricot) Early 20th Century • Desired traits: • Better tasting • Higher quality • Higher yielding • Resistance to extreme temperatures • Resistance to viruses, fungi, bacteria, insects • New products entirely Triticale (wheat x rye) 19th Century

  3. Genetic Engineering Takes Conventional Breeding to a Whole New Level • Instead of breeding, new varieties are developed by cutting and moving snippets of DNA from one plant, animal or microbe to another in a process called gene splicing • Unlike traditional crossbreeding techniques that simultaneously introduce many genes (including unwanted genes), genetic engineering uses just the gene for a specific desirable trait Source: http://agribiotech.info/issues/science-and-agricultural-biotechnology

  4. First Biotech Tomato Marketed in 1994 FDA declares a tomato developed through biotechnology to be as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means FLAVR SAVR Source: Agricultural Biotechnology Center, Information Series, “Tomato,” August 1996 http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5283/2194.pdf

  5. GMO’s in Major Food Crops • Current GE traits (corn, cotton, soybeans) • Insect resistant – Bt corn • Herbicide resistant – Round-up Ready Soybeans • Both insect and herbicide resistant • Future possibilities • Ability to thrive in acidic soils • Ability to fix nitrogen (less fertilizer use) • Crops to produce medicines and vaccines • Improved nutritional content Sources: http://www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp AND Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute, Center for Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002

  6. What Does the Future Hold? Population Billions MMT Source of production and consumption data: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Production, Supply and Distribution Source of population data: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat

  7. The Science Behind It • Numerous organizations, researchers and scientists have determined that biotech foods pose no threat to humans or the environment: • French Academy of Medicine and Pharmacy • French Academy of Sciences • Declaration on biotech foods cosponsored by 3,200 scientists • Joint study conducted by seven national academies of science (National Academies of Science of the United States, Brazil, China, India and Mexico, plus the Royal Society of London and the Third World Academy of Sciences) Source: Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute, Center for Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002, pg 3

  8. GMO Cons • Anti-biotech groups highlight the negative: • Soybean with Brazil nut gene • StarLink corn case • Butterflies die when force-fed pollen from Bt corn • Other reasons • Unintended consequences • Ecological damage? • Fear of the food supply being monopolized by large multinational seed and agrochemical companies • Messing with Mother Nature • Basic public apprehension – “Frankenfood” Sources: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/Qs_As.asp Bailey, Ronald, “The Looming Trade War over Plant Biotechnology,” Cato Institute, Center for Trade Policy Studies, August 1, 2002, pg 5-6

  9. Greenpeace Luxemborg, 2008

  10. EU Opposition • Stems from EU’s distrust in their government’s ability to ensure the safety of their food • Mad cow outbreak in the 1990’s • Other food contamination problems • In October 1998, the EU stopped approving new biotech products for planting or import • What is their reason? • Regulate first, ask questions later Source: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/Qs_As.asp

  11. The U.S. is Adversely Affected Corn Exports to the EU Soybean Exports to the EU Source: Eurostat, Statistical Office of the European Communities, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/external_trade/data/database

  12. GMO Growth in the U.S.Planted Corn Acreage 2000 25% 2003 40% 2009 85% Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, Acreage Report, 2000-2009

  13. Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applicaitona http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/publications/briefs/37/pptslides/default.html

  14. U.S. and Cooperating Countries File WTO Case Against EU Moratorium on Biotech Foods and CropsMay 13, 2003EU’s Illegal, Non-Science based Moratorium Harmful to Agriculture and the Developing World

  15. What is the issue? • Moratorium on approval of biotech products • Unnecessary delay in the approval of applications • EC legislation • Member State marketing and import bans • Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxemborg Source: European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Request for Consultations by the United States, May 20, 2003, WT/DS291/1 http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments/t/G/TBT/D28.doc

  16. Position of U.S. Source: World Trade Organization, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm “EU should apply a scientific, timely, rules-based review and approval process to agricultural biotech product applications as required both under the WTO agreement” Claims: • Existence of a general moratorium • October 1998 to May 2003 • Product specific measures • “undue delay” • Member state marketing/import bans • Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria Associated cases DS292 (Canada) and DS293 (Argentina)

  17. Position of EC Source: Suppan, Steve “U.S vs EC Bio Tech Products Case, Backgrounder on WTO Dispute” Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, September 2005 http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=76644 Defends the legitimate right of each State to establish and apply regulatory regime to ensure that GMOs are only put on the market on a basis of a careful assessment of risks, appropriate control and monitoring measures, and proper information to consumers. • EC denies the existence of a moratorium • Delays are not “undue” • Lack of application response or incomplete response to regulatory questions about GMOs • Precautionary principle • UN Cartagena Protocol • Taking preventive action

  18. WTO Issues Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm • Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement • Article 2: Basic Rights and Obligations • Article 5: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection

  19. WTO Issues Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm • Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement con’t • Article 7: Transparency • Article 8: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures • Article 10: Special and Differential Treatment • Annex B: Transparency of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations • Annex C: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures

  20. WTO Issues Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 • Article I: General Most-Favored-Nation Treatment • Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation • Article X: Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations • Article XI: General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions

  21. WTO Issues Source: World Trade Organization – The Legal Texts WTO online - http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement (market access) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement: ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles

  22. What did the Panel find? Source: InternationaltradeRelations.com, http://www.internationaltraderelations.com/WTO.GMO%20Panel%20(Conclusions%20U.S.)%20(Sept.%2029,%202006).htm • November 21st, 2006 DSB adopted the panel reports • Panel found EC applied a general de facto moratorium from 1999 to 2003 • EC acted inconsistently under Annex C(1), first clause and Article 8 of SPS Agreement • Recommendation is to have EC bring moratorium into conformity • Not inconsistent with:SPS 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 2.2 or 2.3 • Product specific measures • EC acted inconsistently under Annex C(1)a, first clause and Article 8 of SPS Agreement • Recommendation is to have EC bring relevant product specific measures into conformity • Not inconsistent with:SPS 5.1, 5.5, and 2.2 • Safeguard measures were not based on sufficient scientific evidence • EC acted inconsistently under Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement • Recommendation is to have EC bring the relevant safeguard measures into conformity

  23. Implication Status Case is unresolved and arbitration has been suspended No sanctions have been applied • January 14th 2008 • the EC and the US had reached an agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU • Jan 17th 2008 • US made a retaliation request after RPT expired • February 6th 2008 • EC objected the US retaliation request • Feb 8th 2008, • Case referred to arbitration under Article 22.6 • Feb 18th 2008 • Proceedings were suspended and will be resumed after completion of Article 21 and 22 DSU compliance procedures In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports to the European Communities. ($200 - $300 million per year) Source: WTO, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm

  24. Global Trade • Impact on developing countries • Refuse to GE crops and seeds that can aid starving populations • Impact on other international agreements • Panel did not take the UN Bio safety protocol into account

  25. Questions??

More Related