WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- A confidential report by the World Trade Organization has found the European Union in violation of world trade laws for use of a moratorium on genetically modified food products from the United States, Canada and Argentina, according to a U.S. trade official.
The preliminary ruling concluded that the EU's effective ban on biotech foods from 1998 to 2004 was a violation of global trade rules. Under WTO rules, moratoriums are barred. The final ruling is due out later this year.
The judgment, initially scheduled for March 2005, has been delayed six times and is expected to be the longest in history, at around 800 pages, according to the U.S. trade office.
The U.S. brought the case to the WTO in May 2003 after arguing the EU's moratorium was not based on scientific evidence, but protectionist measures intended to keep U.S. products out of European markets. Canada and Argentina also joined the complaint.
All three countries are the world's leading biotech crop growers. Out of the 90 percent of GMO products exported, 55 percent come from the United States, 19 percent from Argentina, 10 percent from Brazil and 6 percent from Canada.
According to the U.S. State Department, American farmers have claimed $300 million in lost sales of GM corn and soy products to the EU since 2002.
The EU has contested the U.S. complaint, arguing that Brussels has never had a moratorium, but has had a lengthier regulation process to approve biotech food products and crops, unlike other countries. According to the European Commission, more than 30 GMO products have been approved for marketing in the EU, and in early January 2006 the EU granted approvals to three new GM maize corn products.
"The claim that there is a moratorium on approval of GM products in Europe is self-evidently untrue," said the commission. "The EU approval process may appear to be lengthy for some countries which adopt a more lenient approach towards food and environmental safety issues."
The European Union was expected to be found culpable of using strict policies to block U.S. and foreign genetically modified food products and crops this week by the WTO. However, it is widely anticipated that Brussels will do little to open its borders and may simply accept retaliatory action by member states.
Under the rules of the WTO, the EU can either appeal or simply ignore the ruling and accept retaliatory duties placed on some of its exports to the United States.
"Contrary to U.S. claims, the EU is one of the largest importers of GMOs and derived food and feed," said the commission. According to the EU's executive branch, the 25-member block is the largest soybean and soy meal importer.
While the EU lifted its moratorium two years ago and now allows a modified strain of sweet corn, the U.S. argues the EU's action has irregardless been harmful to both U.S. and foreign farmers.
The Bush administration contends that current EU policies serve as a disincentive to farmers who are looking to expand their biotech crops, as well as other countries who fear that pursuing the technology would be disadvantageous if other markets are kept closed.
Already Switzerland, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Algeria, Ghana, Zambia and Georgia are among the countries that have banned planting genetically modified crops.
Washington also claims that the EU decision to hold a moratorium was not based on health or safety risks, but rather on political concerns from certain member states including France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Greece.
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., urged the E.U. to comply with the WTO's interim ruling and allow U.S. agricultural exports into its market.
"Between high tariffs, questionable regulations and outright moratoria, the European Union has effectively closed its market to our most competitive agricultural exports," said Sen. Baucus. "Sound science -- not unfounded speculation -- must form the basis of trade in agriculture."
While the administration has been asking that the EU open its market to U.S. biotech products, some analysts warn that a ruling in favor of the U.S. may undermine the regulatory measures currently in place in the EU which may risk food safety.
Critics have also rebutted claims that biotech food and crop products can be created to feed the world's starving. They also argue that there has been no proven health or environmental benefits to GM crops. Rather, they say GMOs are no cheaper than regular food products and have not helped alleviate hunger in Africa, because crops are generally used for animal feed.
While opponents say there is a high risk of engineered genes, proponents argue that technology helps to boost yields and cuts the number of times chemicals must be sprayed, which ends up limiting run-off and erosion.
