Biotechnology - Articles - Zimbio

The Significance of the WTO Biotech Ruling for LAC

Mon, 6 Mar 2007 01:58:55 GMT

posted by ioman01
TemasEtUnam

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel on biotech products involving Argentina, Canada, and the US vs. the European Union (EU) released its report at the end of September, I sat down to start this entry with an outline and list of possible points, thoughts, items to check on, etc. — my usual brainstorming.

I downloaded the panel report and tried to wade through it, but quickly gave up (it's hundreds of pages of interesting topics made to be as bland and boring as humanly possible). Then I checked the "quick and dirty" analyses done by many law offices, and got frustrated with the excessive legalese lawyers like to employ to make their writings unreadable and ponderous.

When I finally realized that the EU had been given a period to appeal, I shelved the entry until it was clear whether the EU would fight it and on what basis. That happened in late November when the EU let the deadline for appeal lapse, but at that time I was up to my chin in work and blog articles such as the examination of the Stern Review. Time now to catch up!

If you live, breath and obsess on biotechnology, or on biotech applications in agriculture, then this doubtless is not news to you. But many of us don't. The press was not very good about covering the issue, and where they did, they tended to focus almost exclusively on the US-EU dimension. As you well know by now, at The Temas Blog we have a different focus!

Why It Matters

I am not discussing this issue here simply because Argentina was one of the parties to the dispute. It matters to most, if not all, of the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) for several reasons:

many LAC nations are major exporters of agricultural goods — Argentina and Brazil are the largest, but they are far from alone — and many have pinned the future exports of some of their crops on genetically engineered crops;
a number of LAC nations are currently formulating their regulatory regimes for market approval of biotech products (for examples, see here, here and here), and now must take into account adjustments to avoid a similar trade law challenge;
the ruling may affect the use of the precautionary principle (see the Temas glossary for definition) in environmental regulation when the issue might involve a trade dimension;
the ruling may have broader implications for multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), whose provisions/ principles may be ignored when not all parties in the trade dispute have ratified the MEA in question.

It also should be noted that early on in the dispute panel process several WTO members, including the LAC nations Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, reserved their rights as third parties to benefit from the eventual ruling.

The Essence of the Dispute

The "biotech case" is actually three trade related dispute settlement filings rolled into one to be heard by a single WTO panel. In May 2003, Argentina, Canada and the US filed against the EU alleging that a de facto EU moratorium on approvals of biotech products from 1999 to 2003, as well as the existence of individual EU Member State (Austria, Italy, Luxembourg) marketing and import prohibitions ("safeguard measures") on previously approved biotech products, violated four different trade agreements overseen by the WTO. The panel basically threw out ("did not need to rule") charges related to three of these trade agreements, but decided to examine those related to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).

In its defense the EU argued that (1) it did not operate a de facto moratorium, pointing out that there was never an official communication to that effect; (2) there was no "undue delay" in approving products for commercial use; (3) measures were based on the "an expression of the precautionary principle" called for in the Biosafety Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention and utilizing SPS Article 5.7, allowing temporary action where there is felt to be there is insufficient scientific information on which to base a risk assessment (as the SPS usually requires for measures).

The dispute panel focused on three basic issues: (1) "undue delay"; (2) the SPS requirement that trade measures be based on a scientific risk assessment; (3) the precautionary principal/Article 5.7 defense. After many hearings, filings and amicus briefs, it:

found that the EU had in fact conducted a a de facto moratorium (one of the world's worst-kept "secrets"!) by not acting on affirmative risk assessments from its own scientific panels regarding 24 products during the 1999-2003 period.
determined that the EU had not shown "insufficient scientific evidence" actually existed to justify the member state safeguard measures.
accepted Canada's argument that the Biosafety Protocol was not relevant to the case, since none of the plaintiffs were party to the Protocol.
disallowed the use of the precautionary principle in this case, as it remains "unsettled" in international public law, and instead required that WTO member states stick to the SPS requirement of basing trade measures on "sufficiently warranted or reasonably supported by a risk assessment” as defined by the SPS.

So What Does This All Mean?

