Time for the GM Moratorium to Go
Conko and Prakash Op Ed in The Wall Street Journal Europe
After months of anticipation, the U.S.
formal complaint today with the World Trade Organization against the European
Union's five-year moratorium on new genetically modified crop varieties. The
move will undoubtedly be ridiculed as a cynical attempt by Americans to force
GM products down the throats of skeptical Europeans. Yet, while theU.S.
surely motivated by a parochial desire to aid American farmers, filing such a
complaint will have benefits far beyondU.S.
are sure to be resource-poor farmers in less developed countries.
By now, many readers will be familiar with the story of Zambian President
Levy Mwanawasa, who, last autumn, rejected some 23,000 metric tons of food aid
in the midst of a two-year-long drought that threatened the lives of over two
million Zambians.
President Mwanawasa's public explanation was that the GM maize from the
United States
that the bigger concern was for future corn exports to the EU market. If even a
little of the food aid were diverted to seed stock, it could threaten the
exportability of the entire Zambian maize crop for many years to come.
Zambia
consequences throughout the developing world. Thai government officials have
been warned by European importers not to authorize any GM rice varieties.
Uganda
indefinitely.Argentina
are already permitted in European markets. EvenChina
of millions of euros funding advanced biotechnology research, has refused to
authorize any new GM food crops since the moratorium began.
Critics often deride GM crops with built-in pest, weed, and disease
resistance as helpful only for wealthy farmers in industrialized nations; but
developing countries could benefit tremendously from the adoption of GM crops.
As much as 40 percent of conventional crop productivity inAfrica and Asia is lost
to insect pests, weeds, and plant diseases. But many of the same GM crops
available inNorth America are already helping poor farmers in South Africa
India China Philippines
the amount of insecticides or eliminating them altogether. Indeed, studies of
South African and Chinese cotton growers suggest that small farmers actually
achieve disproportionately higher benefits from GM relative to larger
competitors because expensive machinery can at times be made obsolete.
What's more, GM crops with added nutritional benefits—such as the much-
touted golden rice and high-protein sweet potatoes—are likely to be
available within a few years.
Still, the EU moratorium persists after five long years despite copious
evidence that genetic modification does not pose any risks that aren't also
present in other crop-breeding methods. A review of 81 separate research
projects, conducted over 15 years and funded exclusively by the EU, found that GM
crops and foods are just as safe for the environment and for human consumption
as conventional crops, and in some cases are even safer because the genetic
changes in the plants are much more precise.
Dozens of scientific organizations, including the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization, have studied GM techniques and
given them a clean bill of health. And in December, the French Academies of
Medicine and Science added their names to that growing list and called for an
end to the moratorium.
Some will claim that the EU is already set to end the moratorium just as soon
as its new approval regulations and labeling and traceability rules are
implemented by member nations. Why risk a consumer backlash at a time when the
moratorium's end is within sight? But this naive assertion overlooks four
important facts.
First, several EU members have already missed the first deadline for
implementing the new GM rules, and debates still rage over the coexistence of
GM, conventional, and organic crops. How close are they really to ending the
moratorium?
Second, even if implementation is ultimately completed, what is to prevent
individual members from ignoring the EU-wide rules? The European Commission has
been famously impotent in pressingAustria Luxembourg Italy
products that have already been approved by the EU.
Third, the new GM labeling and traceability rules are hardly an improvement
on the current situation. Industrialized countries like theUnited States
Canada Australia
the added cost and complexity of the labeling and traceability rules would only
replace a de jure ban with a de facto one, shutting them out of the GM
revolution for good.
Fourth, special regulations based solely on the process used in a product's
creation are just as illegal as a ban under the terms of international treaties
signed and ratified by the EU. So, the new GM rules don't even serve to bring
the EU into WTO compliance. Nor are they needed, since voluntarily labeled non-
GM foods can be found in almost every shop inWestern Europe , giving consumers
choice.
Interestingly, studies of consumer behavior show that, where labeled GM foods
and labeled non-GM foods are available, even most European consumers seem to be
indifferent to the "genetic status" of the goods they purchase. Indeed, the
best possible scenario for all involved would be to end the moratorium
immediately and genuinely expand consumers' ability to choose.
