Genetically Modified Organisms, U.S. and E.U. Trade Dispute - Research Paper Example

US – European Union GMO Dispute The development of genetically modified organisms has been hailed as among the greatest developments of the modern age because of the fact that it is speculated that these organisms will be used in the fight against world hunger in the near future. While this may be the case, there has developed some reservations concerning these organisms within the European Union and this is mainly due to the belief that not all GMOs are fit for human and animal consumption. The European Union has some of the toughest measures that have been put in place to ensure that GMOs are regulated, since they are considered to be new food, hence the need to subject them to extensive evaluation before they are approved. The task of regulating the flow of GMOs has been given to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which, after conducting the necessary research and evaluations concerning the GMOs proposed for the European market, submits a report to the European Commission for the purpose of granting or denying endorsement. The European Union has a history of preventing the importation of GMOs into its territory especially those that are for human consumption, with few exceptions (Peel 175). Most of those that have been allowed to go into circulation are those that are for animal consumption and these are normally highly restricted and regulated to ensure that there is no gene flow between them and similar non-GMO foods. The European Union can be said to have often looked upon the importation of GMO with a certain amount of suspicion, and this has led to its getting involved in some disputes with the United States, which is the world’s biggest exporter of the same. In 2006, the United States submitted a trade dispute with the World Trade Organization, which concerned the delays by the European Union to authorize the entrance of GMO into its markets. This was because despites the United States’ applications to have its GMO products enter the EU market; the latter had not taken any action to accede to this request. Instead, it had failed to take any action, scientific or otherwise, to deal with the issue, instead banning the products from the United States without any plausible reason. During this case, the EU argued that it has acted in good faith, stating that it has acted through the precautionary principle, in order to protect the interests of those who produced the non-GMO products for its markets. Despite this argument, the WTO ruled against the EU stating that it would have been necessary for the latter to provide credible scientific evidence concerning the potential harm of GMO before taking action against the authorization of American GMO into its markets (Viju, Yeung and Kerr 1207). As a response, the European Union has made amendments to its regulatory framework to ensure that its member states are given the power to ban any GMO products within their territories. However, there has been general agreement within the member states that the bans might not be effective in the current situation, with some arguing that the new proposed regulations might not be in line with the rules of the WTO. The complex nature of the EU’s decision making process has been blamed for the resulting trade dispute between the United States and the European Union. The fact that this dispute took place was due to the fact that the European Union is still extremely cautious concerning the importation of GMO into its territory. Most of the concern from the EU is based on the belief that some of the GMO that are imported, especially from the United States, may not be fit for human consumption and if consumed may end up having long term detrimental effects on the health of those who consume it. This is the reason why the EU chose to take on the precautionary principle, where it prevented any GMO products from the United States from entering any of the markets within its territory (Karlsson 51). During the case brought before the WTO, the argument that the EU was taking illegal action through banning GMO without scientific proof of their being harmful was raised and this worked against it. The EU, while being cautious concerning GMO imports, had also gone against the trade rules of the WTO and this is the reason behind its losing the case brought against it by the United States. Thus, it was found that the member states of the EU had acted in a manner which was inconsistent with the set WTO regulations on trade. In the case of beef production through the application of hormones for the purpose of increasing production has been common practice in some countries such as the United States. This is because of the fact that these hormones are used for the purpose of ensuring that the growth of cattle is not only sped up, but that they also grow to produce more beef. The swift growth of cattle means that the entities involved are able to ensure that they have more beef in the market, hence more money. However, the fact that more than half of the cattle farmers in the United States along use GMO and synthetic hormones to ensure the swift growth of their animals has created a situation where there are fears that the beef might be the cause of diverse health problems (Devos et al 29). The use of hormones in beef production has ensured that there is plenty of beef in the market, hence the reduction of the costs of obtaining it. Hormones