US Suit to Force GE Crops on 
Europe Threatens Future 
Salmon Trade & Fisheries Conservation 

SUBLEGALS v.07, n.20 16May03

Growing tension over the trade and consumption of genetically modified food reached new heights on 13 May when U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Zoellick and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced that the United States is filing a suit with the World Trade Organization (WTO) to force the European Union (EU) to buy genetically-engineered (GE) crops from the U.S. (see Sublegals 7:07/09). A number of members of Congress have been urging the Bush Administration to take such action for months, claiming U.S. agriculture loses hundreds of millions of dollars annually on "unrealized exports" to European markets. The issue at hand is a temporary moratorium on the use of GE crops adopted by E.U. member states in 1998 under heavy pressure from European consumers. Two crops, soybeans and rapeseed, had been approved prior to the moratorium and were not affected by its passage. In October 2002 the EU. adopted a set of regulations governing the review and approval process for genetically modified crops. Since then two varieties of cottonseed oil have been approved for use, while several other crops and food products are currently under review.

What is troubling, however, particularly for U.S. salmon fishermen, is that strong-arm tactics by Zoellick and Veneman could result in a backlash in Europe against U.S. products, even those that are naturally produced, such as Pacific salmon. The trend in Europe has been for natural foods and there is strong opposition there to "frankenfoods" (GE foods). This trend has been good for the U.S. fishing industry that has begun exporting to Europe wild Pacific salmon for the first time in decades as Europeans are increasingly rejecting farmed salmon for wild. The GE suit also threatens exports of U.S. Dungeness crab, herring and other fish not otherwise available in European markets. Salmon conservation is also at stake. "This suit could put at risk the efforts to regulate GE salmon on the Pacific Coast including their introduction into Chile," according to trade specialist Victor Menotti with the International Forum on Globalization (IFG). "If the WTO overturns regulations for labeling it could undermine some of the tools fishing communities need to conserve fisheries resources."

On a global scale, the regulation of GE food and crops is at a crossroads. Proponents of GE foods, particularly biotech companies from the U.S., Europe and China, claim genetic engineering can solve supply problems that lead to hunger and starvation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a major proponent of GE foods, viewing them as the next step in the evolution of modern agriculture. USDA opposes European labeling of GE foods and has fought efforts to mandate the labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients in the U.S. as well.

Opponents contend GE foods pose threats to human health and the environment that are only just beginning to emerge. They also counter claims of increased productivity with examples of increased reliance on chemical pesticides and herbicides (often manufactured by the same company that sells the genetically modified seed), cross-contamination leading to uncontrollable super weeds and extremely limited genetic diversity.

The U.S. government is relying on a WTO requirement of "sufficient scientific evidence" for any practices that would hinder the trade of crops or food products on the basis of health or environmental concerns. However, with the adoption of new regulations in October of last year EU. officials have questioned publicly the motives for such a case. For more information, see the 13 May New York Times article by Elizabeth Becker "U.S. Challenges Europe on Genetically Modified Food"; also see the USDA press release: "US and Cooperating Countries File WTO Case Against EU Moratorium on Biotech Foods and Crops"; or the European Union's press release: "European Commission Regrets US Decision to File Case on GMOs as Misguided and Unnecessary."

Opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops is not just coming from Europe. Reuters reported that a Monsanto test farm in Ponta Grosso, Parana in Brazil was invaded by members of the Landless Peasant Movement (MST) to expel the U.S. biotech firm (seeds, chemicals, etc.) and set up an organic farm on the site. "The commercial planting of GM crops in Brazil has been banned since 1998. But a thriving black market in Monsanto's trademark Roundup Ready GM soy has developed in southern Brazil. The GM beans are thought to be smuggled in Argentina and Paraguay where RR soy is widely planted," reported Reuters. "Experimental GM planting, however, is legal and much of the company's research is conducted jointly with the government crop research arm Embrapa. Monsanto said test planting on its farms was in accordance with Brazilian law. Monsanto is one of Brazil's biggest producers and sellers of conventional soy, corn and other crop seed stock, as well as farm chemicals and fertilizers." Monsanto was also an opponent of California legislation to ban genetically modified (transgenic) fish in that U.S. state. See the complete Reuters article, Brazil: 800 Militants Invade Monsanto Biotech Test Farm."

In Australia, the State of New South Wales' (NSW) government said it would introduce legislation to impose a moratorium before the federal Gene Technology Regulator approved a commercial release of GM canola. "The NSW ban means Australia will not produce a significant GM canola crop this year even if federal authorities clear the way for it to do so. A moratorium on the commercial release in NSW of GM food crops such as canola, mustard and field peas is effective from March 2003," reported Reuters in: "Australia Farmers Support New South Wales (NSW) Government Stay on GM Canola" 19may03.

7:20/02. CALIFORNIA REGULATION ON TRANSGENIC FISH TAKES EFFECT, COMMISSION CONSIDERS AMENDMENT TO GIVE GREATER PUBLIC NOTICE: California's regulation of transgenic fish took effect on 14 May (see Sublegals, 7:07/08). The new regulation requires the registration of genetically engineered (or "transgenic") fish in the state and requires that they be kept in contained facilities. PCFFA and IFR, together with State Senator Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), had called for a moratorium on the importation or possession of transgenic fish in California until more is known about the risks they present. Similar bans are in place in Washington, Oregon and Maryland. The California Fish & Game Commission, however, voted on 7 February to adopt regulations for the fish instead of a prohibition. At its 7-8 May meeting in Riverside, the Commission took testimony on a proposed amendment to the regulations to give greater public notice on any pending transgenic fish application.

The concern over transgenic fish is a result of an application currently before the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) by the Waltham, Massachusetts biotech firm, Aqua Bounty Farms, for use of a genetically-engineered fast growing Atlantic salmon in fish farm operations (see Sublegals, 7:04/01; 6:24/09; 6:10/03; 6:08/01; 6:03/08; 6:02/06; 5:09/02; 5:01/05; 4:16/13; 4:11/10; 3:23/14; 3:19/03; 3:07/15; 3:05/15; 2:16/11; 1:15/07; 1:10/03). For more, see "It Came from the Gene Lab: Faster growing salmon? Aquarium fish that glow in the dark? Regulators are at a crossroads over bioengineered animals" by KENNETH R WEISS / The LA Times 14may03