US Administration Shows it isn't Trustworthy on GM Foods

There is no doubt that GM foods pose a potentially enormous risk to world food supplies. This is an area where the debate has been hijacked and those who seek to profit from the development have little or no intention of heeding warnings or proceding as slowly or carefully as would be prudent.

Contrary to reports from the U.S., a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning genetically modified (GM) foods. Friends of the Earth International on 28 February 2006 made available online a confidential WTO ruling on the trade dispute on biotech, or GM foods. The 1000-page report, which was distributed earlier in February only to the countries involved in the dispute, was leaked to Friends of the Earth, which published a preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin'.

The leaked report reveals that:

• despite claims of victory by the US Administration and the biotechnology industry - widely reported in the media in February 2006- the three countries that started the trade dispute against the European Union (US, Canada and Argentina) failed to win most of their arguments;
• the WTO did not rule on two of the most important questions, namely whether GM foods are effectively the same as non-GM foods and if they are safe.

"The WTO ruling is not a victory for the US administration and the biotech giants. Countries around the world should continue to enforce tough legislation protecting their citizens and the environment from the risks of genetically modified crops," said Juan Lopez, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International.

According to Friends of the Earth International the WTO is not and should not be the appropriate body to deal with conflicts between trade rules and environmental protection since it ignores the internationally recognised 'Precautionary Principle' and considers only trade principles.

The leaked WTO report argues that:

• Europe's 4-year moratorium on GM Organisms (GMOs) only broke trade rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.
• There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over 20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by the WTO Panel.
• National bans by EU member states broke trade rules because the risk assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO requirements;

"This is the report that the WTO didn't want the public to see. It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for. Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food. They failed and now is the time to build a consensus that the WTO, with its business-only agenda, is the wrong place to decide on what people eat and how we protect our environment." said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels.

Friends of the Earth Europe launched a cyber action (http://www.bite-back.org/objection/our_food.php ) urging the public to call on their Governments to reject the WTO as a forum to decide on environmental trade disputes and to support the right of countries to ban GMOs.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International GM coordinator, Tel: +34-6-25980582 (Spanish mobile number) Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO expert, Tel: +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile number) David Waskow, Friends of the Earth US Tel: + 1 202 492 4660
SOURCE: http://www.gmwatch.org

GM foods represent effectively brand new substances introduced either directly to human consumption or to some point lower in the food chain, such as in livestock feeds. What effects these substances will ultimately have is unknown but other departures from natural foods are known to have negative consequences so this is an area worth considerable unbiased study, thought and widespread, informed agreement, not political lies and big-money manoeuvering.