International Trade Reporter | Volume 16 Number 24 | June 16, 1999
GENEVA - The United States and Canada expressed concerns to the World Trade Organization about the increased use of mandatory labeling measures for genetically modified foods.
U.S. officials told a June 11 meeting of the WTO's Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade that five new GMO-related measures have been adopted by countries in the first five months of 1999 alone, compared with five for all of 1997-98 and only one during 1995-96.
Canada complained about recent measures proposed by the governments of Australia and New Zealand on labeling requirements for genetically modified foods, measures that Canada claims will apply to foods that are no different, essentially, from their conventional counterparts.
Brazilian officials also told the committee that internal preparatory discussions were now under way on its own GMO-labeling proposal. And India said all genetically altered food exported to developing nations that do not have adequate laboratory resources should be labeled.
The two North American countries have criticized the adoption of GMO labeling plans, arguing the labels are a potential barrier to trade and that there is no scientific justification for treating genetically modified foods differently from conventional foods.
The two countries are particularly critical of European Council Regulation 1139/98, which entered into force last year requiring products containing modified corn and soybeans to carry information on the food label or ingredient list stating that the product contains genetically modified material. Washington and Ottawa claim that their exports of corn and soybeans to the EU are being adversely affected by the labeling requirement.
At the June 11 meeting, Canada charged that the EU measure was not based on a clear rationale and said it was still not satisfied with the EU's response to its concerns.
Canada and the United States could take their complaints to a WTO dispute settlement panel, but trade officials in Geneva say that is highly unlikely given the political sensitivity of the issue. They indicated this was particularly so in light of the EU's recent decision to halt approval proceedings for bt maize seeds due to the potential threat to monarch butterflies, as well as concerns about European foods such as "mad cow" disease and dioxin contamination of Belgian poultry and eggs.
Codex Venue
EU officials responded that their consumers were increasingly concerned about the health and environmental risks from GMOs and that there was strong demand for additional information on GMO food products. The EU also said that while it was willing to continue bilateral negotiations with Canada on the measure, it remained committed to the labeling requirements.
The United States is proposing that WTO members work together on developing global GMO standards through the Codex Alimentarius, a body set up in 1962 by the U.N.'s World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization to establish international recommendations on food safety. Codex standards are recognized under the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures as the basis upon which members may impose restrictions on food imports for health and safety reasons.
An FAO official told the WTO that Codex will consider whether to establish a new committee on GMOs at its next commission meeting scheduled to take place in Rome June 28-July 3.
Norwegian officials agreed with the EU on the need to promote consumer confidence in foods through transparent labeling arrangements. They pointed out that Norway had notified the committee of its own GMO-labeling measure in August 1997.
In other action at the meeting of the WTO's Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade:
Canada and the United States criticized the EU June 11 for a draft proposal that would ban the use of batteries containing cadmium. Canada urged the EU to await the results of an ongoing Belgian risk assessment on products using cadmium-based batteries and called on Brussels to work with non-EU countries on developing alternative approaches to a ban. The United States also called on the EU to consider alternatives to a ban, such as increased collections of used batteries.
The two countries also reiterated their criticisms on a proposed EU directive that would require companies that sell electronic equipment such as computers, stereos, and televisions to either set up their own take-back systems for recycling their goods or to contribute financially to a local recovery program for electronic waste. The United States argues that the take-back obligation will be burdensome for foreign electronic firms that are not physically located in the EU. Canada said it is also concerned about provisions in the directive that would restrict the use of nonferrous metals in such products.
The EU replied that both proposals were still in the drafting stage and that changes to them may still be made before adoption.
The EU raised objections to a Japanese law on the classification of marine engines for fishing vessels. The law, which was adopted in 1950 and amended in 1997, harms EU exports by indexing engines according to size rather than power, Brussels charged. The EU also said Japan had no basis for a claim made during bilateral discussions that the size categorization was justified on the grounds of protecting fish stocks.
Copyright c 1999 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.International Trade Reporter:
