New York Times | By ELIZABETH BECKER | February 4, 2003
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - With war looming in Iraq, the Bush
administration has decided against antagonizing its
European allies and has postponed filing a case against the
European Union for its ban on genetically modified food,
according to senior administration officials.
"There is no point in testing Europeans on food while they
are being tested on Iraq," a senior White House official
said, speaking on background.
Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative,
had warned that the administration would decide by this
week whether to sue the Europeans for what he called their
"immoral" opposition to genetically modified food that was
leading to starvation in the developing world.
But a cabinet meeting to consider the suit was canceled
this week as European agricultural officials came to
Washington to argue for patience.
The conflict will resurface soon, however. Mr. Zoellick
said in an interview that he believed genetically modified
food could help alleviate hunger worldwide and that he
wanted the European opposition to be confronted and
unfounded fears erased so that developing nations would
accept food from genetically modified crops.
Experts agree that the United States could win a case at
the World Trade Organization and force a lifting of the
four-year old ban.
The ultimate resolution of this case, however, will rest on
labeling - not food aid - and promises to pit European
ideas of food regulation against American notions about
free trade.
Many European consumers are demanding labels that identify
which food has been genetically modified, while the
American agricultural industry is just as strongly opposed
to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative
connotation.
"The U.S. is afraid that by starting to distinguish which
food is genetically modified, then they will have to
distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are
different than those the European promotes," said Lori
Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch. "It's
using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety
and environmental rules."
Agriculture Department officials say this is nonsense, that
the United States does not require labeling, so why should
Europe.
"That implies that there is something wrong with
genetically modified good," said Elsa Murano, the
Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety.
"It would be another kind of trade barrier."
The agricultural industry also complains about the cost of
the proposed labels.
"Labeling is a sham," said Mary Kay Thatcher, lobbyist for
American Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural group. "It
would be so expensive, it would shut down our exports."
Franz Fischler, the European farm commissioner, said in an
address here today that the problem could be resolved
within the year if the United States agreed that the
products deemed safe would be labeled as genetically
modified.
His remarked were echoed earlier here by Margaret Beckett,
the British minister in charge of food and the environment,
who said both sides of the argument had to understand the
serious cultural differences underlying the disagreement.
"Extravagant claims are sometimes made on either side of
the argument," she said. "Whether we like it or not, there
is an expectation of traceability and labeling of all kinds
of products among European consumers. You are not going to
convince them that G.M. products should be an exception to
what is the norm."
While European nations agree on the need for labeling in
the face of deep consumer fears, American lawmakers have
had a more mixed record.
Although it took 12 years of lobbying by farmers, chefs and
environmentalists, the Agriculture Department last year
created an official organic label to show consumers what
produce has been raised without conventional pesticides or
fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones.
In last year's farm bill, Congress included a provision
opposed by much of agribusiness that requires that all
meat, fish and produce be labeled with its country of
origin within two years.
"The United States is not monolithic," said John Audley of
Carnegie Endowment. "Business groups may have to yield on
labeling while activists will have to yield on allowing
genetically modified food to be sold and let consumers
decide what they want."
Already, Canada has complained that the new country of
origin labeling will restrict its trade with the United
States, especially its meat. In a study released last
month, Canadian officials also complained about the cost
and suggested that the new provision should be withdrawn.
That is unlikely until the European ban on genetically
modified food is lifted and the issue of labeling is
confronted head on.