and GMO are useful in beef production because they enable the swift growth of beef producing cattle and as a consequence, most of the animals which are given these hormones tend to grow and mature physically at a faster rate than cattle that consume natural feed. The swift growth of beef cattle helps in satisfying the large demand for beef in the market and it also ensures that the farmers who keep them are compensated for their efforts in the use of hormones and GMO feed for their cattle. There has been a long running trade dispute between the United States and the EU concerning beef imports, with the latter effectively banning the former’s beef from its markets. Much of the dispute has been based on the fact that most of the beef produced in the United States has been treated using certain types of growth hormones which have the adverse health effects on the individuals who consume the beef (Lofstedt, Fischhoff, and Fischhoff 381). Because of this dispute there have been massive losses on the part of both trading partners as the United States has lost plenty of money from the loss of European markets while the EU has lost an alternative source of meat to satisfy local demand. The beef producers in the United States who exported to the European markets ended up suffering hundreds of millions of dollars in losses because most of their cattle were given growth hormones to quicken their growth. While the meat consumption in Europe can be said to be extremely high, most Europeans are highly suspicious of any beef or beef products that are either produced through the consumption of GMO or treated with growth hormones (Isaac and Kerr 1084). This is the reason why, following public opinion, the EU chose to take strict measures to ensure the ban of any hormone treated beef imports from the United States, and North America in general, were not sold within its territory. The ability of the public to influence policy in the EU concerning the consumption of either GMO foods or hormone treated foods has ensured that the ban of such food imports from the United States has been maintained for a long period. The presence of growth hormone treated beef in the European market ensured that the price of beef remained relatively low because of the fact that it was produced in larger quantities than those from cattle raised on organic feed. This created a situation where those individuals with low incomes were able to afford beef and it was consumed regularly. However, while this was the case, the fact the people within the European Union are conscious of the various health concerns that are brought about by hormone treated beef, the consumption of such beef in Europe has been fairly limited. There is a distrust of the beef imports from the United States, with many Europeans having a preference for their local beef, when compared to genetically modified beef. The mistrust of beef imports from the United States is reflected from the various bans or regulations that have been put in place to limit their imports into the European Union, creating a situation where there have been disputes between the two entities. It has been found that most Europeans have a preference for the consumption of organic beef over hormone treated beef and that they would rather incur the extra costs of buying the former than allow themselves to consume beef that has been treated using synthetic growth hormones (Ryland 7). The negotiations taking place between the United States and the EU for the purpose of forming a free trade zone have, for the time being, led to the decrease of the once tough stance taken by the EU concerning beef imports from the United States. The existence of the dispute between the United States and the EU has created the need for the development of new policies and mechanisms that are aimed at ensuring that the dispute is resolved. These two entities have to work towards the establishment of a policy where each of them imports beef, from one another but for the beef itself to be clearly labeled as either being organic or otherwise. It should be left to the consumers of the beef to decide what type they should consume because this is the only way through which the dispute will be settled amicably (Andersen 136). In addition, the fact that the EU and the United States are in talks to establish a free trade zone encompassing their respective territories is a step towards ensuring that such disputes are resolved. Talks towards the establishment of a free trade zone will likely be helpful towards the relaxation of some of the stringent measures that have been put in place by both sides to protect their consumers. The development of this new trade relationship will ensure that there is the formulation of new policies whose aim is to create an atmosphere which is conducive for the easing of trade between these two entities. As a result, it is more likely than not that with the creation of a free trade zone, there will be fewer barriers to trade in GMO products thus ensuring that the current disputes have been completely resolved (Christoforou 637). There have been recently been initiatives that have been aimed at resolving the dispute between the United States and Europe in matters concerning the ban of beef products from each other’s markets. Some political analysts have suggested that the best way to resolve this dispute would be for the United States to take the lead through the easing of restrictions against European beef