WTO rules in favour of GMOs -- benefits Canada, hurts health

Oohhhh, there are problems in paradise.

It appears Eden is about to be taken over by science -- nature is to become the servant of nurture -- a very specifically designed nurture.

A recent World Trade Organization (WTO) interim ruling has determined that the European Union does not have the right to restrict genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The ruling arises from a dispute initiated in 2003 by the United States, Canada and Argentina against the European Community (EC) over its treatment of GMOs and products containing GMOs. These countries claimed that the EC approval system delayed the commercialization of GMOs, and that some European countries had effectively banned certain genetically modified crops.

At the heart of the dispute is the right of countries to control the introduction of GMOs into their food markets. The complainants (Canada among them) argued that under Free Trade, countries did not have a right to ban imports that were genetically modified without scientific support for that decision -- this argument (considered traditional among politicos) rationalizes that in order to ban a substance for health reasons hard scientific proof must show problems. However, the EC have maintained that such proof should not be required. The EC argues that their resistence is based on the "precautionary principle." The precautionary principle suggests that the mere possibility of harm to human health or the environment is enough to justify precautionary measures -- even in the absence of scientific certainty of harm.

The fact is, the precautionary principle has been endorsed in several international treaties, including the recently concluded Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety -- a protocol that specifically deals with "living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology."

However, the US did not sign the Cartegena Protocol. Canada and Argentina, on the other hand, signed the agreement, without actually ratifying the Protocol. And, quite obviously, the EC signed and ratified the agreement.

Either way, the WTO has signalled their preference for science rather the health. The fact is, the WTO did not even consider the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol and opted, instead, to support the requirement for hard science as evidence prior to the restriction of GMOs. As the world's THIRD largest grower and exporter of GMO crops, Canada stands to benefit from the WTO panel's decision. However, the longer implications are the restriction of preventative health measures -- measures that are being usurped by science for monetary gain.

NOTE: Canada et al. are challenging three specific EC regulatory measures. These three measures are:

• an alleged moratorium on GMO approvals
• the alleged failure to consider new applications for GMO approvals; and
• GMO-specific bans or restrictions imposed by several European countries.

While the WTO Panel has initially ruled in favour of Canada, et al., the panel is receiving comments from all parties. It is expected that the Panel's final decision will be released in September. That decision can be appealed, however if the EC fails to comply with the recommendations contained in a Panel report, the USA, Canada and Argentina may seek and obtain WTO authorization to impose trade sanctions against the EC until it complies with the WTO obligations.

For more information on GMOs in Canada go to: http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gmo/index.php
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/

For more information on the Cartagena Protocol go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartagena_Protocol_on_Biosafety

For more information on WTO and GMO go to: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060329&articleId=2202
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/pr/wtoruling.html