<!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>THE NEXT TRADE WAR? GM PRODUCTS, THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL AND THE
WTO<BR>NGO'S SEEK STANDING IN MONSANTO V. SCHMEISER</DIV>
<DIV>EU: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT GMOS IN SEEDS</DIV>
<DIV>BAYER ABANDONS BRITISH CROP TRIALS<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>THE NEXT TRADE WAR? GM PRODUCTS, THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL AND THE
WTO<BR>September 2003<BR>The Royal Institute Of International Affairs
Sustainable Development<BR>Programme Briefing Paper No. 8<BR>Duncan Brack,
Robert Falkner and Judith Goll<BR>Complete paper available at:<BR><A
href="http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf">http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf</A><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" size=2> (ca.550kb, 12 S.)</FONT><BR>On 20 May 2003 the
United States initiated a dispute under the World Trade<BR>Organization (WTO)
about the European Union¹s de facto moratorium on the<BR>approval of new uses of
genetically modified (GM) products. Following the<BR>failure of the consultation
stage of the WTO¹s dispute settlement procedure,<BR>a dispute panel was
established at the end of August, signalling the<BR>long-expected opening shots
in what may turn out to be a serious and<BR>long-running trade conflict between
the US and the EU.<BR>The dispute settlement process, if pursued through all its
stages, including<BR>the final Appellate Body ruling, normally takes between
twelve and eighteen<BR>months to complete. Whatever its outcome, it is quite
likely that further<BR>disputes may be initiated, given the rapid evolution of
national regulatory<BR>regimes for GM products, and also the entry into force of
the Cartagena<BR>Protocol, the multilateral environmental agreement regulating
trade in GM<BR>products, on 11 September.<BR>As commercial GM products have only
been deployed since the mid-1990s, there<BR>is still considerable debate and
uncertainty over their impacts on health,<BR>the environment, industrial
structures and market power. Given the<BR>deep-seated cultural differences
towards science, technology and government<BR>regulation between US and EU
consumers, trade disputes centring on GM<BR>products will be particularly
difficult to resolve. This briefing paper aims<BR>to provide the background to
the likelihood of many years of ongoing<BR>argument and dispute.<BR><A
href="http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf">http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>NGO'S SEEK STANDING IN MONSANTO V. SCHMEISER<BR>September 30,
2003<BR>>From a press release<BR>OTTAWA, ON - Today, a coalition of NGOs, led
by the Council of Canadians,<BR>applied to intervene in the patent infringement
case involving Saskatchewan<BR>farmer Percy Schmeiser and biotechnology giant
Monsanto that will be heard<BR>by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal
Court of Appeal found that<BR>Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's patent
rights to genetically<BR>engineered canola. The Supreme Court has granted
Schmeiser the right to<BR>appeal that ruling. Intervener status would allow the
Council of Canadians<BR>and its coalition partners to make submissions to the
Supreme Court<BR>countering Monsanto's arguments. "This will be the first
time that an<BR>appellate court anywhere in the world will consider what
infringement means<BR>on a patent to a genetically modified life form" says
Steven Shrybman, the<BR>lawyer representing the coalition. "The Court's decision
is likely to have a<BR>considerable impact on both the domestic and
international debate about<BR>patents to life." The coalition also involves
Canadian organisations such as<BR>the Sierra Club of Canada and the National
Farmers Union. "This case is far<BR>greater than just Percy Schmeiser,"
says Terry Boehm of the National Farmers<BR>Union. "Given the level at which
Monsanto's GE canola has contaminated<BR>Western Canada, the implied liability
for all Canadian farmers is enormous.<BR>We simply cannot allow the current
verdict against Schmeiser to stand."<BR>The precedence associated with this
ground-breaking case has also attracted<BR>key international groups to the
coalition. These include the Action group on<BR>Erosion, Technology, and
Concentration, the Washington-based International<BR>Center for Technology
Assessment, and the Research Foundation for Science,<BR>Technology and Ecology,
led by renowned Indian environmentalist Dr. Vandana<BR>Shiva.<BR>"If other
jurisdictions were to follow the approach adopted by the Federal<BR>Court of
Appeal in this case, the result would undermine the seed-saving<BR>practices of
hundreds of million of farmers whose livelihoods depend on this<BR>practice.
