Nexus - 0701 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

predominant political blocs have joined forces within the World material. One of its products is a recombinant bovine growth Trade Organization to dismantle barriers to trade and investment hormone (rBGH), used by large-scale dairy farmers in the US to in the less industrialised nations. The EU and the US prepare increase the milk production of their cows. Other ‘natural’ their common positions bilaterally within the Transatlantic hormones such as oestradiol and testosterone are also commonly Economic Partnership (TEP) and within the so-called "Quad", used by US cattle farmers. In 1995, 90 per cent of US cattle were comprising the US, the EU, Japan and Canada. treated with some type of growth hormone. As Josh Karliner observes in The Corporate Planet: "Toa In January 1989, the European Union, applying the 'precaution- large degree, the triad of Japan, EU and US can be seen as three ary principle’, deemed safety claims by US industry unconvincing large corporate states, at times cooperating, at times competing and imposed a ban on the import of hormone-treated beef and with one another to promote the interests of their rival transna- milk. The ban also applied to producers within the EU. In tionals across the globe." response to strong lobbying by Monsanto, the US National As the millennium draws to a close, a number of high-profile Cattlemen's Association, the US Dairy Export Council, the trade disputes between the EU and the US have placed the WTO's National Milk Producers Federation and other interest groups, the unique implementation powers in the spotlight. The WTO's then US Trade Representative Mickey Kantor initiated action in sharpest teeth are its dispute settlement body and its cross-retalia- the WTO against the EU ban on beef hormones.‘ tion provisions, both of which enable it to force nations to comply On the EU side, industry groups such as FEDESA (the primary with WTO rules. The increasing number of controversial rulings lobby organisation for the European animal ‘health’ products in which the WTO dispute settlement body has upheld corporate —_ industry) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry interests over those of people and the envi- Associations (EFPIA)—both members of ronment has severely tarnished the WTO's EuropaBio, the primary biotech lobby group image. in the EU—pressured the Commission to lift Within the WTO system, any member In early May 1997, a the ban, which was affecting European com- state can complain to the dispute settlement panies as well. In chorus with their US coun- body about any other member's policies or three-person WTO terparts, they argued that there is always laws that are perceived to restrict the tree dispute settlement panel some risk with food involving genetic modi- ow of trade. If the panel—composed o . ication or hormone treatment. unelected bureaucrats—finds a government ruled that a nine-year ban Pressure from consumer protection organi- guilty of non-compliance with WTO agree- imposed by the European sations and other NGOs made the ments, the offending country must change Commission realise that the lifting of its ban its legislation or face retaliatory trade sanc- Union on hormone- on hormone-treated beef and milk was a tions by the complaining party, even in sec- treated beef was illegal political hot potato. Supported by a growing under WTO rules. tors unrelated to the dispute. The offending country may also face heavy financial body of evidence suggesting that certain nat- ural and synthetic hormones are linked penalties. to rising incidences of cancer, the During the first four years of the . . Commission decided not to lift its ban, WTO's existence, the dispute settle- The ruling, which despite the WTO ruling. ment mechanism has been invoked i The preliminary decision in the dis- predominantly for disputes between overturned an important pute over hormone beef is the first rul- the EU and the US. Its first decisions consumer health law, ing, thus far, based on a three-year-old provide a disturbing picture of what WTO agreement known as the Sanitary can be expected in the future. During caused outrage and Phytosanitary Agreement. This this first four-year period, there were throughout Europe. agreement requires that restrictions 177 cases in which a country chal- lenged a law or practice of another country by invoking WTO rules. The based on food health and safety be based on scientific evidence, and accepts internationally agreed stan- majority of these cases could have dards, such as those decided within the been settled without interference by UN system, as a justification for taking the WTO's dispute settlement body. Eighteen of the 177 disputes protective trade measures. Since the UN Food and Agriculture were settled by a binding panel decision, and another 18 are cur- Organization (FAO) deemed the hormones to be safe, the WTO rently being examined by the WTO panels.’ panel ruled that the EU's ban was unjustified and should be lifted. The following two case studies are examples of how the busi- This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for national consumer ness groupings use the WTO system to pursue their interests at health and safety protection laws. Many experts believe that vari- the expense of people and the environment. ous EU measures, such as those regulating other animal products, may now also be challenged by the US and other nations.’ The 2 US Industry's Beef with European Consumers process of whittling away consumer protection laws and regula- In early May 1997, a three-person WTO dispute settlement tions in Europe and elsewhere for the sake of industry will thus panel ruled that a nine-year ban imposed by the European Union continue unabated unless steps are taken to reverse this trend. A jae WTA elas Tha esl - US Industry's Beef with European Consumers In early May 1997, a three-person WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that a nine-year ban imposed by the European Union on hormone-treated beef was illegal under WTO rules. The rul- ing, which overturned an important consumer health law, caused outrage throughout Europe. Over the past decade, Monsanto, the US-based TNC which formerly produced chemicals, has restyled itself into a ‘life science’ corporation, leaning heavily on the manipulation of genetic 2 Massachusetts-Burma Law: Human Rights Overruled In the United States, individual states and communities have long expressed their political leanings through the enactment of ‘selective purchasing’ laws. These laws pressure transnational corporations to cease doing business with repressive regimes by 12 - NEXUS treated beef was illegal under WTO rules. caused outrage throughout Europe. DECEMBER 1999 — JANUARY 2000