1

Genetically Modified Genetically Modified OrganismsOrganisms

Emmanuel BaisireEmmanuel BaisireDaniel AbreuDaniel Abreu

Mohammed AlbashaMohammed Albasha Michael BayerMichael Bayer

2

What are GMOs?What are GMOs?

Genetic ModificationGenetic Modification Is a special set of technologies that alter Is a special set of technologies that alter

the genetic makeup of such living the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteriaorganisms as animals, plants, or bacteria GM products include medicines and vaccines, GM products include medicines and vaccines,

foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibersfoods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers The Science:The Science:

Combining genes from different organisms is Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be the resulting organism is said to be “genetically modified,” “genetically “genetically modified,” “genetically engineered,” or “transgenic”engineered,” or “transgenic”

3

Reaction to GMOReaction to GMO

4

Usage…Usage…

In 2003In 2003 167 million acres grown by 7 million farmers 167 million acres grown by 7 million farmers

in 18 countries were planted with transgenic in 18 countries were planted with transgenic cropscrops

The most used: herbicide- and insecticide-The most used: herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canolaresistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola

Crops used for field tests:Crops used for field tests: Sweet potato resistant to a virus that could Sweet potato resistant to a virus that could

destroy most of the African harvestdestroy most of the African harvest Rice with increased iron and vitamins that may Rice with increased iron and vitamins that may

alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asiaalleviate chronic malnutrition in Asia A variety of plants able to survive extreme A variety of plants able to survive extreme

weatherweather

5

Usage…Usage…

Planned tests:Planned tests: Bananas that produce human vaccines Bananas that produce human vaccines

against infectious diseases such as against infectious diseases such as hepatitis Bhepatitis B

Fish that mature more quicklyFish that mature more quickly Fruit that yield years earlierFruit that yield years earlier Plants that produce new plastics with Plants that produce new plastics with

unique propertiesunique properties

6

UsageUsage

In 2003, countries that grew 99% of In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were:the global transgenic crops were: US 63%US 63% Argentina 21%Argentina 21% Canada 6%Canada 6% Brazil 4%Brazil 4% China 4%China 4% South Africa 1%South Africa 1%

7

Benefits of GMOsBenefits of GMOs

CropsCrops Enhanced taste and qualityEnhanced taste and quality Improved resistance to Improved resistance to

disease, pests, and disease, pests, and herbicidesherbicides

Increased nutrients, yields, Increased nutrients, yields, and stress toleranceand stress tolerance

AnimalsAnimals Increased resistance, Increased resistance,

productivityproductivity Better yields of meat, Better yields of meat,

eggs, and milkeggs, and milk Improved animal healthImproved animal health

EnvironmentEnvironment Conservation of soil, Conservation of soil,

water, and energywater, and energy Bioprocessing for Bioprocessing for

forestry productsforestry products Better natural waste Better natural waste

managementmanagement SocietySociety

Increased food security Increased food security for growing populationsfor growing populations

8

Controversies…Controversies…

SafetySafety Potential human Potential human

health impacts:health impacts: allergens, transfer of allergens, transfer of

antibiotic resistance antibiotic resistance makersmakers

Potential Potential environmental environmental impact:impact:

Unintended transfer Unintended transfer of transgenes of transgenes through cross-through cross-pollinationpollination

AccessAccess Domination of Domination of

world food world food production by a few production by a few companiescompanies

Increased Increased dependence on dependence on industrialized industrialized nations by nations by developing developing countriescountries

9

ControversiesControversies

EthicsEthics violation of natural violation of natural

organisms’ intrinsic organisms’ intrinsic valuesvalues

Tampering with Tampering with nature by mixing nature by mixing genes among genes among speciesspecies

Objections to Objections to consuming animal consuming animal genes in plants and genes in plants and vice versavice versa

SocietySociety New advances may New advances may

be skewed to be skewed to interests of rich interests of rich countriescountries

LabelingLabeling Not mandatory in Not mandatory in

some countries some countries (US)(US)

