There has in the past been a row over the regulations of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) or Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEO), where different factors have been quoted by different stakeholders. The most notable of the stake holders have been United States, Canada, and Argentina, which have brought about consultations aimed at straightening the disputes, with the European Community (EU), under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in respect to the "Moratorium for Regulations and Approval of Biotech Products" (Pipe SW 2008, pg 11)
The dispute mainly originates from the European Union's modalities on regulatory programs addressing GMOs, the international legal requirements governing GMOs, differences in legal bases on the parts of the complaining parties, different perceptions of the relevant precedents in World Trade Organization, and considerations of the likely outcomes and the long term implications as a result of embracing or rejecting different regulatory measures. (Linda JB, Milne R 2007, pg 113)
Many countries such as United Kingdom have held the view that stands on the regulation of GMO, where arguments have been that the generation and use of GMOs as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved overlong periods of time. Other concerns that stand as stumbling blocks to harmonization of regulations of GMOs have been the limitation of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulations. (S.D. Murphy 2008, pg 47)
According to Murphy (2008, pg 47), the row on the harmonization of ...