August 31, 2001
		U.S. Increases Pressure on EU to Accept Biotech The European Union is being pressured by senior Bush administration officials to abandon new restrictions on genetically modified foods, saying that such restrictions could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year and sabotage efforts to launch a new round of international trade talks. U.S. officials claim that the regulations, which received preliminary approval in Europe last month, unfairly discriminate against U.S. products in violation of World Trade Organization requirements. Undersecretary of State Alan P. Larson, the senior diplomat assigned to economic issues, labeled the European Commission's decision to require the labeling of genetically engineered products "trade disruptive and discriminatory." U.S. officials are considering the possibility of bringing a legal case before the WTO, which could eventually impose stiff economic penalties on Europe. The European Commission's new standards call for all products made from genetically engineered material to bear a label saying they contain genetically modified organisms. Additionally, they require producers to document the source of all their ingredients, and since the U.S. agricultural system does not separate modified and conventional crops, the new requirements could be costly and difficult for U.S. exporters. European restrictions on biotech crops already ban most U.S. corn and soybeans that are in food products, and the new requirements would also impose a ban on export of these products for animal feed. The requirements must be approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers before taking effect in 2003. President Bush raised the issue personally with European leaders last month at the violent G-8 summit in Genoa. Kimball Nil of the American Soybean Association said the food industry appreciates the tough stand taken by the Bush administration. "The Bush administration met with EU commissioners and very clearly laid down a marker that many of us felt was missing before." European officials, however, are critical of the pressure, saying that the current administration is trying to impose U.S. attitudes towards food on a resistant European public. "We are seeing an illustration of American unilateralism," said Tony Van der haegen, a European Commission representative. "There are basic psychological differences between American consumers and those in Europe, where [genetically modified products] are not accepted." As a matter of public policy, U.S. regulators have accepted the position that engineered and traditional crops are essentially interchangeable, and should be treated the same. The European Union, however, has not approved any new engineered crops for nearly three years, and it has been under string pressure from Washington to begin the review process again. In a recent letter to top U.S. officials, 24 trade organizations said the proposed European Union guidelines are "commercially unworkable, inconsistent with WTO obligations and would result in billions of dollars of lost U.S. exports." The letter, which was signed by groups including the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the American Soybean Association, further said that such measures would cause a "serious trade impediment." In Europe, environmental groups are urging tighter restrictions, asking legislators to remove a provision that waives the labeling requirement if the percentage of genetically modified material in the product is less than one percent of the overall product. "The U.S. is trying to force-feed modified foods to the rest of the world, and it just isn't going to work," said Charles Margulis of Greenpeace. In addition to the troubles in Europe, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka have proposed bans on importing genetically engineered foods, and Mexican legislators are discussing tougher labeling laws. While advocates of biotechnology claim it will help poor farmers and nations by increasing their ability to grow in difficult climates, critics say that poor farmers will never see any benefits because the technology is owned by multinational companies interested solely in profit.