Moreover, because seed saving fosters biodiversity and
increases<BR>productivity, any new constraint on the practice of saving seeds is
likely<BR>to harm both goals," says Dr. Shiva.<BR>"Unfortunately, a policy and
regulatory vacuum continues to exist in Canada<BR>when it comes to biotechnology
and genetically engineered foods," adds<BR>Nadège Adam of the Council of
Canadians. "This is yet another example of how<BR>our government has dropped the
ball on these issues."<BR>The case is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court
on January 20,<BR>2004.<BR><BR>QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT GMOS IN
SEEDS<BR>September 29, 2003<BR>European Commission, Health and Consumer
Protection Press Release<BR><A
href="http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO">http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO</A><BR>/03/186|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=<BR>Brussels
- Questions and Answers about GMOs in seeds What is the EU
seeds<BR>legislation?<BR>The Directives on the marketing of agricultural and
vegetable seeds aim to<BR>improve the quality of seeds (e.g. identity and purity
of the variety)<BR>marketed in the EU. Specific requirements are set out on
sealing, labelling<BR>and documentation.<BR>If technical amendments and updates
of the Directives are necessary, the<BR>Commission is assisted by Member States
in adopting measures through the<BR>Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating
Material for Agriculture,<BR>Horticulture and Forestry. A Management Committee
composed of<BR>representatives of the Member States assists the Commission in
those cases.<BR>A Commission proposal can be rejected by qualified majority. The
Commission<BR>can despite this adopt the proposed law but has to get an opinion
of<BR>Council. If Council rejects it as well with qualified majority the law
is<BR>annulled. The European Parliament has a right of information.<BR>Is there
separate legislation on GM seeds?<BR>Yes there is. All GM seed varieties have to
be approved and authorised in<BR>the EU for cultivation under Directive 2001/18
on the deliberate release<BR>into the environment of genetically modified
organisms or under the<BR>Regulation on genetically modified food and feed which
will soon enter into<BR>force. Authorisation is only granted after a positive
scientific assessment<BR>has concluded that no unacceptable risks to the
environment or human health<BR>is likely to appear.<BR>Why is there a need to
set thresholds for GM-impurities in conventional<BR>seeds?<BR>Legislation on
seeds has always recognised that a 100% purity is not<BR>possible, which is why
thresholds have been set which take into account the<BR>fact that plants are
grown in an open field, that cross-pollination is a<BR>natural phenomenon and
that one cannot control wind and insects which<BR>contribute to this. For
example, certified soya beans may have up to 1%<BR>impurities of another soy
variety. Impurities can arrive through<BR>cross-pollination, dissemination of
volunteers and at harvest, transport and<BR>storage.<BR>Thresholds in seeds also
exist for the presence of harmful organisms, e.g.<BR>mushrooms.<BR>Genetic
modifications have been introduced in beet, maize, potato, swede<BR>rape, soya
bean, cotton, chicory and tomato world-wide. Only GM-maize,<BR>GM-swede rape,
GM-soya bean and GM-chicory are currently authorised in the<BR>EU. Requests for
authorisation for GM-potatoes, GM-beet and GM-cotton have<BR>been made.<BR>The
EU is also heavily dependent on imports of conventional seeds from
third<BR>countries where GM cultivation is present. About 33% maize seeds
are<BR>imported, 80% soya bean seeds, 66% cotton seeds and 10% rape
seeds.<BR>The experience of recent years shows that the ³adventitious² or
³technically<BR>unavoidable² presence of traces of GMOs in conventional seeds
has therefore<BR>become inevitable since it is an existing reality.<BR>But
although the seed directives lay down minimum conditions in respect of<BR>the
seed harvested and intended to be marketed, in particular in respect
of<BR>varietal purity, they do not include specific requirements regarding
the<BR>presence of genetically modified seeds in seed lots of
non-genetically<BR>modified varieties.<BR>Therefore, to recognise this reality
and to facilitate the marketing of<BR>seeds with traces of GM presence, it is
proposed to establish de minimis<BR>thresholds for such presence of authorised
GM varieties only.<BR>The thresholds should be adapted to the reproductive
system of the plants<BR>concerned, the vegetative cycle, as well as the
probability of adventitious<BR>presence in the seed crop.<BR>Conditions and
requirements could also be included for other plant species,<BR>if appropriate,
in the future.<BR>What thresholds for GM-presence in conventional seeds will the
Commission<BR>propose?<BR>The proposed thresholds will be established according
to the species and<BR>taking into account the reproductive systems of the
plants:<BR>0.3% for swede rape<BR>0.5% for beet, maize, potato, cotton, chicory
and tomato<BR>0.7% for soya bean<BR>The opinion of the Scientific Committee of
Plants (SCP) of 7 March 2001<BR><A
href="http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html">http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html</A><BR>concerning