Beyond "compensation" to Argentina, Canada and the US (possibly as well for the other aforementioned nations that filed their interest in the outcome) for their claimed trade injuries as the result of the EU's actions found by the panel to be in violation of the SPS, this panel judgment has several very important policy impacts:

precautionary principle: the ruling calls into question the use of a "precautionary principle" defense in trade disputes involving environment- or health-justified product decisions. The ruling does not preclude its use sometime in the future when it better defined under agreements or jurisprudence, but for now will make governments think twice about making it a cornerstone of their decisions.
de facto moratoriums: EU officials had hoped to avoid trade difficulties by never making their biotech product approval moratorium "official." This was always a dubious tactic, particularly since in public records their own scientific risk assessment panels usually recommended product approval. Future governments wanting to avoid trade sanctions but wishing to delay or halt product approval based on popular pressure will have to become more subtle and creative, or else choose who they fear most: their trading partners or an upset consumers/voters.
scientific risk assessment: following on the prior point, if NGOs wish to block biotech product approvals in WTO contracting parties, they will probably have to work harder to call into question the scientific validity of the risk assessments presently used to decide such approvals.
Biosafety Protocol: many developing nations, particularly those in LAC, have based or are formulating their biosafety and biotech product approval regimes on the principles and directives of the Protocol. While this ruling does not preclude them doing so per se, it does suggest that WTO member nations (which includes all of LAC except the Bahamas) might run the risk of trade sanctions if their biotech regime does not adhere to a strict interpretation of the SPS as well. This is particularly a concern as long as major agricultural exporters such as Argentina, Australia, Canada and the US remain outside the Biosafety Protocol. [Note: among LAC nations, Argentina, Chile, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Suriname and Uruguay remain outside the Protocol.]
MEAs and the WTO: the enforceability of MEAs is now up in the air. Where nearly every WTO member is already a party to a MEA, as is the case of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer or CITES (trade in endangered species), then this is not so much a problem. But in the case of existing MEAs where many or key states have delayed or been "fence-sitting" about joining [say, the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes, or the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)], or for new MEAs contemplating trade-based safeguards, some less scrupulous governments now might perceive a trade advantage to not ratifying certain MEAs. This makes it all the important that the current "Doha Round" trade talks squarely address the balance between environment and trade priorities.

– Keith R

Copyright © 2007 The Temas Blog. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact legal@temasactuales.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

LAC Use of Biotech Crops Grew in 2006

Tue, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:35 GMT

posted by ioman01
TemasEtUnam

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) just released its annual "brief" on growth of genetically engineered crops ("biotech crops") worldwide, covering 2006. While the full report must be purchased, the executive summary is quite detailed and is available for download in several languages, including English, Spanish and Portuguese.

Among other things, the report for 2006 shows that seven of the top 22 biotech crop-growing countries are Latin American, and of the 14 "biotech mega-countries" (those growing 50,000 hectares or more of biotech crops), five are Latin American.

ISAAA is a not-for-profit organization created in the 1990s with the intention of transferring and delivering "appropriate biotechnology applications" to developing countries in the name of alleviating poverty, increasing crop production and income generation for resource-poor farmers while protecting the environment and promoting sustainable agricultural development. Donors include aid agencies such as USAID, DANIDA, GTZ and SIDA, private foundations such as the McKnight and Rockefeller Foundations, corporations such as Bayer CropScience, Cargill, Monsanto, Nestle, Novartis, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta, and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). ISAAA's Americas Center is located at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Highlights Relevant to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

Global Context:

13% annual growth in area devoted to biotech crop growing
102 million hectares (252 million acres) planted globally in 2006, the first year the total figure exceeded 100 million
10.3 million farmers worldwide planted biotech crops, the first year the figure has exceeded 10 million (only 8.5 million planted in 2005)
Of the 10.3 million farmers, 90% were small, resource-poor farmers in developing countries.
Since 1996 51 countries have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crop imports for food and feed use and for deliberate release into the environment. Among the list of top approvers, only one is from LAC (Mexico). A total 539 approvals have been granted for 107 events for 21 crops. Genetically engineered maize is the most approved event (35), followed by cotton (19), canola (14) and soybean (7).

