Miyoko Sakashita,IFG

Genetically engineered foods are stimulating a global uprising. Farmers in India have burned the genetically altered crops. Activists in Europe have pulled up many acres of modified plants. Consumers are wary and governments want the stuff labeled.

And the tension is likely to increase during the World Trade Organization's ministerial meeting this week. There are various proposals about agricultural biotechnology pending discussion. Charged to deregulate trade, officials at the WTO have the power to create a global rule about genetically modified foods behind closed doors.

Agribusiness corporations already export soy with petunia genes and corn with virus genes worldwide. A fledgling new science, genetic engineering has many people questioning the potential health, environmental, and economic risks of global trade in genetically modified organisms. So far, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia have mandated labeling of the new-fangled foods. This has US agribusiness worried about the loss of potential markets due to labeling and import restrictions. The US exports $51.7 billion worth of food each year and is currently the largest producer of genetically altered foods-already half of the soybeans and a third of the corn grown in the US springs from engineered seeds.

According to government officials, the US position at the WTO is to insist on a level playing field and to defend agricultural biotechnology with "sound science." Yet the Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety testing of GE foods. The FDA's own scientists warn that genetic engineering of foods may increase allergens or toxins in foods.

Environmental organizations are concerned about the unpredictable effects that the commercial release of hundreds of thousands of genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) may have on the ecosystem. Facing these concerns, many countries have chosen to take a precautionary stance when it comes to agricultural biotechnology.

The WTO is unlikely to be an ally of consumers concerned about man-made seeds. The trade body has so far consistently ruled against environmental and health standards when they come into conflict with free trade. When the European Union tried to ban beef from cows treated with cancer-causing hormones, the WTO ruled the ban was an unfair barrier to trade. It has also ruled that U.S. clean air regulations were too strict. Because the WTO is structured to consider only trade issues it lacks an adequate mechanism to evaluate the social, health, ethical, and environmental implications of very complex trade disputes. The record indicates that when it comes to genetically engineered products, the WTO is likely to choose to deregulate-limiting the ability of sovereign nations to pass laws that require testing or labeling or to regulate imports of GMOs.

In a WTO Listening Session last summer, hosted by the Department of Agriculture and the US Trade Representative, many farm leaders questioned the official position of the US to defend agricultural biotechnology. They pointed to the financial and production difficulties the modified crops have wrought on rural communities.

US trade officials side with the powerful agribusiness and agrochemical corporations. Jointly with the US government, these corporations have invested heavily in developing and patenting genetic technologies.

The Center for International Environmental Law reported that most developing countries want strong biosafety regulations governing the trade of genetically modified organisms. But many of them oppose the WTO taking on the issue of biotechnology-skeptical of decisions made by a body that has a pro-trade orientation. Furthermore, WTO rules may shift the burden of proof to governments rather than the companies peddling the laboratory-designed foods. Such "science based" rules, as proposed by the U.S., would unfairly burden southern governments that don't have the technical capacity to perform adequate scientific testing.

So far, existing WTO rules do not prohibit nations from labeling or regulating genetically engineered foods. Public interest groups want to keep it that way. We don't know what the WTO's new round of negotiations will bring, but perhaps the trade officials should keep a lookout for a genetically engineered-potato pie in the face.

home