"U.S agro-chemical giants will not sell a bushel more of their
GM grainas a result of the WTO ruling. European consumers, farmers
and agrowing number of governments remain opposed to GMOs, and this
will notchange - in Europe or globally," said Daniel Mittler,
GreenpeaceInternational trade advisor. "The $300 million lost
exports for US GMmaize growers per year (1) will continue, and
remain a warning toexporting countries that GMOs are not wanted in
Europe."
"This verdict only proves that the WTO puts trade interests
above allothers and is unqualified to deal with complex scientific
andenvironmental issues. The US administration and agro-chemical
companiesbrought the case in a desperate attempt to force-feed
markets withGMOs, but will continue to be frustrated," said Daniel
Mittler.
In August 2003, the US, Canada and Argentina took the EU to the
WTO forsuspending approvals for biotech products, and for six
member states'national bans on EU-approved GMOs.
Despite the ongoing case in Geneva, European governments voted
with aclear majority in 2005 to retain existing national bans on
GMOs (2) andindividual countries continue to reject GMOs. Greece
last weekannounced an extension of its ban on seeds from a type of
GM maizeproduced by Monsanto. Austria also recently announced its
intention toban the import of a GM oilseed rape. These bans, in
addition to thoseimposed last year by Hungary and Poland, 172
regions in Europe whichhave declared themselves GMO-free zones, and
a Swiss moratorium decidedby public referendum, show that Europe is
steadfast in rejecting GMOs.
EU legislation on the approval and labelling of GMOs is not at
stake and will remain unaffected by the outcome of the WTO
case.
Other contacts: Daniel Mittler, Greenpeace International WTO expert +49 171 876 5345 (currently in Dubai)Eric Gall, Greenpeace EU Unit, GE expert, +32 496 161 582 (in Brussels)Katharine Mill, Greenpeace EU Unit media officer, +32 496 156 229 (in Brussels)
Notes: 1. The US claims $200 million lost sales for corn products alone, $300 million for corn and soy products. See “European Commission Opts Not To Push For End of GMO Moratorium,” INSIDE U.S. TRADE, January 25, 2002 ; or http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs984/wrs984e.pdf2. The EU Commission tried to use the WTO case to force five European countries (Greece, France, Austria, Luxembourg and Germany) attacked by the US to lift their national bans (Italy, the sixth, lifted its ban two years ago). When the EU Commission put its proposals aimed at the lifting of bans to a vote at the EU Council of Environment ministers on 24 June 2005, 22 countries out of 25 voted against the Commission's proposals and decided that the bans were justified and should remain in place. This forced the EU Commission to withdraw its proposals. Greenpeace briefing on national safeguard clauses (‘bans’): http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/NationalBans0507.pdf3. A Greenpeace briefing on the WTO dispute on GMOs is available at http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/WTObriefing0602.pdf