<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Hallo Miteinander,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>heute zunächst die Ressourcen der
aktuellen Ausgaben von Bridges und weiter unten selektierte Infos zum Thema
WTO-Konferenz in Cancun. Zu Beginn zwei Nachschlagewerke: zum Cartagena-Protocol
von ISAAA (die erste vernünftige, wenngleich nicht besondders
aufschlussreiche Publikation der Org; 37Kb) und zur WTO (Glossar: Decoding
the WTO; 874 Kb)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR>RESOURCES<BR><BR>26 DAYS LEFT BEFORE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON
BIOSAFETY ENTERS INTO FORCE:<BR>NECESSARY ACTION, PREPARATIONS, AND
CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE 11TH SEPTEMBER<BR>2003. By the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech<BR>Applications (ISAAA, 2003). The document
contains information about actions<BR>that will be required by the Cartagena
Biosafety Protocol (CBP) once it goes<BR>into force on September 11, 2003. It
also provides background information on<BR>the CBP and relevant links. The
document is available online
at<BR>http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Bin/Issues/Cartagena/index.htm<BR><BR>CRACKING THE
WTO CODE: UNDERSTANDING TRADE TERMS. By Friends of the Earth<BR>International a
guide to help would-be trade campaigners crack the WTO code.<BR>Understanding
trade jargon is an essential first step for anyone wanting to<BR>understand or
change the international trade system. For the sake of<BR>simplicity this guide
does not attempt to analyse any of the terms that are<BR>included – it is more
like a quick-reference dictionary. Also, this tool<BR>does not in any way cover
the entire range of terms used on a day-to-day<BR>basis by those that are on
WTO-related issues. The guide is available online<BR>at:
http://www.foei.org/publications/trade/wtoglossarysnenglish_lowresol.pdf<BR><BR>PUBLIC
FORUM ON GENE-SPLICED CROPS. Launched by Unilever, Co-operative<BR>Group,
Greenpeace, and the Consumers' Association (July 2003). Two of<BR>Britain's
largest retailers, Unilever and Co-operative Group, have joined<BR>forces with
the Consumers' Association and Greenpeace to set up an<BR>"independent GM
citizens' jury" in a bid to aid government thinking as it<BR>decides whether to
allow GM crops to be grown commercially in Britain. The<BR>jurors will produce a
report at the end of September outlining its<BR>conclusions and overall verdict,
which will be then presented to food,<BR>farming and environment ministers to
review. For further information
see:<BR>http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsletter&topic_id=2&<BR>subtopic_id=9&doc_id=5738<BR><BR>THE
ECONOMICS OF GENERATING AND MAINTAINING PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS IN CHINA.<BR>By
Koo, B.; Pardey, P.G.; Qian, K.; Zhang, Y. (International Food
Policy<BR>Research Institute, July 2003). This paper empirically examines the
pattern<BR>of plant variety protection (PVP) applications in China since its PVP
laws<BR>were first introduced in 1997. It places those PVP rights in the context
of<BR>China's present and likely future seed markets to identify the
economic<BR>incentives and institutional aspects that influence decisions to
develop and<BR>apply for varietal rights. The paper concludes that if China
adopted the<BR>U.S. pattern of PVP costs, the economic extent of protection
would expand<BR>considerably. However, this result is sensitive to a number of
assumptions,<BR>not least those regarding the present value of the costs to
develop new<BR>varieties versus the costs of protecting the intellectual
property embodied<BR>in them. The paper is available online
at:<BR>http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp100.pdf<BR><BR>COMMUNITY
FARMERS AND BREEDERS RIGHTS IN AFRICA: TOWARDS A LEGAL FRAMEWORK<BR>FOR SUI
GENERIS LEGISLATION. By Kameri-Mbote, P. (International<BR>Environmental Law
Research Centre, July 2003). This article analyses<BR>international and Kenyan
legal frameworks for the protection of biodiversity<BR>and plant varieties. It
looks at TRIPS and the CBD in terms of their<BR>coverage, synergies and recent
developments. It seeks to identify<BR>cross-cutting issues and trends pertinent
to the protection and enforcement<BR>of community, farmers' and breeders' rights
through sui generis systems. It<BR>argues that laws protecting biodiversity in
general and plant varieties in<BR>particular are steeped in favour of individual
property rights not suited to<BR>protecting those of the community. Developing
countries, particularly in<BR>Africa, should seize the opportunity given to them
by TRIPS to devise a sui<BR>generis system to protect their plant varieties. The
article is available<BR>online at:
http://www.ielrc.org/Content/A03021P.pdf<BR><BR>BETWEEN MYTH AND REALITY:
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAIZE, AN EXAMPLE OF A<BR>SIZEABLE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY.
By Wisniewski, J. P.; Frangne, N.;<BR>Massonneau, A.; Dumas, C. (Biochimie vol.
84 (11), Editions Scientifiques et<BR>Medicales Elsevier SAS, 2003). This
debate, which addresses both safety and<BR>ethical aspects, has raised questions
about the impact of genetically<BR>modified (GM) crops on the biodiversity of
traditional landraces and on the<BR>environment. The authors review some of the
key points of maize genetic<BR>history as well as the methods used to stably
transform this cereal. They<BR>describe the genetically engineered Bt-maizes
available for field<BR>cultivation and they investigate the controversial
reports on their impacts<BR>on non-target insects such as the monarch butterfly
and on the flow of<BR>transgenes into Mexican maize landraces. For further
information contact:<BR>Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon, tel: +33 4 72 72 80
00.<BR><BR>GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS. By Nigel G Halford (Imperial College
Press,<BR>London, July 2003). This book describes the history and development of
the<BR>science and techniques that underpin plant biotechnology, GM crops that
are<BR>grown commercially around the world and the new varieties that are
being<BR>developed. It covers failures as well as successes. The safety record
of GM<BR>crops is reviewed together with the legislation that has been adopted
to<BR>cover their use. The book also deals with the concerns of consumers, the
GM<BR>crop debate and the prospects for the technology. More information can
be<BR>viewed online at the link
below:<BR>http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/lifesci/p284.html<BR><BR>AGRICULTURE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS. By Dale<BR>Colyer (in the Estey
Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy,<BR>July 2003). The paper
explores the implications for agriculture and the<BR>environment of
international trade agreements, such as the World Trade<BR>Organisation, the
Free Trade Area of the Americas, and other regional and<BR>bilateral trade
agreements. Agriculture is and will continue to be a major<BR>contributor to
environmental degradation, inducing the conversion of natural<BR>ecosystems to
agricultural production as the sector responds to increased<BR>demand for food
and fibres due to increases in population and wealth. The<BR>paper can be viewed
at: http://128.233.156.252/estey/<BR><BR>STOLEN FRUIT – THE TROPICAL COMMODITIES
DISASTER. By Peter Robbins (Zed<BR>Boods, July 2003). Fifty or more developing
countries still depend mainly on<BR>the tropical commodities or minerals that
they produce. But encouraging so<BR>many countries to grow coffee, sugar, cotton
and other crops has been a<BR>disaster. Peter Robbins examines how this
situation came about, the current<BR>trading arrangements and the possible ways
forward. He argues that, if<BR>developing countries are to measure up to the
scale of the disaster facing<BR>them, they must take a leaf out of supply side
economics, and take the<BR>measures to bring supply and demand into a balance
that will secure them far<BR>higher and more stable prices. For further
information or to order a copy of<BR>this title by post, contact Mohammed Umar,
tel: +44 (0)20 7837 4014; fax:<BR>+44 (0)20 7833 3960; email:
sales@zedbooks.demon.co.uk;
Internet:<BR>http://www.zedbooks.demon.co.uk/<BR><BR>ENDING HUNGER IN OUR
LIFETIME: FOOD SECURITY AND GLOBALISATION. By C. Ford<BR>Runge, Benjamin
Senauer, Philip G. Pardey, Mark W. Rosegrant (International<BR>Food Policy
Research Institute, 2003). The authors of this book bring good<BR>news: hunger
can be banished in our lifetime. They first distil what is<BR>already known
about fighting hunger and then report on important new<BR>research findings and
projections that show it can be done, through new and<BR>renewed institutions,
scientific innovation, global economics and<BR>investment, and sustainable
environmental practices. Anyone wanting a better<BR>understanding of poverty and
hunger and how to end it will benefit from<BR>reading it. For further
information visit:<BR>http://www.drc.org.nz/bookshop/Detailed/771.html<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Environment
at the
WTO<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>WTO
NEGOTIATIONS SPEED UP IN LEAD-UP TO CANCUN<BR><BR>>From 10-14 September WTO
Members will meet in Cancun, Mexico, for the fifth<BR>WTO Ministerial Conference
to take stock of the current round of trade<BR>negotiations launched in Doha,
Qatar, in November 2001. Environment- and<BR>biodiversity-related issues
explicitly feature within the negotiating<BR>mandate of the Committee on Trade
and Environment (CTE), but are also folded<BR>into other negotiating areas,
including agriculture, fisheries, intellectual<BR>property rights and possible
negotiations on the 'Singapore Issues'<BR>(investment, competition, transparency
in government procurement and trade<BR>facilitation).<BR><BR>Heads of Delegation
are currently meeting every morning with the Chair of<BR>the General Council,
Ambassador Perez del Castillo of Uruguay, to discuss<BR>items included in the
draft Ministerial text. Smaller groups are meeting<BR>during afternoons and
nights and some WTO Members have tabled key proposals.<BR>On discussions related
to environment and biodiversity, negotiations have<BR>mainly focused on issues
related to the observer status of multilateral<BR>environmental agreement (MEA)
Secretariats, agriculture and fisheries. There<BR>have been no recent
developments in the other negotiating areas related to<BR>environment and
biodiversity, including the relationship between the<BR>Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Agreement on Trade-related<BR>Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, eco-labelling and the effects of<BR>environmental measures on market
access.<BR><BR>Informal environment discussions focus on observership<BR><BR>On
23 August, WTO Members met informally to further discuss the status
of<BR>observership of MEA Secretariats and a few international organisations
to<BR>attend special (negotiating) sessions of the CTE (see BRIDGES Trade
BioRes,<BR>11 July 2003, </FONT><A
href="http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-07-11/story3.htm"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-07-11/story3.htm</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>). The EC<BR>proposed to invite UNEP, UNCTAD, the
Basel Convention, the UNFCCC, the<BR>Montreal Protocol, CBD, CITES and the
International Tropical Timber<BR>Organization (ITTO) to special sessions of the
CTE. Several countries,<BR>including the US, Japan, Switzerland and Norway,
supported the EC proposal.<BR>However, in particular developing countries,
including Egypt, China,<BR>Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, continue to
oppose a permanent<BR>invitation and would instead prefer to extend invitations
to the<BR>organisations on a flexible basis just prior to the CTE meetings.
