By recently issued arbitral award regarding Agrobiotechnology the WTO could arrive at a place where she didn’t want to. The World Trade Organisation would not have dealed with this difficult subject at all; because it could „make the WTO now in the eyes of Greenpeace and other environmental protection organisations to an ‘Agro-biotech-Monster’ " (FAZ, N° 32/2006, p.11).

It’s true, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has acceded to an action of USA, Argentina and Canada against EU and has ruled that the European Union's (EU) moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from 1998-2004 was illegal. The moratorium was put in place because of EU concerns on human safety, environmental pollution, and inadequate testing, and has subsequently been officially lifted. Canada and Argentina backed the U.S. in filing a complaint with the WTO in 2003, alleging that the moratorium was a violation of international trade laws. The Bush Administration has claimed that the EU ban has hurt U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered crops, and that the EU should pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to the U.S. But market analysts point out that the WTO ruling will not benefit the biotech industry, because EU food manufacturers and supermarket chains, fearing a consumer backlash, will continue to refuse to sell food products containing GMOs, no matter what the WTO says. U.S. Trade officials have admitted that the main impact of the WTO ruling will be to intimidate smaller nations from banning GMOs. (OB#75)

However, it is not sure if the WTO and it’s „Dispute Settlement Body" are skilled in environmental impact assessment regarding genetically engineered products. As they think a merely precautionary measure against possible risks or final consequences for environment and consumers not to be sufficient, it ia a matter of course that they are being criticized by environmental protection organisations.

But even according renowned Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) „it cannot be assumed, that in future more genetically modified food is being sold in Europe. Customers obviously don’t want these goods. Even in Great Britain food manufacturers and supermarket chains have removed such products from the shelves... Surveys show, that 70 percent of EU-citizen refuse this socalled „geen" genetic engineering and 54 percent estimate it to be hazardous" (FAZ, N° 32/2006, p.11).

Soon it will turn out if the WTO’s „Dispute Settlement Body", leaded by Mr. Christian Häberli from Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft (Bern), is really independant and able to name the risks of Agro-Biotech-Products.

The preliminary report anyhow shows, that we have to calculate with Agro-Biotech-Industry friendly scientists. „Several environmental protection organisations criticized preliminary report. It only to gives evidence for the fact, that the WTO studies his own trading interest first and is not able and qualified to deal with complex environmental themes, told Greenpeace. However, Regarding export of the United States nothing will change. Regarding opposition of customers, farmers and goverments against genetically modified products nothing will change. ‘Friends of the Earth" want the international trading system to be basically reformed, if the WTO acceded to the action. Protection of environment and human beings need to have priority" (FAZ, N° 34/2006, p.12).

For the USA the report is  „a milestone". U.S. Trade officials have admitted that the main impact of the WTO ruling will be to intimidate smaller nations from banning GMOs. The main intention is to sell gentically modified seeds to developing countries.

Trade experts think, „that the main intention of America’s action was not to sell these products to EU but to developing countries: It wants to prevent, that genetic engineering will also be refused in these countries and the markets stay closed." (FAZ, N° 32/2006, p.11).

Further reading and references:

Online-Magazines:recently published scientific research and practical advices on this topic can be found in the quarterly magazine Apiculture and Supplement Apicultural Review Letters
as well as in Natural Science and Science Review Letters
Genetically Modified Seeds Cause More Harm Than Good I-VI. More...
Cancer Caused By GMO's. More...
Genetically Engineered Plants Or Animals In Landscape - Who Is Responsible For It, Like Authorities Who Release The Rules, Can Be Taken To Court For It
Monsanto And The GM-Crop Disaster
Biosafety? Unscientific Assumptions The Basis Of Approvals? - Blatant Propaganda Exercise Stands Validated As Exemplary Science - Toxic Genetically Engineered Foods Could Have Been Approved.
Genetically Modified Foods And Seeds Are Unhealthy And Unsafe - Evidence Links GM Foods To Allergies
Green Biotechnology And Red Biotechnology In The Retreat
On The Risks Of Agro-Biotechnology I-V  - Negative Side Effects Of Genetically Modified Crops On Honeybees
"Genetic Engineering - Wrong In The Premises?"