The EU moratorium on approving bioengineered food has no scientific basis, as those currently on the market have been shown to be as safe as conventional varieties
Plenty of pundits have had a go at my country's decision to join several other major food-producing countries in requesting World Trade Organization (WTO) consultations with the EU over the moratorium on approving agricultural biotechnology products.
Several have accused the US of recklessly starting a "trade war", but almost no one has taken the time to describe the merits of our arguments or the strength of our case. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of legal and scientific evidence supports our decision to challenge the EU over its stance on agricultural biotechnology.
Over the course of the past five years, the EU has consistently violated WTO rules that require measures regulating imports to be based on sufficient scientific evidence and mandate that regulatory approval procedures be operated without undue delay.
EU member states have blocked regulatory approval of new agricultural biotechnology products since 1998, and have done so without presenting any scientific evidence demonstrating a danger to human health, as required by the WTO. The US and others, in bringing this case, are simply seeking to ensure that the EU applies a scientific, rules-based review and approval process for agricultural biotechnology products.
Simply put, the EU moratorium has no scientific basis. Bioengineered foods currently on the market have been shown to be as safe as conventional varieties. As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million Americans have been eating bioengineered corn and soya beans for years. No adverse consequences have ever been reported. The UK's Royal Society and even the EU itself acknowledge that biotech foods on the market pose no threat to human health.
Many leading scientific organizations and institutions in the UK acknowledge the benefits that bioengineered crops could bring to the environment and the world's food supply. However, as in any debate concerning the wider use of a new technology in society, there are those who disagree. But the prominent arguments used against the commercial development of bioengineered crops in the UK often cite undocumented anecdotal evidence or play on unfounded fears.
The record should be set straight. This is why we applaud the British government's decision to launch a public dialogue at several regional venues. Providing a structured forum that allows the arguments to be presented -- both pro and con -- should help address many of the public-interest concerns related to this issue.
The EU moratorium on agricultural biotechnology approvals has ramifications far beyond Europe. The EU's refusal to meet its WTO obligations is slowing down the adoption of a beneficial technology, and developing countries have already suffered negative consequences.
Last fall, some famine-stricken southern African countries balked at US food aid because of ill-informed health and environmental concerns, as well as fears that the countries' exports to Europe would be jeopardized by "contamination" of local crops.
Those who stand to benefit most from agricultural biotechnology -- the poor and undernourished in developing countries -- do not have time on their side.
The spillover effects of the EU moratorium threaten to negate the benefits of biotechnology, which can help stimulate agricultural productivity and raise living standards in developed and developing countries alike. Farmers worldwide have recognized the economic, agricultural and environmental benefits of biotech crops. These plants yield more from the land and can thrive in poor soil. Up to 80 percent of some crops in Africa are presently lost to drought. Biotech drought-resistant crops can help produce food in developing countries struggling to feed their populations.
Increased use of agricultural biotechnology can also yield substantial environmental benefits. Farmers utilizing biotech crops can reduce soil erosion and pesticide use. Biotech crops create more hospitable environments for wildlife, including streams and rivers spared from chemical pesticides. Farmers who are able to increase crop yields on existing land will be less tempted to encroach on tropical rainforests and other fragile natural habitats.
Those who claim that the US is trying to force biotech foods on consumers have got the argument backwards. It is the EU's unilateral, illegal and unjustified actions, taken without any scientific, health or environmental basis, which constrain choice and opportunity worldwide. The US and others want EU regulations that maximize consumer choice while at the same time protecting consumer health and safety.
A recent Guardian leader said that "getting GM food into Europe does not mean people will buy it." Well, that may end up being the case, but we think it's a decision the EU should let the people of Europe make for themselves.
William Farish is the US ambassador to the UK.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS