Free Trade Rules OK?

The controversial issue of genetic engineering has a longer history than the recent explosion of media interest would suggest. Pressure groups such as Greenpeace had been warning of the dangers for almost a decade, and attracting little media attention, when, in 1997, came strong hints of a trade war between the US and the EU over GM crops. Responding to immense consumer concern, the EU proposed segregating and labelling genetically engineered food. But the United States government vehemently opposed any segregation or labelling. US Trade Representative Charlene Barchefsky estimated that the EU proposal would threaten $4-5 billion in annual US agricultural exports. In June 1997, she gave a stern warning to EU leaders that they could expect 'at the minimum' punitive action through the WTO if they allowed European concerns to disrupt US agricultural trade.

In May 1998, Codex Alimentarius, the UN body responsible for establishing international rules on food, rejected consumer demands for segregation of GM and non-GM ingredients and for comprehensive labelling, and recommended instead 'a much more limited labelling regime that suited the food and genetic engineering industries'. Julian Edwards, Director General of Consumers International, representing 235 consumer organisations in 109 countries, stated:

'One of the ironies of this issue is the contrast between the enthusiasm of food producers to claim that their biologically engineered products are different and unique when they seek to patent them and their similar enthusiasm for claiming that they are just the same as other foods when asked to label them.'

Following sustained pressure from consumer groups and environmentalists, the European Commission introduced a limited labelling scheme - despite threats of a trade war with the US - covering GM soya and maize. However, soya and maize derivatives which are used in most processed food in Europe, including soya oil, lecithin and corn (maize) syrup, were excluded from the labelling scheme, to the dismay of pressure groups.

Even the limited EU proposal was vociferously opposed by US agricultural companies. American farmers, who export about a quarter of their soya crop to Europe, were afraid that they would be forced to segregate the modified crop from the non-modified variety, at least for the European market, and that they would have to be harvested, transported, stored and shipped in separate and clearly labelled streams. Not only would this raise costs to producers, but they feared that consumers would steer clear of the labelled modified foodstuffs. The response of US business groupings such as the American Soybean Association was to state that segregation was 'impossible' and to co-opt the US Department of Agriculture to threaten to obtain a damning judgement from the WTO, namely that Europe's labelling plans were an impediment to free trade and therefore illegal. A senior British government adviser on GM food later admitted that Britain had 'missed a trick' in allowing the importing of GM crops from the US. Professor Derek Burke, chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, admitted that it should have been anticipated that US farmers would mix GM and non-GM crops and export them together in bulk, in the knowledge that any ban would contravene free trade agreements.

The British government's limited response to increasing public opposition to GM food was to introduce labelling of such produce when served by cafés and restaurants. This was criticised by public interest groups as inadequate, hasty and unenforceable. The legislation was introduced in March 1999, with caterers being given 6 months to tell customers whether or not they were serving GM food. The law came into immediate effect, however, for retailers such as supermarkets. And so, rather than apply a labelling policy 'upstream', at the producers' end - which would undoubtedly incur the wrath of the World Trade Organisation as 'hindering free trade' - the labelling policy was applied 'downstream', leaving retailers and restaurateurs with the problem of finding out from their food suppliers exactly which items, if any, had GM ingredients. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only sent out guidance on how the law would operate more than half-way through the 6-month notice period. Not only had the government failed to tackle unfair free trade rules, but it had dumped responsibility for enforcing the new labelling law onto local authorities which complained - understandably - that they would not have sufficient trading standards officers to check whether restaurants and cafés were labelling correctly their meals.

More twists in the tale were to follow. In October 1999, the EU agreed that food marked 'GM free' may actually contain up to 1 per cent genetically modified ingredients. Another flaw in labelling schemes was highlighted when a British newspaper reported that Monsanto used genetic engineering to produce the common food sweetener aspartame. GM bacteria are used during the manufacturing process, but because there is no modified DNA in the finished product, the use of genetic engineering does not show up in tests. Consumer groups argued that there was no guarantee that aspartame made using genetic engineering could not be imported from the US into the UK, and that further testing for toxic side effects should be carried out.

The fundamental mismatch between WTO-promoted 'free' trade and public concern is hardly ever mentioned in mainstream reporting. One exception was a report by The Independent's environment correspondent who noted in 1997, when GM food technology started to hit the headlines, that recent events 'showed how global free trade could bypass Britain and the EU's laws and licensing system for the introduction of genetically modified foods.' However, such reporting is rarely expanded upon, nor are deeper questions raised. Which other laws protecting the environment, health and labour standards are being overridden by 'free' trade? Who are the powerful corporations and state politicians behind such developments? Why are they pushing GM technology instead of organic agriculture? How can it all be turned around for the benefit of people and the environment?

[The above article is an extract from 'Global Genetics': Chapter 7 of 'Private Planet' (Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2001). See http://www.private-planet.com for more about the book.]


- medialens -