Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The WTO complaint—why now?

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 735–736 (2003)Cite this article

After years of frustration at an inability to sell genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in the European Union, and because of concerns about the impact of the de facto moratorium on the import by developing countries of these products, the United States, with Canada, Argentina and initially Egypt, has recently decided to instigate an action at the World Trade Organization (WTO; Geneva, Switzerland), citing article 4 of the Disputes Procedure and articles in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 agreement. Although the EU bureaucracy has been sluggish in tackling politically troubling GM products, I argue here that the WTO complaint is poorly timed and ultimately likely to be counterproductive.

According to a report of the EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum1, “Regulation is a means by which governments seek to gain the benefits and ameliorate the potential negative consequences of a market economy. The United States and the European Union differ in the particulars of how they approach regulation for agricultural biotechnology products” but share the same goals in assuring safety. There is a need to recognize that science cannot provide all the results needed to ensure environmental and health 'safety'; in many instances, further experimentation will not provide answers that enable us to make decisions because of the inherent variability of biological systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. The EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum. Final Report (EU, Brussels, Belgium) http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/biotech/report.pdf and http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/biotech/biotech.htm (December 2000)

  2. The European Council. Official Journal L117 08/05/1990, 0015–0027 (1990).

  3. The European Council. Official Journal L117 08/05/1990, 0001–0014 (1990).

  4. The European Council. Official Journal L330 05/12/1998, 0013–0031 (1998).

  5. The European Parliament and Council. Official Journal L213 30/7/1998, 0013–0021 (1998).

  6. European Commission. Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2002)27 (EC, Brussels, Belgium, 2002).

  7. The UK Royal Society. Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health—an Update. Policy document 4/02 February 2002 (UK Royal Society, London, UK, 2002).

  8. Codex Alimentarius. Report of the Thirtieth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, Halifax, Canada, 6–10 May 2002. Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Food and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Codex, Rome, Italy, 2002).

  9. European Parliament and Council. Official Journal L043 14/02/1997, 0001–0007 (1997).

  10. European Council. Official Journal L159 03/06/1998, 0004–0007 (1998).

  11. European Commission. Official Journal L6 11/1/2000, 0015–0017 (2000).

  12. European Commission. Official Journal L6 11/1/2000, 0013–0014 (2000).

  13. European Parliament and Council. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed (25.7.2001) COM(2001) 425 final 2001/0173 (COD) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/biotech/biotech08_en.pdf (25 July 2001).

  14. European Parliament and Council. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms and Amending Directive 2001/18/EC (25.7.2001) COM(2001) 182 final. 2001/0180(COD). http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/biotech/biotech09_en.pdf (25 July 2001).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The author is at the Department of Law, Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield, Conduit Road, Sheffield, S10 1FL, UK

    Julian Kinderlerer

Authors
  1. Julian Kinderlerer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kinderlerer, J. The WTO complaint—why now?. Nat Biotechnol 21, 735–736 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0703-735

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0703-735

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing