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

Europe may suffer a bruising next month when a world trade panel delivers
its long-awaited verdict on whether the EU's six-year blockade on biotech
crops and foods was tantamount to a protectionist trade barrier, January
2006.

In 2004, the European Union ended that blockade by allowing imports of a
canned sweetcorn engineered by Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta. It was
the bloc's first new approval of a genetically modified (GMO) crop product
since October 1998.

Despite the move, the EU may still lose out in a landmark case filed at the
World Trade Organization (WTO) by major GMO crop growers Argentina, Canada
and the United States, which say its de facto ban hurt their trade and was
not based on science.

The WTO verdict in the biotech case, now delayed several times, is being
keenly watched by all sides in the long-running row. Due in the first week
of February, the confidential ruling will comprise several hundreds of
pages. It is bound to leak.

While most observers say the WTO is unlikely to issue a clear-cut
condemnation of EU policy, it may well criticize areas like the string of
national bans on specific GMO products in several EU countries: a particular
annoyance for the three complainants and cited in their original 2003
complaint.

Already, rumors are flying in industry and green circles that the EU could
come off worst in the ruling.

"There'll be winners and losers on both sides, although some people suggest
the EU will be the bigger loser," one biotech industry official said. "The
market is not operating properly and the EU institutions have not
implemented their own law."

"The EU is going to be bruised. It might be a moral victory for industry but
that's about it," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
"It's fairly obvious that they (WTO) will come out against the national
bans."

Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness toward GMO products, often
dubbed as "Frankenstein foods", with opposition polled at slightly more than
70 percent.

This is a stark contrast to the United States, the world's largest grower of
GMO crops, where they are far more widely accepted. U.S. farmers say the EU
biotech stance cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales while the
ban was in effect.

EU Compliance

A key question for the EU, if it does face an adverse WTO ruling, is what it
could do to satisfy the three complainants.

The European Commission, which administers and instigates legislation for
the EU-25, says the EU has put in place tough but fair laws since 1998 to
ensure a smooth approvals process.

The trouble is, EU governments can never agree among themselves on biotech
crops. So the Commission eventually uses a legal approvals process that
kicks in when EU ministers are unable to reach a majority view on a GMO
after three months.

"All our legislation is in place and works well. The challenge isn't against
our legislation -- we will continue to deal (with applications) on a
case-by-case basis on their own merits," one Commission official told
Reuters.

"This (WTO) panel wasn't against the integrity of our system as such, it was
against the moratorium that we had," he said. "Whatever happens, this will
not affect our legislative set-up."

On The Fence

The Commission processes applications from biotech companies that want to
import and market their GMO products across the 25-country bloc. Approvals
are given for 10 years, usually for the imported GMO to be processed into
food and animal feed.

However, the idea of growing GMO crops is far more sensitive and only a
handful of "live" GMOs have won EU approval for cultivation, mostly in the
run-up to the 1998-2004 moratorium.

The EU has a plethora of GMO laws to regulate applications and approvals,
with strict and complex requirements for scientific opinion and risk
assessment of all new products.

A small group of EU countries is implacably opposed to any new GMO approvals
and always vote against -- and they are offset by a hard core of countries
that are always in favor. The rest sit on the fence and only occasionally
vary their view.

[today.reuters.com]

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