www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Biotechnology-altered foods are the focus of a World Trade Organization
ruling scheduled for release this month, a landmark event expected to have a
major impact on trade in agricultural products, one of the largest sectors
governed by the WTO, September 2006.

The final report of the WTO Panel in European Communities ? Measures
Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotechnology Products ? rules on a
dispute founded on differing perceptions about what constitutes legitimate
precaution when regulating biotechnology.

Should a country have the unfettered right to refuse trade in such products
as genetically-modified grain or hormone-injected beef based on doubts about
their safety? Or is such "precautionary" action trumped by World Trade
Organization membership obligations?

In other words: when can a nation's interpretation and invocation of "the
precautionary principle" be ruled trade protectionism in disguise? And which
party should shoulder the burden of scientific proof when the safety of a
product is disagreed?

These concerns are prompting a growing number of international trade clashes
over the perceived safety of products derived from cutting edge
biotechnology and other sciences. Most recently, Japan banned imports of US
long-grain rice in August amid reports that traces of a genetically-modified
variety had been found in American crops; European Union officials likewise
imposed a temporary import ban pending more information. In earlier clashes,
Zambia refused a US-AID offer of GM corn over concerns that acceptance would
imperil the GM-free status of their exports to the EU. The collapse of the
Doha Round means that more of these types of clashes are likely to end up in
the WTO.

Averting such conflicts requires a better, common definition and
understanding of the "precautionary principle," among other measures,
according to the Japan-based Institute for Advanced Studies of the United
Nations University. In a report, it calls for international agreement on
common approaches to risk assessment and suggests the WTO dispute settlement
system is not the "best way in which to resolve disputes in these important
areas of policy making."

Prepared by Sabrina Shaw and Risa Schwartz, both professional alumnae of the
WTO Secretariat in Geneva, the report warns that disputes over biotechnology
products, founded in part on cultural differences, are creating a
"trans-Atlantic divide." It highlights similarities and differences between
agreements and organizations with respect to precaution ? and the
consequences of those differences.

According to Gary Sampson, Professor of International Economic Governance at
UNU-IAS and author of the recent book, The WTO and Global Governance:
"Precaution ? not science ? lies at the heart of much of the public concern
about the regulation of biotechnology products. In the absence of scientific
justification for trade restrictive measures, the WTO will increasingly find
itself passing judgment on which regulations are 'legitimate' and which are
'unnecessary barriers to trade.' This will put the WTO increasingly between
a rock and a hard place to say the least.

"The relative weight assigned to science and societal choice in the
determination of standards ? or how 'precautionary' regulations should be ?
underpins much of the possible future disagreement over the legitimacy of
standards relating to genetically modified products within the context of
dispute settlement in the WTO," he adds.

"The seriousness of these disputes and the importance of the technology
threaten great damage to international cooperation and law," says UNU-IAS
Director A.H. Zakri. "More and more commentators are beginning to openly
wonder whether the World Trade Organization will be able to survive the full
effects of the European Commission -Biotechnology panel, for example."

"How a society chooses to manage the risks of biotechnology will be affected
by such factors as confidence in the regulators, acceptance of new
technologies, the need for the new benefits and general levels of
awareness," says Dr. Zakri.

He notes that several international organizations, often pursuing different
objectives, are rushing to regulate biotech, creating "a complex policy and
regulatory environment."

The precautionary principle is a central element of several multilateral
environmental agreements, a reflection of past instances of underestimated
and unanticipated impacts of new technologies ? perhaps most famously the
industrial release of POPs, a family of organic pollutants subsequently
shown to persist stubbornly in the environment ? and the use for
refrigeration of chemicals later found to destroy atmospheric ozone.

So far, however, the precautionary principle has not been adopted
authoritatively beyond international environmental law.

The UNU-IAS report notes differences between Europe and North America are
highly pronounced with respect to genetically modified organisms and
labeling of GM products, with European concerns about the risks manifested
in trade restrictions on biotech goods deemed "acceptable or even desirable
in the United States."

Differing perceptions about appropriate levels of precaution for
biotechnology was the underlying cause of the WTO dispute where the US and
EU disagreed about the safety of beef produced from cattle injected with
hormones to bolster their growth. This fundamental difference will drive the
US and the EU to the WTO Dispute Settlement mechanism again. US industry has
already started lobbying the US Government for a WTO challenge to the EU GM
labeling and traceability requirements.

Other earlier disagreements have prevented foods such as unpasteurized
European cheeses from entering US markets and past WTO decisions have
established that the lack of "absolute certainly" with respect to science
cannot be used to justify trade restrictions.

The UNU-IAS report says nations need to determine a common threshold of risk
"or, at a minimum, a common practice of risk assessment".

"What is lacking is a uniform description of the precautionary principle in
these agreements, leading some critics to argue that the principle is
overused without a clear understanding of its meaning and consideration of
its implementation," the paper says.

"The flexible definition of the precautionary principle may be its strength,
but also one of its greatest weaknesses. Several WTO Members have noted in
the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) that the difficulty of further
integrating precaution in the WTO lies in the lack of an
internationally-agreed definition of the precautionary principle."

Says Dr. Zakri: "A clearer understanding of the various uses of the
precautionary principle or approach will contribute to a more cohesive and
harmonious approach to the regulation of biotechnology at the international
level and mitigate some of the damage that is threatened by the current
state of affairs."

Says UN Under Secretary-General Hans van Ginkel, Rector of UNU: "There is an
important need now to take stock, reassess basic positions, principles and
areas of agreement about the precautionary approach before countries
initiate a new wave of disputes about biotechnology and the precautionary
approach.

"Such a discussion could not be more timely given the recent controversy
about genetically-modified contamination of US rice exports, the suspension
of the Doha round and the prospect of countries re-examining disputes and
grievances in the wake of the upcoming WTO ruling."

www.checkbiotech.org

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail