Africans Speak out on US Bullying of EU on GMO Issue

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

At the WTO Cancun Ministerial next week, the US¹ challenge against the EU over GM foods will probably be a major topic of discussion. The US has been using the excuse that Africa needs to grow GM crops to combat hunger, but has been prevented from doing so by Europe¹s GM restrictions. (Now that the EU have changed their regulations so that GM imports are permitted if labelled, the trade-based argument is weaker, so the US is trying to focus on the ³moral² argument instead.)

But Africans themselves have been hesitant to accept GM without regulations or monitoring. The Africa Group was, after all, the group that led the negotiations for the Biosafety Protocol, a multilateral environmental agreement that allows nations to make their own decisions regarding GM imports, giving them the option to restrict or regulate. The Biosafety Protocol will be an important tool in helping developing countries to protect their food sovereignty, food security and biodiversity.

The US action against the EU is seen to be a threat to developing countries, that they will suffer the same fate if they chose to implement the protection that the Biosafety Protocol affords. The director-general of Ethiopia¹s Environmental Protection Authority, Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher was one of the chief negotiators for the Biosafety Protocol. In a statement below, he says ³We cannot help but perceive that US actions are a pre-emptive strike against the Biosafety Protocol and developing country interests.²

The Biosafety Protocol is due to come into effect on the 11th September, during the Cancun Ministerial. This is therefore a good opportunity for us to point out the US hypocrisy and hidden agenda in their battle with the EU. And to wave the banner for the much-needed Biosafety Protocol.

Best wishes,

Teresa

*****************************
1. Statement from Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher
Director General of the Environmental Protection Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Date: 4th September 2003
2. Behind US Challenge of Europe on GMOs
Article from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Date: 9 June 2003
Kristin Dawkins
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gmo_wto.cfm
3. United States: Food Fight Bully Targets Third World
Article from Greenleft Weekly, Australia. Date: 3 September 2003
Conn Hallinan
http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/552p12b.htm
******************************

1. Statement from Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher

Director General of the Environmental Protection Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Date: 4th September 2003

The United States¹ challenge to the European Union in the WTO courts over Genetically Modified Organisms primarily presents a threat to African and developing countries¹ food sovereignty and the Biosafety Protocol.

We in African countries, who have fought long and hard for the agreement and ratification of the Biosafety Protocol, feel that US actions are intended to send a strong and aggressive message to us: that should we choose to implement the Protocol and reject the import of GM foods, we may also face the possibility of a WTO challenge. We cannot help but perceive that US actions are a pre-emptive strike on the Biosafety Protocol and developing country interests.

The Protocol is due to come into effect on the 11th of September, coinciding with the WTO¹s 5th Ministerial Meeting in Cancun, Mexico. At Cancun, the US/ EU GM debate is expected to be high on the agenda. Part of the US argument for forcing the EU to accept GM without any kind of labelling restrictions, is that the EU rejection creates hunger in the developing world. Supposedly, we would willingly grow GM crops if we weren¹t afraid of losing our lucrative European markets.

But this premise is untrue. The only African country to support the WTO challenge was Egypt, who soon retracted support on the grounds of consumer and environmental concerns. Developing countries, and African countries in particular, do not want to grow GM crops uncritically and without the due process of their regulatory systems approving them. They will not have their crops contaminated by GM crops, for many reasons other than market access to Europe. The one important consideration is safety to human health, domestic animals and the environment. This can only be assured, as provided by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, only through informed risk assessments and decisions based on the Precautionary Principle.

Secondly, we reject the patenting of living things, as has been made clear by our negotiations in the WTO. Otherwise, Article 34 of TRIPs would, in combination with the natural processes of cross pollination, not only contaminate our crops, but also turn our farmers into patent infringers. This would remove control of food production into the hands of multinational corporations, thereby wresting away food sovereignty into the hands of these companies. Besides paying royalties, we would lose food sovereignty.

Developing world agriculture systems are adapted to their geography, economy and culture, and GM farming systems that require capital and chemicals threaten our agriculture and food security. Ethiopia is strongly against the hasty introduction of GM crops, for, as a centre of origin and diversity of crops, we recognise the assets that come from a biologically diverse, locally adapted, small-scale agriculture.