the adventitious presence of genetically modified seed in<BR>conventional seed
has been considered while establishing the thresholds<BR>proposed. The opinion
has been reviewed and confirmed on 24 April 2002 and<BR>on 30 January
2003.<BR>What is the aim of such thresholds, what is the relationship between
the<BR>seed thresholds and the labelling thresholds for food and feed
products?<BR>The thresholds which will be proposed will be established at levels
such<BR>that food, feed or products intended for direct processing produced
from<BR>crops grown from non-genetically modified seed should have a GMO content
not<BR>exceeding the 0.9% threshold adopted by Council and European Parliament
and<BR>provided for by Regulation (EC) N° /2003 on genetically modified
food and<BR>feed and by Regulation (EC) N° ../2003 on traceability and
labelling of<BR>GMOs²).<BR>What kind of GMOs will benefit from the thresholds
proposed?<BR>It must be stressed that only GMOs which have been assessed for
their safety<BR>to human health and the environment and authorised to be
cultivated will<BR>benefit from the seed thresholds.<BR>The GM seeds present
adventitiously must indeed be authorised either a) as<BR>GMOs for use in
cultivation under Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate<BR>release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms or b) the<BR>genetically modified
organisms for food or feed use must be authorised to be<BR>used as seeds under
Regulation (EC) N° ./2003 on genetically modified food<BR>and feed.<BR>In
the case of presence of traces of genetically modified seeds in seeds of<BR>a
non-genetically modified variety to be used in food or feed, only GM<BR>material
derived from such GM seeds used in food or feed which is authorised<BR>under
Regulation (EC) N° ./2003 on genetically modified food and feed
is<BR>tolerated.<BR>In order to benefit from the seed thresholds, the presence
of GM seeds must<BR>in addition be adventitious or technically
unavoidable.<BR>Where the threshold is exceeded or where the presence is not
adventitious or<BR>technically unavoidable, the label or document of a
non-genetically modified<BR>variety should state that the lot contains
genetically modified seeds and<BR>should specify the unique identifier(s) of the
GMO(s).<BR>Will these thresholds be important for the co-existence of
genetically<BR>modified crops with conventional and organic farming?<BR>The
Commission has adopted 23 July 2003 a Recommendation on guidelines for<BR>the
development of national strategies and best practices to ensure
the<BR>coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and
organic<BR>farming.<BR>In this Recommendation it is emphasised that co-existence
refers to the<BR>ability of farmers to make a practical choice between the
different types of<BR>agriculture, in compliance with the legal obligations for
labelling and/or<BR>purity.<BR>It is stated that national strategies and best
practices for co-existence<BR>should refer to the legal labelling thresholds and
to the applicable purity<BR>standards for food, feed and seed. The standards for
food and feed have just<BR>been established under the Regulation on GM food and
feed. An amendment of<BR>the seeds Directives will therefore provide the missing
thresholds for<BR>seeds.</DIV>
<DIV>(Aktionspostkarten ordern unter <A
href="http://www.saveourseeds.org">www.saveourseeds.org</A> bzw. <A
href="mailto:info@saveourseeds.org">info@saveourseeds.org</A> - Stichtag:
20.Oktober)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TOP GM FOOD COMPANY ABANDONS BRITISH CROP TRIALS<BR>September 28,
2003<BR>The Observer<BR>Robin McKie, science editor<BR>A key GM crop developer,
Bayer, the last company carrying out GM trials in<BR>the UK, has, according to
this story, decided to halt UK trials of<BR>genetically modified plants, though
it said yesterday it hoped to start up<BR>again soon when conditions were Œmore
favourable¹.<BR>The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for
its decision.<BR>Her insistence that the locations of all trial sites be made
public had<BR>forced its hand, a spokesman was cited as telling The
Observer.<BR>The story says that until last week, Bayer CropScience, Bayer¹s
crop<BR>subsidiary. believed it was close to a deal that would allow GM crop
test<BR>sites - which are regularly destroyed by protesters - to be kept
secret.<BR>Instead of having to publish exact map references for fields,
companies<BR>would only have to name the county in which it was holding a
trial.<BR>The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment had said this
vaguer<BR>notification was Œacceptable in terms of risk assessment¹, while the
police<BR>have always complained that explicit disclosure of test site locations
has<BR>been a major factor in aiding Œcrop-trashers¹. But at the last minute
the<BR>Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told Bayer
it<BR>would not support this change in regulations.<BR><BR><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>"Wir brauchen keine
Bio-Terroristen, wenn wir Gentechniker haben."<BR>Independent Science Panel (<A
href="http://www.indsp.org">www.indsp.org</A>)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>