Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
requirements after their initial release to market. 17,18 Such regulatory
oversight is of utmost importance to address, for instance, nonapproved
GMOs that could enter the food chain.
As a consequence, the de facto moratorium on GM crop farming in
the EU officially ended on May 19, 2004, when the European Commis-
sion gave the Swiss firm Syngenta approval to market its BT 11 maize
for human consumption. In May 2003, the United States, supported by
Canada and Argentina, however, had launched a WTO case against the
EU concerning its authorization regime for GMOs. They claimed that
the EU's approval process took too long, hurt their exports of GM crops,
and was not based on science. The WTO three-judge panel eventually
decided to gather the views of independent and highly reputable scien-
tists from different parts of the world, including Europe and the United
States. That consultation process confirmed the legitimacy of the health
and environmental issues addressed in EU regulations and procedures.
The longer times to assess the safety of GMOs in the EU by the Euro-
pean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are due to the complexity of the
science involved, as well as to the reluctance of the biotech industry to
provide suitable data demonstrating the safety of GM crops and their
derived products. Although it is a country's sovereign right to make its
own decisions, there is still a need to develop a sound international legal
framework for these products.
Economicand Social Issues
In Europe, the prevailing view is that farmers should be able to grow
the crops they choose, be they GM, conventional, or organic, and that
policies and practices should not preclude any of these forms of
agriculture. However, GM crop plants have failed to gain acceptance in
17 Commission Regulation 1829/2003, 2003 O.J. (L268) 1-23 (EC).
18 Commission Regulation 1830/2003. 2003 O. J. (L268) 24-28 (EC).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search