BY CONN HALLINAN
The decision by the US administration to sue the European Union over its moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) may be aimed less at the EU than at developing countries, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics.
Take the case of the reluctant Egyptians. Egypt had originally joined the US suit, with Argentina and Canada, but, in response to a domestic backlash over the safety of GM food crops, withdrew. However, Egypt filed a separate complaint on an EU ban against its drought-resistant GM cotton.
The Egyptians were nervous over the confrontational tone of the US suit. "The way [the complaint] was announced was like a war with the EU", an Egyptian trade official told the Financial Times, "We can't go to war with the EU. It is 40% of our trade."
Reacting with fury, the US accused the Egyptians of breaking their word and cancelled free trade talks. The White House was banking on Egypt to represent the need for GM crops in "developing countries", in particular, Africa. GM crops as a solution to the African famine is one of the major arguments Washington has used against the EU ban.
US President George Bush's administration is applying its "for us or against us" anti-terrorism formula to trade policy. When Croatia and Thailand raised health objections to GM crops, the US threatened trade sanctions and both countries backed down.
The White House has been more circuitous with big countries, like India and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, US corporations — underwritten by taxpayers — bring politicians and scientists to the US and South Africa to study GM crops. Washington's reaction to India's ban on US GM crops has been muted.
There is much at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has nothing to do with alleviating hunger or overcoming famine. The "big five" biotech companies — Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical and Aventis — have invested billions of dollars in research and development. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937.
The US argues that GM crops represent the new "green revolution" that will allow countries to feed the growing world population. But the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service found that crop yields were no higher for GM crops than for regular crops. And GM crops can be tricky to grow. They were created for huge, Western super-farms, not the small-scale agriculture that characterises most of the Third World. Plus GM seeds cost more, and few poor farmers have access to cash.
The Bush administration presents its GM-friendly policies as a solution to hunger. During his recent tour of Africa, Bush said, "For the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European governments to end their opposition to biotechnology".
EU officials point out that Europe gives Africa seven times as much aid as the US does, and most of that aid is delivered in cash, which bolsters local economies. The US, on the other hand, delivers aid in the form of agricultural surplus, which allows the US to dump its overproduction.
Africans are suspicious and see the spread of GM crops as creating a kind of "bio-serfdom", with farmers in thrall to huge biotech companies. Amadou Kanoute, research director of African Office of Consumers International, says the spread of GM crops, "will plunge Africa into greater food dependency".
The European Parliament has already decided to phase out the moratorium on GM crops, although it will demand strict labelling. Any product containing more than 0.9% GM products will be flagged. GM food will have to be segregated from non-GM food in production and harvesting.
The US refuses to accept labelling. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick claims he supports consumer choice, but "this information should be non-prejudicial in presentation and feasible for producers to provide". The administration is nervous that if Europeans get labelling, Americans might demand the same. Three-quarters of the food on US shelves contain GM products, and a recent study by the biotech firm Novartis found that 92% of Americans approve of labelling.
The EU is unlikely to be intimidated by fines imposed by the WTO, and if the US manages to block labelling, European consumers will probably just boycott all US food imports. The only real casualties in that trade war will be US farmers.
The prize in this fight is not the EU market, which in any case only absorbs some 10% of US agricultural exports. The prize is the developing world, where regulations are lax, profits higher and resistance may carry a very high price.
[Conn Hallinan is the provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a political analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (<http://www.fpif.org>).]
From Green Left Weekly, September 3, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.