Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO

1
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

• Jennifer Takach
• Joshua Richter
• Natasha Simanich

ITRN 603 Professor S. Malawer 8 March 2006
2
GMO Issue A brief background

• Technological innovation and market integration
  have changed the global scene in a political,
  economical, and ecological aspect.
• Changes involving technological innovation have
  brought about many ethical, legal, scientific,
  and institutional issues.

3
What is Genetically Modified?
The modification of the genetic characteristics
of a microorganism, plant or animal by inserting
a modified gene or a gene from another variety or
species.

• Food Organisms
• Crops
• Livestock
• Fish

• Non-food applications
• Forestry
• Horticulture

4
Associated Risks of GMOs
Human health risks Allergy/ Toxicity Changes in nutritional composition Cumulative effects on many new foods Ecological Risks Gene Flow Effects on non-target species Effects on ecological balances Economic Risks Costs of health/ ecological damage Major economic displacements Loss of business(consumer choice) Loss of trade/trade barriers
5
Associated Benefits of GMOs
Human health Benefits Nutritionally improved foods More food security Plant-produced vaccines Ecological Benefits Reduced need for agricultural chemicals Soil conservation/improved soil quality More efficient production(less land needed for food) Economic Benefits Welfare of Human health and Ecological benefits. Benefits of trade, to sellers and consumers
6
International Law on GMOs
U.S.(Complainant) The FDA examines the safety of foods and food additives. The USDA checks the influence of the environment, and the approval of the EPA is also required. Restrictions on labels are imposed for products that contain non-conventional ingredients. Canada In October of 1999, restrictions on labels were imposed when products contain non-conventional ingredients. Furthermore, data must be submitted according to the safety, food, and medical supplies rule. E.U. (Respondent) The European Parliament had the bill about a label approved about all genetically modified food and feed in July, 2002. Use of GMOs is heavily regulated.
China Genetically modified food health bill requires that the food manufactured from the materials originating in a GM crop and a GM crop should be labeled. And the safety examination must be approved by the department of Agriculture. Japan GMOs used in food since 1997. April 2001, Japan Agricultural Standards method incorporated label system. Food Sanitation Law requires the label system of the same contents as the JAS method by welfare Ministry of Labor. Australia New Zealand A duty of labeling was imposed about the agricultural products and the processed food in December, 2001.
7
WTO Agreements Involved in the Dispute

• Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures
  Agreement
• Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement
• GATT 1994
• Articles I, III, X, and XI
• Agreement on Agriculture
• Article 4
• Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
• Articles 2 and 5

8
Codex the SPS Agreement

• Codex Alimentarius Commission - -
• Establishes food and safety standards within the
  SPS
• Provides a burden of proof on scientific data
• Agrees upon various ways of reducing risk
• Provides consistency in risk management decisions
• Establishing expert scientific guidance
• Adds to the SPS Agreement
• Agreed upon international food and safety
  standards
• Establishes scientific guidelines
• Leaves room for interpretation through burden of
  proof and different ways of reducing risk

9
The Complainants

• United States
• Canada
• Argentina
• Case Filed in 2003
• EU had an unfair 6 year moratorium.
• Not scientifically justified
• Violates SPS
• Oppose EU food labeling and traceability
  regulations.

10
(No Transcript)
11
The Respondent

• European Union
• every country has the sovereign right to make
  its own decisions on GMOs in accordance with the
  values prevailing in society.
• 2004 Labeling and Traceability Rules

12
Panel Formation

• August 29th, 2003 Single panel established by
  the DSB.
• March 4th, 2004 Director-General composed the
  panel.
• The decision due date has been postponed numerous
  times for various reasons
• More time for countries to prepare rebuttals.
• Panels decision to seek scientific and technical
  experts.
• Panel to finalize their report.
• Currently, the due date of the official decision
  from the Panel is the end of March 2006.

13
Panels Unofficial Ruling

• February 7th, 2006 Announced that the 6 year
  moratorium was a trade violation.
• Final decision will officially be announced later
  this year.
• Still concern over how the EU will handle this
  decision.
• U.S. concerns with labeling.
• E.U. grocery stores stance.

14
Current Trade and Related Issues

• Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)
  SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives,
  contaminants, toxins or disease-causing
  organisms, and it is not clear if potential risks
  from GMO foods fit into one of those
  categories(hard to have scientific certainty)
• Trade issues on global level result from
  different regulations in different countries
• Institutional issues
• WHO CAN SAY WHAT IS BEST FOR SOCIETY?

15
Current Trade and Related Issues

• The benefits of GM Technology is not yet reality
  (most agricultural production happens in
  developed countries)
• Few GMO products so far benefit consumers
• Harder for developing countries to use GMO crops
  on small scale farming

16
GMOs in the NATIONAL Interest
US Interests in GMO Exports

• Trade and Economic Related - -
• US Patent Protection on Bio-engineering
• Access to markets (US is the single major
  producer of biotech products)
• As a result, US Corn Soybean exports are
  threatened (high GMO content)
• Unscientific Trade Restrictions
• Regulatory Oversight - -
• Crops and food products are regulated by 14
  separate laws in the U.S. alone!
• Farmers Producers - -
• GMO and non-GMO crops are combined in the crop
  handling systems to separate would be costly
  and in some cases impossible
• Not only crops but food products could be
  effected
• Labeling tracing regulations are not necessary
  and are misleading

17
GMOs in the NATIONAL Interest

• The Science - -
• GMOs are as safe as natural counterparts
• Supported by 3200 international scientists
  (including 20 Nobel Laureates)
• 81 EU research projects resulted in no greater
  risk of GMOs than conventional counterparts
• Food aid is the same content as what US consumers
  eat!
• The benefits of GMOs - -
• Reduction in use of pesticides, increased
  productivity, more crops yields on less land
• Environmental and ecological testing is completed
  before commercialization of GMOs
• Bringing vital food and vitamin resources to
  poor/starving nations
• International Benefits - -
• Feed the poor stop food hunger!