Members<BR>did not reach an agreement on the EC proposal. Similarly, the
systemic<BR>decision on observership remains stuck at the level of the
Trade<BR>Negotiations Committee.<BR><BR>Agriculture negotiations move
forward<BR><BR>A second draft Cancun Ministerial text was circulated on 24
August,<BR>including a new Annex setting out a framework for establishing
agriculture<BR>modalities. The draft Annex aims to strike a balance between the
generally<BR>conservative EC-US 'joint text' and a counter proposal by twelve
developing<BR>countries from the Cairns Group plus China, India, Mexico,
Venezuela and<BR>Peru, which are more supportive of agricultural liberalisation
albeit with<BR>significantly easier conditions for developing
countries.<BR><BR>The draft Annex notes that developing countries "shall benefit
from special<BR>and differential treatment, including lower tariff reductions
and longer<BR>implementation periods". The text also includes references to
'special<BR>products', which would be subject to a linear cut (to be
determined). The<BR>text would also set up a special agricultural safeguard for
use by<BR>developing countries. Non-trade concerns (NTCs), which include,
for<BR>instance, biodiversity conservation, landscape preservation and
other<BR>aspects of rural environmental management, are mentioned in the text,
but<BR>without specific details.<BR><BR>The concept of 'special products' is
being strongly advocated by a group of<BR>six like-minded countries, including
the Dominican Republic, Honduras,<BR>Kenya, Nicaragua, Panama and Sri Lanka,
which would like such products to be<BR>exempted from tariff reduction
commitments. The group of six has proposed<BR>that developing countries should
be able to self-designate an [unspecified]<BR>percentage of tariff lines as
special products, which would be exempt from<BR>tariff cuts. The EC-US text also
proposes a special agricultural safeguard<BR>mechanism for use by developing
countries "as regards import-sensitive<BR>tariff lines".<BR><BR>The EC-US text
acknowledged the trading blocks' failure to agree on the<BR>issue of NTCs. Like
Japan, Korea, Norway and Switzerland, the EC is part of<BR>the 'Friends of
Multifunctionality', which maintains that support for<BR>legitimate NTCs, such
as the environmental and social roles of agriculture,<BR>should be exempt from
reduction commitments. Submissions from Japan, Norway<BR>and Switzerland (on
behalf Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei, Iceland, Korea,<BR>Liechtenstein) regretted
that NTCs were not addressed in the EC-US paper,<BR>and indicated that they
would be able to show more flexibility in subsidy<BR>reduction if such concerns
were taken into account. These countries would<BR>prefer negotiations to be less
ambitious than proposed by the EC-US and by<BR>Cairns et al, especially in the
areas of market access and in reducing<BR>domestic support.<BR><BR>Group of
developing countries submit joint fisheries proposal<BR><BR>The WTO Negotiating
Group on Rules met, from 21-22 July to consider, inter<BR>alia, a submission on
fisheries subsidies by a group of small island and<BR>coastal states, including
Antigua, Barbuda, Belize, Fiji Islands, Guyana,<BR>the Maldives, Papua New
Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis<BR>(TN/RL/W/136, searchable at
</FONT><A href="http://docsonline.wto.org/"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://docsonline.wto.org/</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>).<BR><BR>The proposal -- the first of its kind in the fisheries
negotiations from a<BR>cohesive group of developing countries -- advocates for
exceptions from<BR>fisheries disciplines relevant to small fishery-dependent
states, following<BR>a background paper by the of 'Friends of Fish' group (see
BRIDGES Trade<BR>BioRes, 30 June 2003, </FONT><A
href="http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-06-30/story4.htm"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-06-30/story4.htm</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>).<BR>Specifically, the proposal aims to address
the sustainable development<BR>concerns of small vulnerable states -- noting the
relatively high dependence<BR>of their populations on fisheries -- and to
operationalise proposals on<BR>special and differential treatment (S&D) for
developing countries in this<BR>area. It outlines three categories of fisheries
activities relevant to the<BR>small coastal states: revenue generation from
access fees for distant water<BR>fleets; domestic and foreign fishers operating
for export in the waters of<BR>the small coastal states; and artisan fishery
operations for both domestic<BR>and export markets.<BR><BR>At the meeting, New
Zealand, Australia, the EC, Barbados and Japan supported<BR>the inclusion of a
development dimension in the talks. The US and Mauritius<BR>expressed their
interest in working along the lines of the proposal.<BR>Australia, on the other
hand, felt more appropriate ways of dealing with S&D<BR>existed than through
the focus on subsidy definitions. This meeting was the<BR>final scheduled
session of the Negotiating Group prior to the Cancun<BR>Ministerial
meeting.<BR><BR>Additional Resources<BR><BR>For the latest news, resources,
events and logistical information around the<BR>Cancun meeting, see
