A5: SOCIETY, LEGISLATION AND POLITICS: PRACTICAL ESSAY

GMO and WTO

How are GMO discussed and negotiated in
the WTO?

NN

Word count: 600 Words

A5: Society, Legislation and Politics: Practical essay

January, 2011

NN

1. Introduction
Biotechnology and plant production with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a relatively young
phenomenon provoking controversial discussions about, morality, fears and safety, fed by uncertain
science about environmental and health safety (Wager 2009). In 2009 the worlds amount of with
GMOs cultivated area was 134 million hectares, an increase of 9 million hectares during 2008 (ISAAA
2009). The dimension of GM crops in Europe (EU) is much smaller than in the US (about 60% of
overall surface). But also the consumers attitude to the release of GM crops is in Europe much more
GMO critical than in the USA (Morris 2011). This two factors and different regulatory regimes towards
GMOs lead to potential trade conflicts (Perdikis et al. 2001). The World Trade Organization, (WTO), as
an international agreement of states, helping to promote free trade, by supporting rules of international
trade is the adequate institution to regulate such conflicts.

2. How are GMO discussed and negotiated in the WTO?

In the WTO agreements no specific rule or agreement dealing specifically with biosafety is in
existence. But According to Perdikis et al. (2001) the agreements on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) are the regulations central in
the case of GMOs.
The SPS Agreement regulates barriers to trade that are adopted to counter sanitary and phytosanitary
risks by requiring them to be legitimated on science (Foster 2009). Scientific judgment is achieved
through defined standards and international accepted bodies like Codex Alimentarius. The allocation
of science is in the GMO context not easy to handle and remains usually in scientific uncertainties that
requires long term studies but this procedure does not really exist in the SPS Agreement. So
precaution is limited to provisional measures in case of emergency and cannot be applied according to
precaution principles like in the EU (Noiville 2006).
The TBT Agreement ensures that regulations, standards, and certification of procedures and
production methods do not create unnecessary obstacles. Gen modification affects the development
of the seed but not the cultivation method, thus GMO products are treated in the same manner as nonGMOs are. This agreement includes a further scientific assumption: a scientific expert is accepted to
make a judgment weather a product can be risky. But this assumption has the same scientific
problems as already mentioned above. It seems that decisions how GMOs fit into this approach are
usually differently interpreted (Isaac and Kerr 2003).
Mandatory labeling as applied for product allergenicity is so far not adopted for GMO plant products
but the WTO agrees Codex Alimentarius norms and they plan the implementation of such norms. Thus
this will may become an instrument for better transparency in GM trade goods (Bereano 2006).

3. Conclusion
As Foster (2009) proposes, is the adjustment of precaution in the recent SPS agreement to be
improved. In the case of GMOs is now the precaution principle (used by the EU) not applicable and is
replaced by a principle of scientific traceability. The existing approach of the SPS Agreement is
insufficient for new scientific developments like GMOs, where long term studies are needed. In case of
opposing scientific opinions, is a precautionary approach needed. I detect in the area of environmental
hazards, political risks: only the WTO has international dispute settlement procedures (sanctions) but
no international environmental organization has such a powerful body to resist. Thus risk management
would be a politically adequate solution. But both benefits and risks have to be used to conduct riskbenefit analysis instead of focusing on risks (Morris 2011). But finally a label would probably disarm in
minimum health safety questions.

A5: Society, Legislation and Politics: Practical essay

January, 2011

NN

4. References
Bereano PL, 2006. Harmony or havoc: can the WTO, Biosafety Protocol and Codex Alimentarius work
together? Journal fr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 1 (2), 7376.
Foster CE, 2009. Precaution, Scientific Development and Scientific Uncertainty under the WTO
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Review of European Community &
International Environmental Law 18 (1), 5058.
ISAAA, 2009. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009 - ISAAA
Brief
41-2009
|
ISAAA.org,
retrieved
on
17.01.2011,
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp.
Isaac GE, Kerr WA, 2003. Genetically modified organisms and trade rules: Identifying important
challenges for the WTO. The World Economy 26 (1), 2942.
Morris EJ, 2011. A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk-benefit analysis. Transgenic Research,
117.
Noiville C, 2006. Compatibility or clash? EU food safety and the WTO. What's the Beef? The
Contested Governance of European Food Safety.
Perdikis N, Shelburne WA, Hobbs JE, 2001. Reforming the WTO to defuse potential trade conflicts in
genetically modified goods. The World Economy 24 (3), 379398.
Wager R, 2009. Comment on The future of agriculture. EMBO reports 10 (2), 104105.