18
GMOs One European Reaction

• It is so much simpler to condemn something than
  to attempt to understand it. We have a fine
  tradition in Europe of burning those people we
  do not understand, whether they be witches or
  heretics, for it is much easier to do this than
  to try and understand them.

J.E. Beringer EC-sponsored research on Safety of
Genetically Modified Organisms School of
Biological Sciences, University of Bristol (UK),
19
GMOs - - INTERNATIONAL Interests
International Interests in GMO Scientific Research

• Trade and Economic Related - -
• Rights of Farmers to have access to genetic
  resources and biotech benefits
• Scientific studies not conclusive enough in the
  emerging science
• Concern over Monopolization
• Regulatory Oversight - -
• Labeling for consumer choice and benefit
• Traceability standards in every step of the
  process
• Emerging laws and regulations dealing with the
  scientific principles and dissemination of GMO
  products

20
GMOs - - INTERNATIONAL Interests

• The Science - -
• Long-term effects unknown
• Allergenicity Antimicrobial resistance
• Creation of new species as a result of modern
  science
• Farmers Consumers - -
• Causal Non-GMO food scares in Europe in
  mid-1990s
• Public Health Safety may be effected by unknown
  risks
• Lack of Knowledge in LDCs

21
Proposed Solution

• Moratorium was a violation of fair trade laws.
• EU has a right to regulate and monitor
  agricultural products.
• Feasible Timeline Needed.
• Traceability Agreement.
• Label Agreement.
• Educate EU citizens on GM food benefits.
• US has a right (under WTO trade rules) to access
  EU markets with agricultural products.
• Internationally recognized health, food, and
  safety standards (Codex _at_ WTO) in order to
  reasonably conclude risk assessments and benefits
  of GMOs.

22
Food For Thought

• The following international consumers to a recent
  Washington State University study found that they
  are in favor of GMO products and crops if the
  benefit is enhanced nutrients (although their
  knowledge of risks associated with GMO is
  directly related to their response)
• Chile
• Mexico
• India

23
Afterthoughts

• Technological advances have assisted with
  productivity levels, food and production
  resources, and environmentally safe products.
• There are risks associated with GMOs, however,
  can be scientifically reduced.
• Many international standards on food safety that
  may be counter to what national standards exist.
• Benefits of GMOs yet to be realized by LDCs.
• Increased Consumer awareness programs Labeling
  / education.
• Despite WTO ruling that GMO restrictions are in
  violation of the trade agreements, there is still
  much uncertainty as to the length of this dispute.

24
Conclusion Implications

• Scientific data is now a part of trade disputes.
• There is no scientific evidence either way which
  makes GMOs so controversial.
• The EU has taken the precautionary approach and
  doesn't want to include GMOs until proven safe.
• The US claims that science can not progress until
  is being applied.

What does the future hold?
25
Discussion Question - Labeling

• Do you think that the EU should be allowed to
  label GM food at their grocery stores?
• How would labeling effect consumers and GMO
  producers?

26
Works Cited

• Ahearn, Raymond, US-European Union Trade
  Relations Issues and Policy Changes, 23
  December 2004, Congressional Research Service,
  pg. 9-10.
• BBC News. QA Trade battle of GM food.
  February 8th, 2006.
• http//newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/n
  ews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4690010.stm
• Beringer, J. E., EC-Sponsored Research on Safety
  of Genetically Modified Organisms, Data Sheet
• http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life
  /gmo/general-intro.html
• Borak, Donna. WTO Rules against EU on GMOs
  Washington Post. February 8, 2006.
• http//binas.unido.org/binas/regs.php
• Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge US
  Agricultural Exports, General Accountability
  Office, GAO-01-727
• Evaluation of Codex, Codex Alimentarius,
• www.codexalimenatrius.net/web/evaluation_en.jsp
• Larson, Alan P., Discussion on the WTO Case on
  the EU Biotech Moratorium, Foreign Affairs Press
  Release, 14 may 2003,
• http//fpc.state.gov/fpc/20557.htm

27
Works Cited

• Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. August
  2004.
• http//pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/displ
  ay.php3?FactsheetID2
• Questions and Answers on U.S. Food Aid Donations
  Containing Bio-Engineered Crops, Fact Sheet, US
  Agency for International Development, 10 January
  2003,
• www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/16736.htm
• Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of
  plant origins joint FAO/WHO, World Health
  Organization, 29 May 2 June 2000, pgs. 12-14,
  49.
• www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/ec_jun
  e2000/en/index.html
• Siv, Sichan, Bio-Engineered Crops, Statement at
  the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 27
  August 2002.
• www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/13587.htm
• World Trade Organization. Dispute Settlement
  DS291.
• http//www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_
  e/ds291_e.htm
• 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods,
  World Health Organization, Question 13 Question
  17
• www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20ques
  tions/en/index.html

28
(No Transcript)