IT HAPPENS ONLY IN INDIA,
GREAT JOB MR. PARMAR
it is good to eat as many as vegetables and fruits (totally vegetarian), but my aurvedic doctor asked me to stop eating every...
Proceedings in one of the most controversial disputes at the World Trade Organization (wto) have got underway. The matter deals with a "de facto" moratorium placed by the eu on approving genetically modified (gm) products. Initiated by the us, the case is being followed with close interest not just by other wto members, but also civil society observers. This is because its outcome could have a significant bearing on the future development of environmental, social and health aspects of trade policies. On June 2, a dispute settlement panel of the wto, which is entrusted with investigating eu's "protectionist" measures, held its first hearing. Interestingly, some groups have even filed amicus curiae briefs with the panel in a bid to influence the outcome.
Four and a half years after the restrictions came into place in October 1998, the us brought the issue to the wto on May 13, 2003. It sought consultations with the eu on the matter. Canada and Argentina, too, filed separate requests. All the three complainants alleged that the eu had erected an unjustified trade barrier that violated several wto agreements. Having failed to achieve a breakthrough, the us, Canada and Argentina requested the wto's Dispute Settlement Body to constitute a panel to investigate the eu's measures. Their plea was accepted on August 29, 2003.
Indeed on May 17 this year, the eu contended that the issue was too complex to be covered by the sps agreement alone, and that some aspects fell within the purview of the tbt pact as well as the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (gatt). More importantly, it stated that issues of environmental risks, certain health hazards and the conservation of biodiversity were best regulated by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The eu called upon the panel to interpret agreements "against the background of relevant norms in international law" outside the wto.
A group of 15 public interest organisations, which filed an amicus curiae brief with the panel on May 27, 2004, did not buy the us argument. In their brief, they argued that the benefits of the technology of genetic modification were meant to serve the interests of only large farmers in industrialised countries and multinational firms that retain monopoly control of seeds.
The us' claims were also opposed by an international team of scholars from the us and the uk in an amicus curiae brief they filed with the panel on April 30, 2004. They rejected the us view that risk assessment was conventionally understood as a factually grounded, value-free analysis requiring precise identification of possible harms to human health and the environment. The team pointed out that variable degrees of maturity of scientific knowledge base, and scientific and cultural contingencies in national contexts invariably influence risk assessments.
Another allegation levelled by the us is that the eu is causing delay. The latter counters this charge on the ground that the information it sought is essential. And, according to it, gathering these inputs is a time-consuming process.
In the coming weeks, both the eu and the us are expected to up the ante.