The EU's blatant flaunting of scientific assessments is why a WTO challenge
is likely to succeed. And the fact that less developed countries are most
likely to benefit is why theUnited States
140-member World Trade Organization would send an important signal from the
international community that the EU's groundless and genuinely harmful
biotechnology restrictions must go.
formal complaint today with the World Trade Organization against the European
Union's five-year moratorium on new genetically modified crop varieties. The
move will undoubtedly be ridiculed as a cynical attempt by Americans to force
GM products down the throats of skeptical Europeans. Yet, while the
surely motivated by a parochial desire to aid American farmers, filing such a
complaint will have benefits far beyond
are sure to be resource-poor farmers in less developed countries.
By now, many readers will be familiar with the story of Zambian President
Levy Mwanawasa, who, last autumn, rejected some 23,000 metric tons of food aid
in the midst of a two-year-long drought that threatened the lives of over two
million Zambians.
President Mwanawasa's public explanation was that the GM maize from the
that the bigger concern was for future corn exports to the EU market. If even a
little of the food aid were diverted to seed stock, it could threaten the
exportability of the entire Zambian maize crop for many years to come.
consequences throughout the developing world. Thai government officials have
been warned by European importers not to authorize any GM rice varieties.
indefinitely.
are already permitted in European markets. Even
of millions of euros funding advanced biotechnology research, has refused to
authorize any new GM food crops since the moratorium began.
Critics often deride GM crops with built-in pest, weed, and disease
resistance as helpful only for wealthy farmers in industrialized nations; but
developing countries could benefit tremendously from the adoption of GM crops.
As much as 40 percent of conventional crop productivity in
to insect pests, weeds, and plant diseases. But many of the same GM crops
available in
the amount of insecticides or eliminating them altogether. Indeed, studies of
South African and Chinese cotton growers suggest that small farmers actually
achieve disproportionately higher benefits from GM relative to larger
competitors because expensive machinery can at times be made obsolete.
What's more, GM crops with added nutritional benefits—such as the much-
touted golden rice and high-protein sweet potatoes—are likely to be
available within a few years.
Still, the EU moratorium persists after five long years despite copious
evidence that genetic modification does not pose any risks that aren't also
present in other crop-breeding methods. A review of 81 separate research
projects, conducted over 15 years and funded exclusively by the EU, found that GM
crops and foods are just as safe for the environment and for human consumption
as conventional crops, and in some cases are even safer because the genetic
changes in the plants are much more precise.
Dozens of scientific organizations, including the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization, have studied GM techniques and
given them a clean bill of health. And in December, the French Academies of
Medicine and Science added their names to that growing list and called for an
end to the moratorium.
Some will claim that the EU is already set to end the moratorium just as soon
as its new approval regulations and labeling and traceability rules are
implemented by member nations. Why risk a consumer backlash at a time when the
moratorium's end is within sight? But this naive assertion overlooks four
important facts.
First, several EU members have already missed the first deadline for
implementing the new GM rules, and debates still rage over the coexistence of
GM, conventional, and organic crops. How close are they really to ending the
moratorium?
Second, even if implementation is ultimately completed, what is to prevent
individual members from ignoring the EU-wide rules? The European Commission has
been famously impotent in pressing
products that have already been approved by the EU.
Third, the new GM labeling and traceability rules are hardly an improvement
on the current situation. Industrialized countries like the
the added cost and complexity of the labeling and traceability rules would only
replace a de jure ban with a de facto one, shutting them out of the GM
revolution for good.
Fourth, special regulations based solely on the process used in a product's
creation are just as illegal as a ban under the terms of international treaties
signed and ratified by the EU. So, the new GM rules don't even serve to bring
the EU into WTO compliance. Nor are they needed, since voluntarily labeled non-
GM foods can be found in almost every shop in
choice.
Interestingly, studies of consumer behavior show that, where labeled GM foods
and labeled non-GM foods are available, even most European consumers seem to be
indifferent to the "genetic status" of the goods they purchase. Indeed, the
best possible scenario for all involved would be to end the moratorium
immediately and genuinely expand consumers' ability to choose.
The EU's blatant flaunting of scientific assessments is why a WTO challenge
is likely to succeed. And the fact that less developed countries are most
likely to benefit is why the
140-member World Trade Organization would send an important signal from the
international community that the EU's groundless and genuinely harmful
biotechnology restrictions must go.