This is why African nations have fought so hard for the Biosafety Protocol, which can provide us with a legal basis on which to protect our own food sovereignty. We suspect that Africa is high on the agenda for the US¹ next push for GM acceptance. And we resent the way that the stereotyped image of the hungry in developing countries has been used to force a style of agriculture that will only exacerbate problems of hunger and poverty.

The arguments that the EU must give up its right to label, or even reject GM, because of the developing countries must stop. We have the right to implement the Biosafety Protocol, and we must do so without delay.

Dr Tewolde was one of the architects of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. He will be in London, and available for comment 8-12 September, at the Gaia Foundation (020) 7435 5000.

****************************

2. Behind US Challenge of Europe on GMOs

Article from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Date: 9 June 2003 Kristin Dawkins http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gmo_wto.cfm

US WTO Challenge Could Destroy International GMO BioSafety Treaty

There is more than meets the eye with the recent U.S. legal challenge of the European Union's moratorium on imports of genetically modified (GM) foods. The Bush Administration has touted the action as the salvation of starving people and a defense of U.S. farmers. But the case will accomplish little for either of these groups. Instead, it reveals a struggle between the U.S. and EU over whether the United Nations will remain an enforceable body of international law. Earlier this week, the EU countered the U.S. challenge by ratifying a UN treaty that strengthens the ability of countries to set their own rules on GM crops.

Following disputes within the UN over the war in Iraq, GM foods have now become part of an escalating global showdown over global governance and international institutions. The question of who should have jurisdiction over regulating GM foods has been the subject of vigorous debate in the international arena for the last decade. The UN has several treaties relevant to GM foods, two of which will likely go into effect later this year.

Both treaties would undermine the U.S. attempt to force Europe into accepting biotech foods through the World Trade Organization (WTO) - where the legal complaint was filed last month. Both UN Treaties are the result of multilateral negotiations supported by more than 100 other nations, not just Europe. At the 1999 WTO Ministerial in Seattle the U.S. attempted to ram through a provision that would have deregulated trade in GM foods worldwide. Other countries blocked the effort, however, and made clear that the proper place for addressing biosafety issues was within the UN system.

Four years later, the UN-initiated Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is about to become binding international law. The Cartegena Protocol, agreed to by 131 countries in Montreal in 2000, establishes an international regulatory regime based on the precautionary principle to manage the unique risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The rights of national governments to regulate all GMOs are affirmed, while developing countries may use the Protocol to regulate commodities even before national policies are in place.

Environmental, human health and socio-economic factors are recognized as valid considerations in determining whether to accept or reject GMO imports. Throughout eight years of these negotiations, the U.S. attempted to block each of these aspects of the final treaty. The Protocol will become enforceable once 50 nations ratify it through their domestic legislative processes. Already, 49 have done so. The EU ratified it earlier this week - opening the door for other EU member nations to approve the treaty.

The U.S., however, has made it clear it has no intention of joining the protocol, despite the fact that those who do participate may choose not to trade in GMOs with countries that do not. Another UN treaty that will impact genetically engineered crops is the "International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture" adopted in November 2001. This treaty, negotiated through the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, was adopted by a vote of 116-0 with two abstentions - the United States and Japan. This treaty needs 40 nations to formally join before it goes into affect, also likely to occur later this year or early in 2004.

Currently, 19 countries have done so. The Genetic Resources Treaty establishes a multilateral system providing un-patented general access to seeds and germplasm for much of the world's food supply, as well as fair and equitable sharing of the benefits obtained from their use. It also includes a provision on farmers' rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed - all prohibited practices for farmers growing biotech crops in the U.S.

The implications of whether the UN or WTO will become the dominant regime for regulating GM foods extend beyond GM foods themselves. Fundamentally, this battle is also about the rights of nations to set up their own regulatory systems to protect human health and the environment. Instead of working through the UN to set an international floor of minimum standards that must be met around the world, the U.S. is pushing for a ceiling at the WTO which would restrict nations from setting more rigorous safety standards. U.S. farmers are becoming pawns in this game as well. The WTO legal challenge will likely strengthen Europe's resolve against GM foods. Even if the U.S. wins a lengthy legal challenge, Europe will likely pay a fine rather than change their policies - as they have with beef raised with hormones.

The Soybean Producers of America recently criticized the Bush Administration for antagonizing Europe, their biggest trading partner - and expressed hope that the dispute won't hurt soybean exports. The WTO legal challenge over GM foods represents the Bush Administration's commitment to an institution that puts commerce ahead of all other considerations.

The EU's ratification of the Biosafety Protocol, along with a recent proposal by African governments at the WTO to ban the patenting of seeds and other life forms, places a higher priority on public health, farmers©– rights, food security and the environment. At stake is our system of global governance and whose interests it will represent.

Kristin Dawkins is the Vice President for Global Programs at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. She is the author of the book Gene Wars, and the upcoming book Global Governance.

*******************************

3. United States: Food Fight Bully Targets Third World

Article from Greenleft Weekly, Australia. Date: 3 September 2003 Conn Hallinan http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/552p12b.htm

The decision by the US administration to sue the European Union over its moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) may be aimed less at the EU than at developing countries, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics.

Take the case of the reluctant Egyptians. Egypt had originally joined the US suit, with Argentina and Canada, but, in response to a domestic backlash over the safety of GM food crops, withdrew. However, Egypt filed a separate complaint on an EU ban against its drought-resistant GM cotton.

The Egyptians were nervous over the confrontational tone of the US suit. ³The way [the complaint] was announced was like a war with the EU², an Egyptian trade official told the Financial Times, ³We can't go to war with the EU. It is 40% of our trade.²

Reacting with fury, the US accused the Egyptians of breaking their word and cancelled free trade talks. The White House was banking on Egypt to represent the need for GM crops in ³developing countries², in particular, Africa. GM crops as a solution to the African famine is one of the major arguments Washington has used against the EU ban.

US President George Bush's administration is applying its ³for us or against us² anti-terrorism formula to trade policy. When Croatia and Thailand raised health objections to GM crops, the US threatened trade sanctions and both countries backed down.

The White House has been more circuitous with big countries, like India and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, US corporations ‹ underwritten by taxpayers ‹ bring politicians and scientists to the US and South Africa to study GM crops. Washington's reaction to India's ban on US GM crops has been muted.

There is much at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has nothing to do with alleviating hunger or overcoming famine. The ³big five² biotech companies ‹ Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical and Aventis ‹ have invested billions of dollars in research and development. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937.

The US argues that GM crops represent the new ³green revolution² that will allow countries to feed the growing world population. But the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service found that crop yields were no higher for GM crops than for regular crops. And GM crops can be tricky to grow. They were created for huge, Western super-farms, not the small-scale agriculture that characterises most of the Third World. Plus GM seeds cost more, and few poor farmers have access to cash.

The Bush administration presents its GM-friendly policies as a solution to hunger. During his recent tour of Africa, Bush said, ³For the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European governments to end their opposition to biotechnology².

EU officials point out that Europe gives Africa seven times as much aid as the US does, and most of that aid is delivered in cash, which bolsters local economies. The US, on the other hand, delivers aid in the form of agricultural surplus, which allows the US to dump its overproduction.

Africans are suspicious and see the spread of GM crops as creating a kind of ³bio-serfdom², with farmers in thrall to huge biotech companies. Amadou Kanoute, research director of African Office of Consumers International, says the spread of GM crops, ³will plunge Africa into greater food dependency².

The European Parliament has already decided to phase out the moratorium on GM crops, although it will demand strict labelling. Any product containing more than 0.9% GM products will be flagged. GM food will have to be segregated from non-GM food in production and harvesting.

The US refuses to accept labelling. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick claims he supports consumer choice, but ²this information should be non-prejudicial in presentation and feasible for producers to provide². The administration is nervous that if Europeans get labelling, Americans might demand the same. Three-quarters of the food on US shelves contain GM products, and a recent study by the biotech firm Novartis found that 92% of Americans approve of labelling.

The EU is unlikely to be intimidated by fines imposed by the WTO, and if the US manages to block labelling, European consumers will probably just boycott all US food imports. The only real casualties in that trade war will be US farmers.

The prize in this fight is not the EU market, which in any case only absorbs some 10% of US agricultural exports. The prize is the developing world, where regulations are lax, profits higher and resistance may carry a very high price.

[Conn Hallinan is the provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a political analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (<http://www.fpif.org>).]

*******************************