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/index.htm.<BR><BR>For a more in-depth account
of the agriculture negotiations, see BRIDGES<BR>Weekly, 21 August 2003,
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-08-21/story2.htm; and<BR>the forthcoming issue of
BRIDGES Monthly,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/monthly/index.htm.<BR><BR>For a more
in-depth account of the fisheries negotiations, see BRIDGES<BR>Weekly, 28 July
2003, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-07-28/story6.htm.<BR><BR>ICTSD
reporting.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Biotechnology<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>GMO
UPDATE: US-EU, CHINA, AFRICA<BR><BR>US requests WTO panel in US-EU biotech
dispute<BR><BR>The US at the 18 August meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB)<BR>requested the establishment of a panel to rule on its complaint
against the<BR>EU's de facto moratorium on the approval of new genetically
modified<BR>organisms (GMOs, see BRIDGES Weekly, 15 May
2003,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-05-15/story1.htm). The US is also
challenging<BR>a number of marketing and import bans in certain EU member
states, including<BR>Austria, France, Greece and Italy where the importation and
marketing of GM<BR>products is prohibited although they have been approved for
sale in the EU.<BR>Panel requests were also submitted by Argentina, a third
party to the US<BR>case, and Canada, which is initiating a separate dispute. The
US asked that<BR>the complaints be assessed by a single panel.<BR><BR>The
requests mark the end of the consultations initiated in May. According<BR>to US
Ambassador Linnet Deily, the consultations had proven inconclusive and<BR>the EU
had not offered "any scientific justification for its measure". The<BR>EU, in
contrast, contended that it had been prepared to continue the<BR>consultation
process, but that "to the EU's dismay" the US had declared the<BR>failure of the
consultations and had immediately submitted its panel<BR>request. The EU
continues to insist that its measures are justified under<BR>international law,
citing inter alia the recently adopted Codex risk<BR>analysis principles (see
BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July
2003,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-07-11/inbrief.htm) and the
precautionary<BR>approach provided for in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
(to enter into<BR>force on 11 September) in support of its measures.<BR><BR>The
EU has blocked the first request and the US has asked the issue to be<BR>placed
on the agenda of the 29 August DSB meeting -- just prior to the fifth<BR>WTO
Ministerial meeting in Cancun -- where a second panel request is<BR>expected to
be made. Under WTO rules, a panel will automatically be<BR>established once the
second request has been received.<BR><BR>In related developments, the European
regulations on traceability and<BR>labelling of genetically modified food and
feed received the final nod from<BR>the European Council of Ministers on 22 July
after having been adopted by<BR>the European Parliament on 2 July (see BRIDGES
Trade BioRes, 11 July 2003,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-07-11/story1.htm).
The regulations were<BR>approved with all the amendments proposed by the
Parliament, including<BR>language to allow EU member states to impose
"appropriate measures" to avoid<BR>the unintended presence of GMOs in other
products ("co-existence").<BR>Luxembourg, the UK and Denmark voted against the
regulations. The<BR>legislation will enter into force 20 days after publication
in the Official<BR>Journal of the EU. Operators have to comply with the new
previsions on<BR>labelling within six months of the date of publication. While
the European<BR>Commission has repeatedly said that the de facto moratorium on
the approval<BR>of new GMOs would be lifted once the regulations entered into
force, it<BR>remains unclear whether the US and others would drop their WTO
challenge<BR>even if approvals resumed.<BR><BR>The European Commission on 23
July released Guidelines for the development<BR>of national strategies and best
practices to ensure the co-existence of GM<BR>crops with conventional and
organic farming. Civil society groups have<BR>criticised the EU in the past for
leaving co-existence to be dealt with at<BR>the national level, calling instead
for the establishment of "clear and<BR>coherent" legislation at the EU-level
(see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 March<BR>2003,
http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-03-10/story1.htm).<BR><BR>GMO debate heating up
in China<BR><BR>The debate around GMOs and biotech food in China appears to be
heating up in<BR>recent weeks. Inspections of Chinese supermarkets got underway
in early<BR>August to ensure that GM foods are properly labelled in compliance
with the<BR>interim biotech rules that came into effect in March 2002 and have
recently<BR>been extended until April 2004 (BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 2 June
2003,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-06-02/story2.htm). The inspections
have<BR>focused on edible oils, most of which are produced with GM ingredients.
To<BR>assess GM content, inspectors are tracing the raw materials or testing
the<BR>sample. Traders from the US, Argentina and Brazil remain concerned
about<BR>China's import regime for soybeans following verbal notifications by
embassy<BR>officials that China was planning new restrictions.<BR><BR>In related
developments, food producers in China have for the first time<BR>publicly
committed themselves to not selling GM foods. In a formal statement<BR>to
Greenpeace China, 32 companies, including Lipton, Wrigley, Wyeth and
Mead<BR>Johnson announced that they would not use GM ingredients in products
sold in<BR>China.<BR><BR>The company Shanghia Nestle Co and a local supermarket
have recently come<BR>under attack for not labelling GM foods. Zhu Yanling sued
Nestle for not<BR>labelling its Nesquik instant chocolate drink as a GM food and
is seeking<BR>13.6 yuan (USD 1.64) in compensation -- twice as much as he spent
on the<BR>drink. "We are fighting for the right to be informed whether the food
is<BR>genetically modified or not," said Wu Dong, Zhu's attorney. "The
customers<BR>should have the right to select what kind of food they
like."<BR><BR>NEPAD to establish biotech advisory panel<BR><BR>The New
Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) is planning to set up an<BR>advisory
panel on biotechnology and biosafety in an effort to develop an<BR>African
strategy on biotechnology. The panel, which would bring together<BR>scientists,
representatives from civil society, industry, senior policy<BR>makers and
opinion leaders, would also aim to harmonise biosafety<BR>regulations across the
continent to facilitate trade. "If Africa doesn't<BR>make a decision, it is
going to remain caught between the US and European<BR>positions," said John
Mugabe, NEPAD's Science and Technology Advisor and one<BR>of the panel's
architects. The establishment of the panel still requires<BR>approval by NEPAD's
steering committee. This initiative would complement<BR>other regional efforts
already underway in Africa, including a decision by<BR>the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) to set up an Advisory<BR>Committee on GMOs in
October 2002, and efforts to develop a regional GMO<BR>policy for member states
of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern<BR>Africa (COMESA) launched in
November 2002.<BR><BR>Additional Resources<BR><BR>For further information on the
US-EU dispute,
see<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/issarea/environment/biotech_case.htm.<BR><BR>The EU
co-existence guidelines are available
at<BR>http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/index_en.ht<BR>m.<BR><BR>ICTSD
reporting; "European legislative framework for GMOs is now in place,"<BR>EU
PRESS RELEASE, 22 July 2003; GMOs: Commission publishes recommendations<BR>to
ensure co-existence of GM and non-GM crop," EU PRESS RELEASE, 23
July<BR>2003; "U.S. to Secure WTO Panel To Rule on EU GMO Restrictions,"
WTO<BR>REPORTER, 20 August 2003; "European Commission regrets the request for a
WTO<BR>panel on GMOs," EC PRESS RELEASE, 18 August 2003; "Food firms pledge to
keep<BR>Chinese products GE free," ENS, 22 July 2003; "GM food fight to heat up
in<BR>China," SHANGHAI DAILY, 29 July 2003; "Chinese inspectors check GM
foods,"<BR>CHECKBIOTECH, 12 August 2003; "Nepad to set up advisory panel on
biosafety,"<BR>AGBIOS, 24 July
2003.</FONT><BR><BR><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>