A
few days ago, Mark Lynas, a British environmentalist who led the charge against
the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, announced that
he has reevaluated his position. As a major
crusader against genetically modified farming, he previously wrote a piece
titled “The world trade organisation and GMOs,” where he warned that “the WTO
will increasingly remove people's right to choose healthy food and a safe
environment for themselves and their children” (here, gated). Coming from such an outspoken critic, his
reconsideration of these earlier views seems like it might carry some
weight. I imagine that is why his
announcement -- and apology(!) -- made such a splash (see here, and here).
To
readers of this blog, the GMO debate might recall the “US-EU Beef
Hormones” dispute (one of the longer running trade conflicts). There, EU countries prohibited the import of
certain meat products from the US, because the products contained genetically modified
hormones. The US challenged the ban, asserting that it violated the EU’s WTO commitments. The EU argued, in response, that it
should be permitted to invoke an exception to its WTO obligations: GMOs are harmful, and thus a ban of their
importation is justified. The case was
tried before a WTO panel and then went to the Appellate Body. In short, the WTO determined that there was a
lack of scientific evidence supporting the EU’s position on GMOs, and the EU ban was deemed illegal. Choosing not to implement the WTO ruling, the
EU faced authorized retaliation from the US.
This retaliation took the form of tariffs on certain EU products, to the
tune of an annual trade value of $116.8 million. (See here for a summary of the case.)
Anyway,
back to Lynas. I wonder what his
decision/announcement really means for policy on
GMOs. In his remarks, Lynas
characterized the GMO debate as “over.” On the one hand, maybe his announcement
suggests a sea change in scientific/public opinion on GMOs? (...I know nothing about the science of GMOs, or any relevant survey work done on this). On the other hand, though, a few areas of the US have recently considered legislation
relating to mandatory GMO labeling. A
GMO-related bill was introduced yesterday in New Mexico, and last week in
Washington (here). In California, a couple
months ago, voters considered a ballot initiative that would have required the
labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients. The CA measure was rejected, though the vote was pretty close (here). Maybe
efforts such as these have been ongoing and just flew under my radar. In any case, it’ll be interesting to see how
these bills play out, and whether Lynas's high-profile announcement has any impact on their fate.
(h/t Kyle Goehner)
(h/t Kyle Goehner)
0 comments:
Post a Comment