Of the 14 biotech "mega" growing countries (planting over 50,000 hectares), five are from LAC: Argentina (ranked #2 globally), Brazil (#3), Paraguay (#7), Uruguay (#9)and Mexico (#13). Among the other eight biotech crop growing countries, two are from LAC: Colombia (#15) and Honduras (#18).

While the US and India were first and second in terms of greatest new acreage planted with biotech crops, Brazil was third (with 2.1 million new hectares in 2006) and Argentina tied for fourth with South Africa (at 0.9 million new hectares apiece).

Since the start of commercialization of biotech crops in 1996, herbicide tolerance has been the dominant trait, at 68% of global biotech crops (principally soybean, maize, canola, cotton and alfalfa), followed by insect resistance (19%, mostly Bt crops) and stacked genes (13%) for the two traits. Stacked-trait products is the fastest-growing category.

The brief also tries to make the case for use of biotech crops helping reduce agriculture's contribution to global climate change, arguing three main points:

First, permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions through reduced use of fossil-based fuels, associated with fewer insecticide and herbicide sprays; in 2005 this was an estimated saving of 962 million kg of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to reducing the number of cars on the roads by 0.43 million. Secondly, conservation tillage (need for less or no ploughing with herbicide tolerant biotech crops) for biotech food, feed and fiber crops, led to an additional soil carbon sequestration equivalent in 2005 to 8,053 million kg of CO2, or removing 3.6 million cars off the road. Thus, in 2005 the combined permanent and additional savings through sequestration was equivalent to a saving of 9,000 million kg of CO2 or removing 4 million cars from the road. Thirdly, in the future, cultivation of a significant additional area of biotech-based energy crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel will, on the one-hand, substitute for fossil fuels and on the other, will recycle and sequester carbon. Recent research indicates that biofuels could result in net savings of 65% in energy resource depletion. Given that energy crops will likely occupy a significant additional crop hectarage in the future, the contribution of biotech-based energy crops to climate change could be significant.

[Perhaps it is just me, but this reckoning seems a bit of a stretch. I'd welcome the input of others who spend more time on climate change as to the validity of these arguments.]

The brief also argues that biotech will contribute significantly to biofuels production over the next decade, and that this should be done in such a way that it primarily benefits poor farmers in developing nations:

Biofuels should not only benefit the national economy of a developing country but also benefit the poorest people in the country, who are mainly in the rural areas, most of whom are small resource-poor subsistence farmers and the landless rural labor who are entirely dependent on agriculture and forestry for their livelihoods.

The WTO Biotech Case, Revisited

Wed, 22 Mar 2007 14:26:37 GMT

posted by ioman01
TemasEtUnam

A few weeks back I discussed here the significance of the biotechnology dispute case at the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).

Well, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) just released as part of its Legal Papers Online series an analysis of that case and its significance done by a former legal consultant to FAO who is now an Economic Affairs Officer at the WTO — in other words, well placed to offer some insights on the issue.

Although the paper carries the usual disclaimer about being his own opinions and "do not necessarily reflect the views of the WTO," I think it is safe to presume that his views will not be greatly at odds with those of his current employer.

The writing is, well, pretty much what you might expect of a legal review, but not quite as stilted and dense as most. However, the author does take quite awhile (as do most writing legal reviews) in setting up the background and "facts of the case," and not as long as I'd like in discussing the lessons and implications drawn. Nonetheless, there are some useful tidbits, such as:

Although the precautionary principle thus finds some reflection in Article 5.7, the Appellate Body on several occasions noted that insufficient scientific evidence is not the same as scientific uncertainty. They should be regarded as two different concepts. It also noted that inconclusiveness of scientific evidence cannot, in itself, justify the application of Article 5.7 and that scientific uncertainty always exists.

and

…the Agreement does not require the importing country to carry out the risk assessment itself. It can use an assessment done by the exporting or another country or by an international organization, as long as it is appropriate. In particular in the case of food safety assessments (i.e. the bulk of GMO trade) it might be practical to rely on other assessments. If a GM product is known to have negative effects on human health, it makes little difference if the humans in question live in Vietnam, Switzerland or the US. The situation would be different in the case of risks to plant and animal health or the environment, since disease conditions, climate, geography, etc. would usually be different. Although seeking scientific evidence is ultimately the responsibility of the importing country, exporters could be requested in the national legislation of the importing country to submit all the relevant documentation in order for the importing country to be able to perform a proper risk assessment. In terms of cost, Annex C allows Members to impose fees for the procedures on imported products - as long as the fees are equitable in relation to fees charged on "like" domestic products and no higher than the actual cost of the service.

and

Countries have a sovereign right to set their appropriate level of protection (ALOP), i.e. decide to be more or less risk-averse. Where a risk assessment can only be based on scientific evidence and take into account a limited list of economic factors (in the case of animal and plant health), the process of deciding whether the identified risks are acceptable provides countries with a possibility to take other "socio-economic" considerations into account - as long as governments are open and avoid the acceptance of higher levels of risk in one case and lower levels in another if this is arbitrary and results in a disguised restriction to trade.

Worth checking if you follow biotech/biosafety policy.

The Case of the Missing Bees

Thu, 27 Apr 2007 21:57:15 GMT

posted by Zenshadow

At the end of this article I would like to say something like 'Elementary my dear Watson, the bees were taken by Professor Moriarty in the dead of night. He used this hankerchief as a Bee's Mask.". Unfortunately, I cannot provide such a Sherlock Holmes answer to this vexing question: Where have the bee's gone?

FYI: Yes, this post will bee very pun-ish about bees (and their knees). Nod, nod.

The case begins early this year when bee colony owners began reporting mass abandonments of their hives as they opened them up for Spring Pollination. What's odd is that there was no habeeus corpus, errr, bee bodies in or near the nests. In fact no bee corpses anywhere! The queen and some grubs were to be found, but they were not suspected of any abnormal beehavior.

So what? you say. To which I reply in the words of Albert Einstein:

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Note: A. Einstein is not a suspect in the Bee Caper. He's been dead way too long. Maybe he was psychic and trying to warn us?

Besides the scaricity of Honey, there are a LOT of agricultural products that depend on bee pollination.

Pollination management is a branch of agriculture that seeks to protect and enhance present pollinators and often involves the culture and addition of pollinators in monoculture situations, such as commercial fruit orchards. The largest managed pollination event in the world is in Californian almond orchards, where nearly half (about one million hives) of the US honey bees are trucked to the almond orchards each spring. New York's apple crop requires about 30,000 hives; Maine's blueberry crop uses about 50,000 hives each year.

Bees are also brought to commercial plantings of cucumbers, squash, melons, strawberries, and many other crops. Honey bees are not the only managed pollinators: other species of bees are also raised as pollinators. The alfalfa leafcutter bee is an important pollinator for alfalfa seed in western United States and Canada. Bumblebees are increasingly raised and used extensively for greenhouse tomatoes and other crops.

The ecological and financial importance of natural pollination by insects to agricultural crops, improving their quality and quantity, becomes more and more appreciated and has given rise to new financial opportunities. The vicinity of a forest or wild grasslands near agricultural crops, such as apples, almonds or coffee can improve their yield by about 20%. This may result in forest owners demanding payment for their part in the improved results. This is a simple example of the economic value of ecological services.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (BioScience, April 2006, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 315-317) reports that native insect pollination saves the United States agricultural pollination management industry nearly an estimated $3.1 billion annually through natural crop production.

Some scientists have estimated that the dollar value of bee pollination is worth more than one billion dollars per year in the United States, when determined in value of crops involved. Such figures are often questioned for their accuracy because the methods used in arriving at them are unclear. For example, we would not ordinarily associate bee pollination with milk production, but we could, and probably should ask, "What would happen if forage crops such as legumes were no longer available for milk cows?" Yet we might argue that a dairy farmer could substitute another food material. But would the cost be the same? Such arguments make dollar values of pollination difficult to determine. Irregardless of such arguments, the contribution of bee pollination to the production of agricultural crops is considerable. Without this contribution, modern agriculture would be seriously affected.

Busy bees, indeed.

Here's what we know about the Bee Crisis, "Honey, I Shrunk the Hive":

One Fourth of Bee Hives are exhibiting this 'Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)'. It is occuring in the United States and Germany. A recent report was also seen for Thailand. This is not a trivial number nor are the likely ramifications trivial either.

Manfred Hederer, the president of the German Beekeepers Association, reported a 25 percent drop in bee populations throughout Germany. In isolated cases, says Hederer, declines of up to 80 percent have been reported. He speculates that "a particular toxin, some agent with which we are not familiar," is killing the bees.

Since last November, the US has seen a decline in bee populations so dramatic that it eclipses all previous incidences of mass mortality. Beekeepers on the east coast of the United States complain that they have lost more than 70 percent of their stock since late last year, while the west coast has seen a decline of up to 60 percent.

In many cases, scientists have found evidence of almost all known bee viruses in the few surviving bees found in the hives after most have disappeared. Some had five or six infections at the same time and were infested with fungi -- a sign, experts say, that the insects' immune system may have collapsed.

The scientists are also surprised that bees and other insects usually leave the abandoned hives untouched. Nearby bee populations or parasites would normally raid the honey and pollen stores of colonies that have died for other reasons, such as excessive winter cold. "This suggests that there is something toxic in the colony itself which is repelling them," says Cox-Foster.

There is also a Varroa mite that bees are particularily susceptible to.

Global Warming has also been postulated as the 'culprit', but is not generally accepted by Scientists studying CCD. Another potential cause raised is Cell Phone Transmissions. This is also not a likely cause according to reputable sources.

Let us pray that we get this crisis solved soon! Seriously, this IS a Big Deal! In fact, I feel kinda bad about making jokes on this critical issue. Bees are Nature's Most Efficient Sex Machines for Plants. Can you imagine what the world would be like if there were no bees doing their 'pollination' thing? This isn't about 'The Birds and the Bees'. (well, maybe it is a little.) The world is all abuzz over this mystery. It's not a joke. We must get to the bottom of this... ASAP! Bee afraid. Bee very, very afraid!

Zenny, Bee Keeper & Insect Sleuth, Esquire

Souces:

US Govt forces biotech on the EU

Wed, 31 Jan 2008 20:22:00 GMT

posted by FoodSciYogi
I have posted recently on Europe's struggle to keep genetically engineered crops out of the the EU, but I'm not sure that I've communicated effectively the lengths that the United States and our biotechnology industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, Dupont, etc) will go to in their efforts to spread biotechnology around the world. This article (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2941452420080129?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0) is case in point. US trade representatives are manipulating World Trade Organization (WTO) authority in an effort to force the EU to accept biotechnology. If the EU wants to preserve biodiversity and maintain GMO-free land, why should they not have that right? The "Home of the Free" is most definitely becoming the "Home of the you'll-do-what-we-tell-you-to-or-else!" --- and I for one, don't like it.

And you know what really gets me? On the one hand our goverment is pushing biotechnology on the world and claiming the wonders and safety of its use --- and on the other, they put out calls for research proposals to investigate its safety. USDA CSREES (Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service) - the branch of USDA that funds most food research - released this call this week: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/biotechnologyriskassessment.cfm. Its purpose is to assist Federal regulatory agencies in making science-based decisions about the effects of introducing genetically modified organisms into the environment. Investigations of effects on both managed and natural environments are relevant. Applications must address one of the following areas: 1) Identify and develop practices to minimize risks associated with genetically engineered organisms; 2) Research methods to monitor the dispersal of genetically engineered organisms; 3) Research to increase knowledge about the characteristics, rates, and methods of gene transfer that may occur between genetically engineered organisms, and related organisms; 4) Perform assessments to provide analysis which compares impacts of organisms modified through genetic engineering to other types of production systems.

Does this not effectively indicate that there's still much that needs to be understood before releasing the technology on the earth?

What you can do:

Sign the anti-biotech petitions that are linked at the right side of this blog.
Urge your reps in Congress to protect the genetic integrity of non-GM crops.
Buy organic - our purchases are the most powerful way to force change in production.