Genetically Modified Organisms

Emmanuel Baisire Daniel Abreu Mohammed Albasha Michael Bayer

What are GMOs?

Genetic Modification

Is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteria

GM products include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers
Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be genetically modified, genetically engineered, or transgenic
2

The Science:

Reaction to GMO

Usage

In 2003

167 million acres grown by 7 million farmers in 18 countries were planted with transgenic crops

The most used: herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola

Crops used for field tests:

Sweet potato resistant to a virus that could destroy most of the African harvest Rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asia A variety of plants able to survive extreme weather

Usage

Planned tests:
Bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B Fish that mature more quickly Fruit that yield years earlier Plants that produce new plastics with unique properties

Usage

In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were:
US 63% Argentina 21% Canada 6% Brazil 4% China 4% South Africa 1%

Benefits of GMOs

Crops

Environment

Enhanced taste and quality Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Increased resistance, productivity Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk Improved animal health

Animals

Conservation of soil, water, and energy Bioprocessing for forestry products Better natural waste management
Increased food security for growing populations

Society

Controversies

Safety

Access

Potential human health impacts:

allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance makers

Potential environmental impact:

Domination of world food production by a few companies Increased dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries

Unintended transfer of transgenes through crosspollination

Controversies

Ethics

Society

violation of natural organisms intrinsic values Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa

New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

Not mandatory in some countries (US)

Labeling

The Case

Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products

The parties:
Complainant: United States Respondent: European Union Third Parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Australia, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, and Uruguay

10

Case

US claimed that EU measures were inconsistent with its obligations under:

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement

Involves food safety and animal and plant health regulations Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement Articles I, III, X, and XI Article 4

GATT 1994

Agreement on Agriculture

Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement

It seeks to ensure that technical negotiations and standards, as well as testing and certification procedures, do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade Articles 2 and 5
11

Case

May 13, 2003

The United States and Canada requested consultations with the EU concerning certain measures taken by the EU and its member States affecting imports of agricultural and food imports from the United States and Canada Claims by US and Canada

The moratorium applied by the EU since October 1998 on the approval of biotech products has restricted imports of agricultural and food products from the US and Canada A number of EU member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech products even though these products have already been approved by the EU for import and marketing in the EU

August 7, 2003

United States, Canada, and Argentina each requested the establishment of a panel

The DSB established a single panel on August 29th

July 12, 2004

The Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not no able to complete its work in six months, due to the parties common request for additional time to prepare their rebuttals, and the Panels decision to seek scientific and technical expert advice pursuant to Article 11 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 13 of the DSU Was the estimated date the Panel would issue its final report to the parties
12

March 2005

What Is The Issue?...

Although citizens and governments in different countries all want to ensure that these GMOs do not pose a threat to human health or the environment, they do not agree on the best way to protect against these potential threats Trade problems arise when countries have different regulations regarding the testing and approval procedures necessary to place GMOs and their products on the market, or when they disagree about labeling and identification requirements Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms, and it is not clear if potential risks from GMO foods fit into one of those categories

13

What Is The Issue?

Regulatory decisions based on safety cannot resolve the GMO debate The debate is largely about what is best for society (and how to decide) Lack of regulatory frameworks for safety decisions (National and International) Market forces not sufficient (externalities) not a lot of solid negative data against GMO
14

Arguments From Both Sides

15

Arguments From US, Argentina, and Canada

The US, Canada, and Argentina argued that there is no need for scientific advice and that the dispute was about procedural matters The suspension and failure by the EU to consider applications for approval of GM products (the de facto moratorium) and the national ban in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg on some GM products which had already been approved by the EU before October 1998, have adversely affected imports of agricultural and food products from the US, Argentina, and Canada
16

Arguments From US, Argentina, and Canada

The de facto moratorium and national ban violate WTO rules because they have not been scientifically justified, they were not published, and there has been undue delay in assessing applications for release and marketing EU delays have hindered development of GM technology, which is of proven safety and brings great benefits, including hunger reduction and improving health and crop productivity worldwide Canada has argued that GM products should be treated no differently than non-GM products
17

Arguments From Europe

Europe argued that in a complex matter which relates to the risks of GMOs, the Dispute Settlement Panel must seek expert advice GMOs have characteristics which are recognized by the international community to pose potential threats to human health and the environment, and they cannot be treated as like or equivalent to non-GMO products In addressing the potential risks for each GMO, the Community regulatory framework has operated on a case-by-case basis, and there has been no formal (de jure) or informal (de facto) moratorium in respect of the authorization process or any part of it
18

Arguments From Europe

The approach of the European Union to the identification, assessment and prevention of risks to human health and the environment from each GMO has been fully consistent with international standards, and any finding to the contrary would seriously undermine a prudent and precautionary approach The steps which have been taken to protect the environment and to conserve biodiversity are reasonable and legitimate, are not necessarily sanitary or phytosanitary in character, and fall in whole or in part outside the scope of the SPS Agreement There has been no undue delay and in any event such steps are provisionally justified on the basis of the insufficiency of scientific evidence

19

Panel Decisions

20

Possible Panel Decisions

Panel rule against EU:

EU violation of the SPS rule against undue delay within the approval procedure of the SPS Agreement EUs failure to publish risk assessment of the harmfulness of biotech products (Article 5.1) EUs alleged moratoria is in place without scientific evidence (Article 2.2) EUs violation of Article 5.5: application of SPS measures without discrimination to domestic and imported products (i.e., genetically engineered seeds vs. processing agents)
The panel might order the US to strengthen its approval and control procedures of biotech companies (Mosanto Case: corn fed to rats changed kidney size)
21

Panel rule against US:

Proposals

GMO and other biotech products must meet internationally acceptable scientific standards The panel should limit the extent to which parties can rely on international law norms not covered under WTO provisions Labeling and traceability of GM products should not be used as a tool to limit GMO imports

22

Implication Of The Ruling

Plaintiffs are eligible for monetary compensation due to EU regulations (US: $300 million) A decision against the EU will affect its regulatory system which will limit EUs power to apply a precautionary approach Panels decision will serve as a precedent for future WTO rulings on food safety, public health and environment health US is likely to file another case against the EU directive 2001/18 on Labeling and Traceability of GMOs
23

Conclusion

GMO ruling will demonstrate WTOs readiness to deal with precautionary principle related to trade, health and environment issues

24

Work Cited

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/human_genome/elsi/g mfood.shtml Information about GMO involving the concept, usage, and benefits and controversies directly quoted from this site

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_ e/ds291_e.htm
Information about the case involving the US and EU directly quoted from this site http://www.wto.org/english.docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm

Information on legal documents such as TBT and SPS directly quoted from this site Information on arguments of US, Argentina, Canada, and the EC directly quoted from this site
25

http://www.genewatch.org/wto/wto_augustupdate.htm