products so that the EU can also see it fit to reciprocate in kind. In addition, there has been the suggestion that the creation of a free trade zone between the United States and the EU would create an avenue where there would be a reduction of trade disputes and an increase in cooperation between them. Some analysts have suggested that Barrack Obama, the American president, being extremely popular in Europe should use his popularity to create a better working relationship with his European counterparts. The fact that he enjoys the good will of the European public is likely to work in his favor not only in matters concerning the ending of the beef import stand off, but also those of the creation of the free trade zone. A free trade zone would be the ideal guarantee for the ending of most, if not all the disputes that involve these two entities. This is the reason why the various governments involved are taking steps to work towards the achievement of the free trade zone that will remove all the restrictions between them and increase the volume of trade. If such a free trade zone were to be established, then there would be enormous benefits for the people who would be in this zone. It would not only lead to the swift conclusion of trade transactions, but it will also be a means through which new opportunities for trade in GMO products will be created for the people of both the United States and Europe. It would see the enhancement of the economic growth within the zone; something that will be tremendously beneficial considering the fact that there have been plenty of restrictions to trade in the trade of GMO products between the various free trade zones for quite a number of years. While the United States and the European Union are each others’ biggest trade partners in all products except GMO, if a free trade zone were to be created between them, then there would certainly be an increase in the volume of trade in GMO products between them. It can be said that it is a brilliant idea for these two economic zones to team up to create a single free trade zone to encourage trade between them. This would not only make it easier for trade in GMO products to take place across the Atlantic, but it would also spur the acceptance of these products, which are considered by most scholars and political thinkers to be the future of food production. From the very beginning of the use of GMO, especially in within the European Union, there have been concerns about the probable health hazards of these products on the lives of their consumers. The fact that these concerns are in existence is among the reasons why the EU has been compelled to put restrictions on imports of GMO to ensure that its population is protected from any possible complications resulting from its consumption. The European population in general is highly skeptical of the beef products from the United States believing that most of it has been developed using genetically modified hormones to spur growth in cattle. The existence of restrictions against American beef products in the European Union have also been created because of the need to ensure that these products are not in any way detrimental to the environment (Dunfield and Germida 807). The environmental impact of GMO products are yet to be fully analyzed and it is high time that research concerning it be conducted to ensure that better ways of managing these products are developed. The United States, on the other hand, has to adopt some of the concern about GMO effect on health and environment because very little research has been conducted on the subject. Through this adoption, there will be a better understanding of the reasons behind the European ban on some of its GMO products, and this will enable them to reach an amicable solution to their disputes. Works Cited Andersen, Lars Bracht. "The EU Rules on Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods: Mission Accomplished?" European Food and Feed Law Review : EFFL 5.3 (2010): 136-43. Christoforou, Theofanis. "THE REGULATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE INTERPLAY OF SCIENCE, LAW AND POLITICS." Common Market Law Review 41.3 (2004): 637-709. Devos, Yann, et al. "Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.1 (2008): 29. Dunfield, Kari E., and James J. Germida. "Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on Soil- and Plant-Associated Microbial Communities." Journal of environmental quality 33.3 (2004): 806-15. Karlsson, Mikael. "Ethics of Sustainable Development - a Study of Swedish Regulations for Genetically Modified Organisms." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16.1 (2003): 51. Isaac, Grant E., and William A. Kerr. "Genetically Modified Organisms at the World Trade Organization: A Harvest of Trouble." Journal of World Trade 37.6 (2003): 1083-95. Lofstedt, Ragnar E., Baruch Fischhoff, and Ilya R. Fischhoff. "Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21.3 (2002): 381-407. Peel, Jacqueline. "WHEN COOPERATION FAILS: THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS." Melbourne Journal of International Law 11.1 (2010): 175-84. Ryland, Diane. "Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in the Interests of Whom?" Managerial Law 43.6 (2001): 1-37. Viju, Crina, May T. Yeung, and William A. Kerr. "The Trade Implications of the Post-Moratorium European Union Approval System for Genetically Modified Organisms." Journal of World Trade 46.5 (2012): 1207-37. Read More