US/EU dispute regarding GMOs

[Timber Loftis]

An interesting amicus curiae:
______________________________________
FIELD has been involved in submitting amicus curiae or 'friend of the court' briefs to a number of disputes within the WTO. Amicus briefs enable NGOs to participate in environmental policy making at the international level. It allows non-parties to submit relevant factual and legal arguments to a court when matters of significant public interest are at stake. NGOs have used these pleadings, for example, within the United States and South African court systems, and at the regional and international level, in human rights disputes. FIELD sought to introduce a similar practice to the WTO dispute settlement system, which is closed to the participation and scrutiny of civil society, despite the fact that it is involved in decision making over issues with profound environmental and social consequences.

A good example of the kind of disputes that come before the WTO dispute settlement body (DSB), is the current case being brought by the US against the EU over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On May 27 2004, an international coalition of public interest groups, including FIELD, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the WTO on this issue.
__________________________________________

Press Release

Full Brief

[Davros]

What is your take on it all TL? My thoughts are that countries should have the right to decide if they want to be GM free or not. If the EU decides it still wants the cautious approach then they have that right in my view. Governments are elected to take the wise decisions for their peoples.

[Timber Loftis]

We know I am anti-GMO. But, throwing the "opinion" side of the argument to the wind, this is also a legal question. And, legally, it ain't pretty for the anti-GMO folks.

Problem is Article XX(b) of the GATT and the Sanitary/Phytosanitary Side Agreement. These are the articles (basically a statement and an expansion of that statement) that the EU keeps looking to when justifying a trade restriction against GMOs. This "exemption" to the normal WTO rules gives a country the right to restrict a product that is harmful to human, animal, or plant health.

The problem is that thus far (dating back to Beef Hormone in 1997-98) the WTO's DSB requires that the country seeking to ban the product bear the burden of proof that the product is harmful. How heavy is the burden? Well, in Beef Hormone, the EU put up a lot of scientific opinion and the US put up basically *nothing* for evidence (claiming trade secrets of US companies), and the US still won. Get the picture?

What's worse, there is still no, nor has there ever been, a GATT/WTO exception for "environmental harm." Note that the quoted SPS exemption must focus on "health," which is not quite the same thing.

Okay, there's your ammo. Now, would somebody please take this info and sue one of my clients so I could get more business? Thanks. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]