BioWorld International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union has reacted with protestations of shock and dismay to the United States' announcement of a formal World Trade Organization complaint against Europe's de facto moratorium on genetically modified organisms.

So, too, have European environmental organizations. But the European industry is hoping for an early resolution, which would ease its problems just as much as those of U.S. manufacturers.

The U.S. launched its long-threatened war on May 13. It is acting with Argentina, Canada and Egypt to challenge the European Union embargo on approvals of agricultural biotech products for planting or import. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Agriculture claim the EU moratorium violates a WTO agreement on protecting food safety because it was imposed five years ago without sufficient scientific evidence. They also point out that the WTO requires that regulatory approvals proceed without "undue delay."

The European Commission immediately announced its "regret" at the U.S. decision, which it called "misguided and unnecessary." The action is "legally unwarranted, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful," according to EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, who has frequently discussed the issue with U.S. officials over the past two years. He defended the EU's regulatory system for GMO authorization as "in line with WTO rules. It is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. There is therefore no issue that the WTO needs to examine." He openly questioned the U.S. motive for the action.

An accompanying statement from the European Commission pointed out: "The U.S. is by far the main maize producer in the world and exports around 20 percent of its production. However, emerging countries such as Argentina and China have started to compete with the U.S. maize export," and as a result "its exports are affected."

David Byrne, European commissioner for health and consumer protection, said, "We have been working hard in Europe to complete our regulatory system in line with the latest scientific and international developments. The finalization process is imminent." And European Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom added: "This U.S. move is unhelpful. It can only make an already difficult debate in Europe more difficult." However, she insisted that Europe should move ahead with completing legislation on traceability and labeling on food and feed.

The EU conceded in its May 13 statement that "since October 1998, no new GMOs have been authorized for release into the environment," but said that was "due to the fact that the EU's regulatory regime was incomplete to address the challenges posed by modern technology of genetic modification." Since the new regulatory framework came into force in October 2002, biotech companies can submit revised applications for approval of their innovative products, it pointed out. "Recently, two cotton seed oils for food use have been placed on the market in the EU following authorization. A number of new applications for marketing of GMOs are at an advanced stage of examination and may therefore be granted over the next months in line with EU legislation."

The EU also pointed out that the U.S. has so far opposed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, intended to ensure that countries "have the necessary information to make informed choices about GMOs." The EU statement said the U.S. is against Cartagena "because the enforcement of the protocol will interfere with the main U.S. agriculture commodity exports." The EU also alleged that the "Starlink" case - where GM corn not approved for human consumption was found to have entered into the U.S. food supply chain - "is a clear example of the need for appropriate rules."

Environment pressure group Friends of the Earth greeted the U.S. move as "the latest in a series of attempts by the U.S. to block other countries' decisions to protect their environment, human health and social standards." It claimed the U.S. action "threatens to bring the full force of WTO sanctions to bear in order to force GM food into European markets regardless of the wishes of European consumers."

EuropaBio, the EU biotechnology industry association, said, "The EU biotech industry understands the frustration of the EU's trading partners with some member states which continue to look for justifications not to permit the importation of safe products of GM technology." It would have been preferable to resolve this issue without WTO action, EuropaBio said, but "the EU biotech industry is also frustrated with the delays in implementing EU rules." It said the de facto moratorium by some member states "reduces the choices of other member states that wish to use this technology."

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said, "The EU's persistent resistance to abiding by its WTO obligations has perpetuated a trade barrier unwarranted by the European Commission's own scientific analysis, which impedes the global use of a technology that could be of great benefit to farmers and consumers around the world. We've waited patiently for five years for the EU to follow the WTO rules and the recommendations of the European Commission so as to respect safety findings based on careful science."

Joining the WTO challenge as third parties are Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay. The move also is backed by a pro-agricultural biotech lobby of 20 Nobel laureates and more than 3,200 scientists, who recently signed a declaration demanding change.

WTO rules permit countries to regulate crops and food products to protect health and the environment, but require that members have "sufficient scientific evidence" for such measures, and that they operate their approval procedures without "undue delay." Consultations will take place over the next 60 days, and if no resolution has been achieved, then the U.S. and the cooperating countries can seek the formation of a dispute settlement panel to hear arguments. Dispute settlement procedures, including appeal, typically take 18 months.

More than 145 million acres (58 million hectares) of biotech crops were grown in the world in 2002. Worldwide, about 45 percent of soy, 11 percent of corn, 20 percent of cotton and 11 percent of rapeseed are biotech crops. In the United States, 75 percent of soy, 34 percent of corn and 71 percent of cotton are biotech crops.