As noted in an earlier post, the interim panel report in the GMOs case was issued to the parties yesterday. Despite the confidentiality requirement that applies to interim reports, there has been some discussion of the case in the press. It is unclear at this point how accurate this discussion is, and it is also fairly brief. Nonetheless, in the hopes of gaining some insights into the substance of the decision, I have gathered a few excerpts from these press reports for the benefit of our bloggers and blog readers. If I have missed a particularly informative article, please feel free to e-mail me about it.
In addition, the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report has been made available by some NGOs:
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=78475
Not sure how they got it, or how long it will be up, but it was there last I checked.
Simon Lester
WorldTradeLaw.net
Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08520464.htm)
-- The panel found that the EU operated a de facto moratorium on considering new GMO imports between June 1999 and Aug. 29, 2003. This moratorium resulted in a failure to complete "approval procedures without undue delay" and so violated WTO rules.
-- But as the moratorium has since been lifted, the panel made no recommendations for action.
-- Separately, it also found that undue delay existed in 24 of the 27 individual product applications on which the three complainants had sought a ruling.
-- It asked the WTO's dispute settlement body to request the EU to bring the measures into line with the rules. But according to trade sources, virtually all of these products have either since been approved or their applications withdrawn.
-- The judges also found that bans imposed by six EU states -- France, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, Italy and Belgium -- on products already approved by the EU violated trade rules and need to be revised.
-- The individual states had failed to provide adequate scientific evidence of the risks to human health or the environment.
-- But the panel made no overall assessment of whether biotech products are generally safe or not.
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/business/worldbusiness/08trade.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
The trade organization panel appears not to have challenged Europe's regulatory process for biotech crops. Rather, it said Europe failed to follow its own procedures, resulting in undue delay of decisions.
The panel ruled in favor of the United States regarding the bans by the six countries. It also ruled in favor of the United States on 23 of 27 specific crops, according to L. Val Giddings, a biotechnology industry consultant who said he had been briefed on the ruling.
E-Commerce Times (from AP reports) (http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/e1gPq71Mq2WSlx/US-WTO-Ruling-Against-EU-Should-Benefit-Farmers.xhtml)
"The panel found that there were delays in approving the products, which might be said to constitute a de facto moratorium during that period," said an EU official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it was a confidential report.
"We dispute that a moratorium existed and we contest the claim that delays in the past were excessive. The panel clearly said that no moratorium currently exists," the official added.
Business Week (from AP) (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FL2Q380.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db)
The report concluded that the EU had breached its commitments with respect to 21 products, including types of oilseed rape, maize and cotton. But it also rejected several other U.S. contentions that Brussels' effective moratorium had broken trade rules on several other products, including potatoes and soybeans.
It also found that the individual member state bans were against trade rules.
The panel stressed that it had not examined whether biotech products were safe or not.
