MagazineR745

The US and the EU may have puton a joint face at this month’scollapsed World TradeOrganisation talks in Mexico, butdisputes between them overgenetically modified crops aredeepening. Italy won the right toimpose an emergency ban ongenetically modified foodproducts when Europe’s highestcourt intervened in the bitterdispute between Rome and USbiotechnology companies.

But Italy’s victory was not clearcut and could be short-lived. TheEuropean court of justice said thatRome would have to provide‘detailed’ evidence that GMproducts posed a risk to humanhealth before any emergency banwas imposed.

The court was asked to review adecision by Rome in August 2000to temporarily ban flour used inanimal feed that came fromgenetically modified cornproduced by Monsanto EuropeS.A., Syngenta AG and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

The court also warned that itcould not rely on hypotheticalevidence or supposition. Productscontaining minute traces of GMmaterial could not beautomatically banned, the courtruled. The ruling came at a keytime for the EU which is trying tointroduce a strict regulatoryframework for the introduction ofnew GM crops.

The matter will now be referredback to the Italian courts whichwill have to decide whether or notthe Italian government had beenjustified in 2000 in banning severalvarieties of GM maize that weresold elsewhere in the EU.

Both the Italian government andthe biotech industry claimedvictory after the court’s decision,but anti-GM campaignersstressed that the main thing was

that the Italian ban would remainin place. “The court recognisesthat member states have a right toprotect consumers’ health, a rightthat clearly prevails over thefreedom of trade principle,” saidRoberto della Seta, aspokesperson for the Italianenvironmental groupLegambiente. Geert Ritsema,GMO campaigner at Friends of theEarth Europe, said: “There is hugeskepticism in Italy about GMtechnology.”

But industry groups took heartfrom the court’s insistence onsolid justification for even atemporary ban. “We hope that thissets the basis for more clarity,”said Adeline Farrelly, spokepersonfor Europabio, which representsthe biotech industry in Brussels.

The ruling came at a keytime for the EU which istrying to introduce a strictregulatory framework forthe introduction of new GMcrops

The case centres on EU rules onthe safety of genetically modifiedproducts, which are about to bereplaced and follows an escalationearlier this month in the ongoingdispute between the US and theEU over such products.Washington asked the WorldTrade Organisation to force theEU to lift its five-year-old ban onnew GM products.The USrequested the formation of a WTOdispute settlement panel to decideonce and for all who is right onGM technology. The call wasbacked by Argentina and Canada.

Washington said it hoped thatthe panel – which could take up to

18 months to pronounce – wouldrule that the EU’s failure to allowthe sale of 30 US biotech productson precautionary grounds wasillegal.

The EU response wasimmediate. It said it regretted themove, blocked the formation ofthe panel (something it is allowedto do only once) and claimed thatthe case would confuse alreadyskeptical European consumers.“We regret this move to anunnecessary litigation,” saidPascal Lamy, EU tradecommissioner. “The EU’sregulatory system for GMOs isclear, transparent, reasonable andnon-discriminatory. We areconfident that the WTO willconfirm that the EU fully respectsits obligations.”

The EU environmentcommissioner Margot Wallstrom,warned that the US move couldbackfire. “There should be nodoubt that it is not our intention tocreate trade barriers. But myconcern is that this request willmuddy the waters of the debate inEurope. We have to createconfidence among citizens forGMOs and then allow them tochoose.”

A de facto EU moratorium on allnew GM product approvals hasbeen in place since 1998 becauseof widespread public uneaseabout the technology. The EU hasrecently finalized new rules on theauthorization and labelling of suchproducts, which it argues meansthat the moratorium is now deadand that new GM products can beapproved. However, most EUmember states are still draggingtheir feet over letting in newproducts and Washington isgrowing impatient. And the issueof labelling is causingconsiderable concern for many inthe industry.

The prospect of new GMapprovals is in part the reason forthe Italian government’s efforts toseek to extend the ban. The courtdecision follows on from efforts by

News focus

Italy sets new hurdles for GM crops

The long-running dispute between Europe and the US on GM cropsdeepened this month as Italy won the possibility to extend the ban onnew GM crops being planted on its territory while American tempersfrayed. Nigel Williams reports.

many regions in Europe to try toseek a ban on the growing ofgenetically modified crops in theirareas. Britain’s Lake DistrictNational Park is one example ofmany regions in several countriesincluding Italy, France, Germanyand Austria, seeking to ban thecrops. In many cases the regionsbelieve it would make sound

commercial sense to be able tomarket their produce as ‘GM-free’.

Meanwhile, the EuropeanCommission seems to havescotched the idea of localauthorities imposing any sort ofblanket ban. In a recent test case,the Upper Austria region tried todeclare itself a GM-free zone, butthe commission refused approval

following a report by the newEuropean foods standards agencythat said there was ‘no new publichealth or environmental relatedevidence that would justify adifferent approach being taken inUpper Austria than for the EU ingeneral’.

If the US wins its WTO case, theEU could be forced to authorizethe sale and marketing of the 30biotech products in question andmight have to compensate USfarmers for their losses. Those areestimated at nearly $300m a yearin lost corn exports alone. Fortyper cent of the 79.1 million acresof corn grown this year in the USis from genetically modified seed.In Europe, only 62,000 acres arebeing grown commercially, all inSpain.

Linnet Delly, the US WTOenvoy, said that the EU’srestrictive GM policy was unfair toother countries and held back atechnology that “holds greatpromise for raising farmerproductivity, reducing hunger andimproving health in the developingworld, and improving theenvironment.”

“Decisions about the food weeat should be made in Europe,”said Martin Rocholl of Friends ofthe Earth Europe.

And in the US newer biotechcrops, such as herbicide-resistantsugar beets or fungal-resistantpotatoes, have found few growersdue to the lack of markets, someexperts have warned. Foodcompanies have been scared offby negative publicity and lawsuitssurrounding episodes like thatthree years ago in the US, whencorn not approved for humanconsumption found its way intothe food supply, LeonardGianessi, a US government-supported researcher toldreporters in Brussels.

In a statement, Monsanto, oneof the key US biotech companies,remained upbeat. It welcomed theruling and expressed confidencein the final victory, noting that anItalian scientific institute in 2000found no evidence of health risks.“It’s a positive outcome for us.We anticipate that the Italiancourt will follow it and theposition will be revoked,” aspokesperson said.

Current Biology Vol 13 No 19R746

La dolce vita: Consumers at the heart of Rome’s shopping and dining district, as else-where in the country, are unlikely to encounter products made with genetically modi-fied ingredients for sometime yet to come. (Photograph: Associated Press.)