European protesters tear up genetically modified plants at a farm in Warwickshire, England.

Food Fight

Europe and America gear up for a confrontation at the WTO

BY Amanda Castleman
Europeans have never liked genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The products—nicknamed “Frankenfoods”—have been banned in Europe for the past five years.

These days, Europeans fear long-term health consequences and environmental contamination. They want to track GMOs from the seed sack to the dinner table, so any trouble can be quickly pinpointed and controlled. And they demand labels on all modified products, giving each citizen the ability to choose whether to purchase them.

But the outright GMO ban ends this year, and the European Union is renegotiating its policy. Politicians have been slowly hammering out the details of the plan, amid fierce public protests. But many member states—including Italy, France, Greece, Austria and Denmark—remain dubious. Their demands for maximum protection have delayed action.

Now, America plans to administer a force-feeding. The United States—peeved by the loss of $300 million in agricultural sales each year—is threatening to spark a trade war over GMOs.

In February, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and several other members of Congress urged the Bush administration to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization. U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick also advocates a WTO case, but prefers strength in numbers. In January, he called for an international coalition against “Luddite” Europe. Only Argentina, another GMO breadbasket, has expressed any interest in the crusade.

The bluster has not impressed politicians across the pond. E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy responded: “If there was to be litigation, of course we would fight it, and I believe we would win it.”

A WTO case is far more likely to alienate Europeans than persuade them, E.U. officials warn. They have asked the Bush administration to be patient and allow the political process to unfold. At a February press conference, Franz Fischler, the E.U. farm commissioner, explained: “We are in the final phases of passing our laws in Parliament, and we would strongly advise not to start an action that would disrupt that.”

Expecting a renewed push now that the war in Iraq is over, Europeans remain wary. The philosophical rift between Europe and the United States over GMOs is wider—and stormier—than the Atlantic. America unflinchingly added GMOs to the menu in 1996 (though a modified tomato had flopped two years before). Experts estimate that 70 percent of processed goods in U.S. supermarkets contain engineered ingredients.

Soybeans, corn and canola oil are the main genetically engineered crops in America. These staples appear in bread, cereal, crackers, flour, pasta, margarine, chocolate, candy and ice cream. Not even infant formula is au naturel any more—though manufacturers are not required to indicate that on the packaging.

So far, biotech companies have filed 19 applications to sell genetically modified products in Europe. Many Europeans see this as selling out to agribusiness and international pressure. American critics consider the E.U. application process a sham that would require U.S. growers to completely transform their processes for growing and storing food.

Europeans might agree. Because of the way they’re grown, says Pete Riley from Friends of the Earth U.K., few American crops would pass muster. “The European market wants to track food from the field to the plate,” he says.

The intent is to be able to quickly pre-empt disasters like the outbreak of mad cow disease that struck Europe during the ’90s. “We see this as quite modern and 21st century,” Riley continues, “while the American system seems quite backward and 17th century.”

Yet trade officials are unlikely to respect Europe’s autonomy when agribusiness companies like Monsanto are faltering financially. A WTO case could last three years, sparking immense bitterness between the two blocs.

Improperly handled, modified genes could imbalance the ecosystem and agriculture—and mistakes have already been made. Critics accuse Monsanto and other big biotech companies of trying to contaminate the entire world’s seed stock, thereby rendering the debate over GMOs moot. With stakes so high, Winters says, “This case could undermine the entire legitimacy of the WTO.”
  • Reader Comments

    There’s no doubt in my mind that GMOs are going to disrupt the natural process of how our food is grown, which could harm the human body in the long run.  These people (scientist and what I called “white collard thugs politicians”) are plain plying god with our most precious source in this world: our food.  But the question is not whether or not this process of growing crops, by means of GMOs, would harm humands, but whether people are getting the massage and are becoming educated on the subject.  I can see this issue becoming an epidemic in the future, considering that we still haven’t unlocked the secretes of the genetic code for all the living species in this world. 
    Perhaps one good example that can give all of us a good lesson that when we pretend to be mother nature and interfear with its natural process of creation, is that of the cloned lamb a few years back.  It took scientist almost eighty times to be able to cloned a lamb——It makes me wonder how many times scientist have tried to engeenered food? and that’s if they tried at all to perfectioned the process of GMOs!

    Posted by Billy Niebla on May 16, 2003 at 11:44 PM

    What the above poster wrote is left-wing environmentalist propaganda. If genetic engineering was not used we would only be able to grow 80% of what we grow now. It is estimated that one billion (thats not a typo) people have been saved from starvation because of genetic engineered foods. It is very easy for those who don’t have to worry about having food on their plates to be angry with genetic engineered foods.

    As many liberals say, “It’s time for us to be citizens of the world.” Well most of the world needs this

    Posted by Brad on May 22, 2003 at 11:35 AM

    I really think the whole philosophy of genetically modifying crops to one’s advange is really a matter of guessing who’s advantage we’re talking about.

    Scientist develop a strain of rice that contains a massive dose of vitamins: Good

    Monsanto’s R&D is caught tinkering with a plants DNA in hopes of “turning off” its immune system: Pure Evil!

    GMO’s, on their own, are no simple matter of black and white. There are plenty of great things that can come out of it as well as terrible results from modifying plants for profit, instead of the greater good, and ending up with things like the “suicide seed” and other strains completely dependant on pesticides and special fertilizers made by the companies who tweaked the plants in the first place.

    Laws should be made as to what can and cannot be done. They are way overdue and it really is up to the media to see more than just a simple Yes-No issue.

    Posted by Alex on May 26, 2003 at 9:24 AM

    Alex, you’re right there are definitely some things that shouldn’t be done, but I don’t have a problem with Monsanto’s R & D tinkering with plants DNA. R&D doesn’t mean it will happen and even so, I believe they would never come out with that type of product and if we can figure out how to “turn off” an immune system, we could probably figure out how so switch it on.

    Posted by Brad on May 26, 2003 at 1:26 PM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account