GM WATCH COMMENT: It's hardly surprising the American Soybean Association are so desperate to break back into the European market and stop the growth of GM opposition elsewhere.

According to a recent report by Iowa State University grain market analyst Bob Wisner, US soybean exports to the EU have now "dropped to almost economically insignificant levels. Historically, the EU has been the largest overseas customer for U.S. soybeans and often has been its largest foreign buyer of soybean meal."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6994
---
---
U.S. SOYBEAN PRODUCERS EXPLORE POSSIBLE SECOND GMO CASE AGAINST EU
INSIDETRADE-24-43-11, October 27 2006

The American Soybean Association (ASA) has been meeting with administration officials to explore a possible second World Trade Organization case against the European Union’s traceability and labeling requirements for products that contain or consist of genetically modified organisms, according to informed sources. Sources said these exchanges have been examining both the implications of such a case and the various approaches that could be taken in the challenge itself.

However, sources stressed that this activity does not mean the Bush Administration has decided to pursue this challenge.

The aim of the current review, which involves the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as well as other agencies, is to explore these issues and narrow the differences between the U.S. government and ASA, which is a member of the Ag Biotech Planning Committee that has advocated the second challenge since 2004, these sources said. They described this as a preliminary assessment of the issues with no fixed deadline for reaching a conclusion on whether to bring a case.

This month, for example, ASA presented its view on the possible implications of a case. Proponents have argued that a victory in the WTO against the EU rules would prevent other countries from following suit with labeling requirements similar to the EU. However, opponents have warned that even a U.S. win could open the door to challenges against other labeling schemes used in the U.S. Opponents also said a U.S. loss in the case would accelerate the process of GMO labeling schemes around the world.

Other sources point out that market developments will ultimately force the EU to change its system, since the three major suppliers to its market are moving toward exclusively growing GMO crops. The U.S. has about a 90 percent GMO soybean crop, Argentina's crop is 100 percent GMO and Brazil may soon reach a 70 percent GMO level in its crop, one U.S. industry source said.

ASA considers it premature at this stage in the process to enlist members of Congress in its push for a case, but concedes such political pressure may ultimately be necessary to convince USTR to pursue a WTO challenge, these sources said. They point out that ASA and other members of the Ag Biotech Committee are still trying to develop their own strategy on how to best achieve their goal of launching a second challenge.

ASA has long argued that the traceability and labeling regulation has hurt the sales of U.S. soybeans for oil production in Europe, as food processors there have removed all soybean oil from their products for fear that they must carry the GMO label. The relevant EU rules stipulate that all products containing GMOs above 0.9 percent must be identified as containing GMOs (Inside U.S. Trade, May 19).

A potential second case would attack the regulatory framework established by the EU to handle GMOs, which the first U.S. challenge did not do. The first U.S. panel focused on the EU's moratorium on approvals of GMO applications and member states' bans of GMOs already approved by EU authorities as safe. The second case would most likely also focus on the Novel Food Law, which governs the approval and sales of GMO products and works in conjunction with the traceability and labeling requirements.

One of the technical issues that needs to be decided about a potential case is which aspects should be challenged under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and which ones under the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, or whether the case should focus exclusively on one of these agreements, sources said. The TBT says signatories should not issue regulations on labeling that are more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve their stated goal.

The stated goal of the EU for its labeling and traceability system is enhancing consumer choice and being able to identify and withdraw products from the market in case of a risk to human health and the environment. In the U.S. industry’s view, the EU could have opted for the less restrictive measure of a voluntary label proclaiming a product to be a non-GMO product.

The case could also charge that the EU regulations are not based on science as required under the TBT, which says a risk assessment should be based on available scientific and technical information.

In a July meeting, USTR officials seemed to focus on the fact that the TBT agreement is relatively untested in dispute settlement cases and that its provisions are not as clear as those in the SPS Agreement (Inside U.S. Trade, Aug. 18). They have also made it clear that they would not consider a second case until there was a final decision in the first U.S. GMO challenge of the EU moratorium. The decision of that panel was made public in late September, but it could be appealed by the EU.
---
---
STOP GM WINE!http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=87&page=1

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive