GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE

» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization

» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism

» Deregulation and Access to Services

» Import Safety, Environment and Health

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Global Trade Watch blog on globalization & trade. Subscribe to RSS.

Debunking Trade Myths

To hide the facts about failed trade policies, proponents are changing the data

Connect with GTW

What's New - Global Trade Watch


View 'What's New' Archives

May 13, 2003

Public Citizen Denounces Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy at WTO; European Consumers and their Democratically Elected Governments Should Decide, Not WTO

Statement of Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Note: The Bush administration today announced it will formally challenge Europe’s moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

This case will become Exhibit No. 1 in the growing worldwide attack on the WTO’s legitimacy. The fundamental issue here is democracy: The people eating the food or living in the environment that could be affected must decide domestic policy, not some secretive WTO tribunal of three trade experts.

Indeed, polling shows that a majority of Europeans and Americans want GMO foods to be segregated from non-GMO foods and labeled so that consumers have a choice. The science on the long-term health and environmental effects of GMOs is incomplete, making limits on GMOs a prudent policy to avoid possibly irreversible damage to public health or the environment. Many U.S. laws, such as our drug approval process, also require the manufacturer to prove a product safe before it is allowed on the market (not that the government must prove it is dangerous).

Europeans who don’t want to eat GMOs or fear GMO crops’ environmental threats have democratically enacted these values and passed a policy to segregate and label food made with GMOs. The moratorium is an interim measure while the individual EU countries debate implementation of that policy. Because the Europeans apply these same rules domestically – in the same manner that they do to imports – there is no trade discrimination and thus there really is no trade issue here.

However, although there is no trade discrimination in this situation, there is a viable WTO case to be made in attacking the EU GMO moratorium. The WTO contains extensive subjective, value-oriented rules constraining signatory countries’ domestic food safety policies that limit the subject matter, level of protection and design of domestic food safety policies. One such WTO rule puts the burden of proof on countries seeking to regulate a product to show it is dangerous. This WTO rule means that policies based on the Precautionary Principle – that a manufacturer must show a product safe over the long term before it goes on the market – are forbidden. The Bush administration today is putting the interests of its agribusiness supporters over many of the values it purports to seek for the world: democracy, accountability and openness.

The Bush administration, and before it, the Clinton administration, have promised the American public that global trade deals will not and cannot undermine domestic laws. Yet time and again this has proved false. Until this GMO food challenge was launched, the focus this year had been on the Bush administration’s sneaky New Year’s Eve attempt to dramatically weaken the popular U.S. "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling regulation in the name of complying with a trade ruling. Now Europeans are seeing GMOs being forced down their throats by the powerful WTO dispute system.

###

 

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.