10

The Case…The Case…

Measures affecting the approval and Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech productsmarketing of biotech products The parties:The parties:

Complainant: United StatesComplainant: United States Respondent: European UnionRespondent: European Union Third Parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Third Parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada,

China, Australia, China, Australia, Chile, Chinese Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, El Taipei, Colombia, El Salvador, Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, and Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, and

UruguayUruguay

11

Case…Case…

US claimed that EU measures were US claimed that EU measures were inconsistent with its obligations under:inconsistent with its obligations under: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures AgreementSanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement

Involves food safety and animal and plant health Involves food safety and animal and plant health regulations regulations

Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the AgreementArticles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement GATT 1994GATT 1994

Articles I, III, X, and XIArticles I, III, X, and XI Agreement on AgricultureAgreement on Agriculture

Article 4Article 4 Technical Barriers to Trade AgreementTechnical Barriers to Trade Agreement

It seeks to ensure that technical negotiations and It seeks to ensure that technical negotiations and standards, as well as testing and certification procedures, standards, as well as testing and certification procedures, do not create unnecessary obstacles to tradedo not create unnecessary obstacles to trade

Articles 2 and 5Articles 2 and 5

12

Case…Case… May 13, 2003May 13, 2003

The United States and Canada requested consultations with the EU The United States and Canada requested consultations with the EU concerning certain measures taken by the EU and its member States concerning certain measures taken by the EU and its member States affecting imports of agricultural and food imports from the United affecting imports of agricultural and food imports from the United States and CanadaStates and Canada

Claims by US and CanadaClaims by US and Canada The moratorium applied by the EU since October 1998 on the approval of The moratorium applied by the EU since October 1998 on the approval of

biotech products has restricted imports of agricultural and food products biotech products has restricted imports of agricultural and food products from the US and Canadafrom the US and Canada

A number of EU member States maintain national marketing and import A number of EU member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech products even though these products have already been bans on biotech products even though these products have already been approved by the EU for import and marketing in the EUapproved by the EU for import and marketing in the EU

August 7, 2003August 7, 2003 United States, Canada, and Argentina each requested the United States, Canada, and Argentina each requested the

establishment of a panelestablishment of a panel The DSB established a single panel on August 29The DSB established a single panel on August 29 thth

July 12, 2004July 12, 2004 The Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not no able The Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not no able

to complete its work in six months, due to the parties’ common to complete its work in six months, due to the parties’ common request for additional time to prepare their rebuttals, and the Panel’s request for additional time to prepare their rebuttals, and the Panel’s decision to seek scientific and technical expert advice pursuant to decision to seek scientific and technical expert advice pursuant to Article 11 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 13 of the DSUArticle 11 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 13 of the DSU

March 2005March 2005 Was the estimated date the Panel would issue its final report to the Was the estimated date the Panel would issue its final report to the

partiesparties

13

What Is The Issue?...What Is The Issue?...

Although citizens and governments in different Although citizens and governments in different countries all want to ensure that these GMOs do not countries all want to ensure that these GMOs do not pose a threat to human health or the environment, pose a threat to human health or the environment, they do not agree on the best way to protect against they do not agree on the best way to protect against these potential threatsthese potential threats

Trade problems arise when countries have different Trade problems arise when countries have different regulations regarding the testing and approval regulations regarding the testing and approval procedures necessary to place GMOs and their procedures necessary to place GMOs and their products on the market, or when they disagree about products on the market, or when they disagree about labeling and identification requirementslabeling and identification requirements

Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives, SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms, and it is not clear if potential risks from GMO foods fit and it is not clear if potential risks from GMO foods fit into one of those categoriesinto one of those categories

14

What Is The Issue?What Is The Issue?

Regulatory decisions based on safety Regulatory decisions based on safety cannot resolve the GMO debatecannot resolve the GMO debate

The debate is largely about what is best The debate is largely about what is best for society (and how to decide)for society (and how to decide)

Lack of regulatory frameworks for safety Lack of regulatory frameworks for safety decisions (National and International)decisions (National and International)

Market forces not sufficient Market forces not sufficient (externalities) not a lot of solid negative (externalities) not a lot of solid negative data against GMOdata against GMO

15

Arguments FromArguments From Both Sides Both Sides

16

Arguments From US, Arguments From US, Argentina, and Canada…Argentina, and Canada…

The US, Canada, and Argentina argued that The US, Canada, and Argentina argued that there is no need for scientific advice and that there is no need for scientific advice and that the dispute was about procedural mattersthe dispute was about procedural matters

The ‘suspension’ and ‘failure’ by the EU to The ‘suspension’ and ‘failure’ by the EU to consider applications for approval of GM consider applications for approval of GM products (the ‘de facto moratorium’) and the products (the ‘de facto moratorium’) and the national ban in Austria, France, Germany, national ban in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg on some GM Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg on some GM products which had already been approved by products which had already been approved by the EU before October 1998, have adversely the EU before October 1998, have adversely affected imports of agricultural and food affected imports of agricultural and food products from the US, Argentina, and Canadaproducts from the US, Argentina, and Canada

17

Arguments From US, Arguments From US, Argentina, and Canada…Argentina, and Canada…

The de facto moratorium and national ban The de facto moratorium and national ban violate WTO rules because they have not been violate WTO rules because they have not been scientifically justified, they were not published, scientifically justified, they were not published, and there has been ‘undue delay’ in assessing and there has been ‘undue delay’ in assessing applications for release and marketingapplications for release and marketing

EU delays have hindered development of GM EU delays have hindered development of GM technology, which is of proven safety and technology, which is of proven safety and brings great benefits, including hunger brings great benefits, including hunger reduction and improving health and crop reduction and improving health and crop productivity worldwideproductivity worldwide

Canada has argued that GM products should be Canada has argued that GM products should be treated no differently than non-GM productstreated no differently than non-GM products

18

Arguments From Europe…Arguments From Europe…

Europe argued that in a complex matter which Europe argued that in a complex matter which relates to the risks of GMOs, the Dispute relates to the risks of GMOs, the Dispute Settlement Panel must seek expert adviceSettlement Panel must seek expert advice

GMOs have characteristics which are GMOs have characteristics which are recognized by the international community to recognized by the international community to pose potential threats to human health and the pose potential threats to human health and the environment, and they cannot be treated as environment, and they cannot be treated as ‘like’ or ‘equivalent’ to non-GMO products‘like’ or ‘equivalent’ to non-GMO products

In addressing the potential risks for each GMO, In addressing the potential risks for each GMO, the Community regulatory framework has the Community regulatory framework has operated on a case-by-case basis, and there has operated on a case-by-case basis, and there has been no formal (de jure) or informal (de facto) been no formal (de jure) or informal (de facto) moratorium in respect of the authorization moratorium in respect of the authorization process or any part of itprocess or any part of it

19

Arguments From EuropeArguments From Europe

The approach of the European Union to the The approach of the European Union to the identification, assessment and prevention of risks to identification, assessment and prevention of risks to human health and the environment from each GMO human health and the environment from each GMO has been fully consistent with international standards, has been fully consistent with international standards, and any finding to the contrary would seriously and any finding to the contrary would seriously undermine a prudent and precautionary approach undermine a prudent and precautionary approach

The steps which have been taken to protect the The steps which have been taken to protect the environment and to conserve biodiversity are environment and to conserve biodiversity are reasonable and legitimate, are not necessarily sanitary reasonable and legitimate, are not necessarily sanitary or phytosanitary in character, and fall in whole or in or phytosanitary in character, and fall in whole or in part outside the scope of the SPS Agreementpart outside the scope of the SPS Agreement

There has been no undue delay and in any event such There has been no undue delay and in any event such steps are provisionally justified on the basis of the steps are provisionally justified on the basis of the insufficiency of scientific evidence insufficiency of scientific evidence

20

Panel DecisionsPanel Decisions

21

Possible Panel DecisionsPossible Panel Decisions

Panel rule against EU:Panel rule against EU: EU violation of the SPS rule against ‘undue delay’ EU violation of the SPS rule against ‘undue delay’

within the approval procedure of the SPS within the approval procedure of the SPS AgreementAgreement

EU’s failure to publish risk assessment of the EU’s failure to publish risk assessment of the harmfulness of biotech products (Article 5.1)harmfulness of biotech products (Article 5.1)

EU’s alleged moratoria is in place without EU’s alleged moratoria is in place without scientific evidence (Article 2.2)scientific evidence (Article 2.2)

EU’s violation of Article 5.5: application of SPS EU’s violation of Article 5.5: application of SPS measures without discrimination to domestic and measures without discrimination to domestic and imported products (i.e., genetically engineered imported products (i.e., genetically engineered seeds vs. processing agents)seeds vs. processing agents)

Panel rule against US:Panel rule against US: The panel might order the US to strengthen its The panel might order the US to strengthen its

approval and control procedures of biotech approval and control procedures of biotech companies (Mosanto Case: corn fed to rats companies (Mosanto Case: corn fed to rats changed kidney size)changed kidney size)

22

ProposalsProposals

GMO and other biotech products must GMO and other biotech products must meet internationally acceptable scientific meet internationally acceptable scientific standardsstandards

The panel should limit the extent to The panel should limit the extent to which parties can rely on international which parties can rely on international law norms not covered under WTO law norms not covered under WTO provisionsprovisions

Labeling and traceability of GM products Labeling and traceability of GM products should not be used as a tool to limit should not be used as a tool to limit GMO importsGMO imports

23

Implication Of The RulingImplication Of The Ruling

Plaintiffs are eligible for monetary Plaintiffs are eligible for monetary compensation due to EU regulations (US: compensation due to EU regulations (US: $300 million)$300 million)

A decision against the EU will affect its A decision against the EU will affect its regulatory system which will limit EU’s regulatory system which will limit EU’s power to apply a precautionary approachpower to apply a precautionary approach

Panel’s decision will serve as a precedent for Panel’s decision will serve as a precedent for future WTO rulings on food safety, public future WTO rulings on food safety, public health and environment healthhealth and environment health

US is likely to file another case against the US is likely to file another case against the EU directive “2001/18” on Labeling and EU directive “2001/18” on Labeling and Traceability of GMOsTraceability of GMOs

24

ConclusionConclusion

GMO ruling will demonstrate WTO’s GMO ruling will demonstrate WTO’s readiness to deal with precautionary readiness to deal with precautionary principle related to trade, health and principle related to trade, health and environment issuesenvironment issues

25

Work CitedWork Cited http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/

human_genome/elsi/gmfood.shtmlhuman_genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml Information about GMO involving the concept, Information about GMO involving the concept,

usage, and benefits and controversies directly usage, and benefits and controversies directly quoted from this sitequoted from this site

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htmcases_e/ds291_e.htm Information about the case involving the US and Information about the case involving the US and

EU directly quoted from this siteEU directly quoted from this site http://www.wto.org/english.docs_e/legal_e/http://www.wto.org/english.docs_e/legal_e/

legal_e.htmlegal_e.htm Information on legal documents such as TBT and SPS directly Information on legal documents such as TBT and SPS directly

quoted from this sitequoted from this site http://www.genewatch.org/wto/http://www.genewatch.org/wto/

wto_augustupdate.htmwto_augustupdate.htm Information on arguments of US, Argentina, Canada, and the Information on arguments of US, Argentina, Canada, and the

EC directly quoted from this siteEC directly quoted from this site