| This
doesn’t reflect a deep-seated commitment to free trade (which
surely includes the freedom not to trade), but rather the efforts
of a strong domestic GMO lobby unconcerned with sovereignty and
environmental integrity. The challenge appears to extend to the
right to label GMO products as such.
|
|
This is a rather hollow sentiment, given that the US action at the WTO amounts to an assault on a major non-GMO food market, thus undermining the State’s initiative and destroying our farmer’s competitive advantage.
Grounds for concern, however, run deeper for Australian farmers and consumers. The US has shown itself willing to challenge democracies on access rights for GMO food. The Liberal government have shown willing to support them. Due to the nature of constitutional law, the WTO is a difficult vehicle to use to challenge the Australian states. But the AUSFTA may well be different. By way of comparison, the NAFTA agreement allows both governments and corporations to sue local and state agencies directly.
The Liberals have stated that the relevant test for trade restrictions like the GMO moratorium will be “sound science” as defined by the WTO. If the AUSFTA reflects the principles used in the NAFTA, then the Liberals will have negotiated a deal that provides both the grounds and means for the US to crack the Australian market, thus achieving what the Liberals have said they won’t do - challenge the States directly.
It is difficult not to see this as connivance. But, as the WTO has put it, “there are various economic and political advantages associated with liberalisation … [including] overcoming domestic resistance to change."
Due to the nature of constitutional law, the WTO is a difficult vehicle to use to challenge the Australian states. However, if the AUSFTA includes some or all of the relevent principles used in NAFTA, then there will be ample means for the US to enforce a complaint. The US has now shown itself ready and willing to do so.
Claims that quarantine is “not on the negotiating table” in the AUSFTA should be regarded as specious. Trade treaties don’t fundamentally deal with specific legislation; they deal with the principles by which legislation is deemed to be a barrier to traders. We have yet to see a trade treaty which embodies the principle of caution.
Andrew
Duguid For Friends of the Earth Brisbane.
May 2003
Many voices of Dissent:::
"This may be the moment of truth for the future of GM food in Europe, and future trade relations between the European Union and United States," according to Larry Bohlen of Friends of the Earth in Washington. "It is clear that this US Administration, backed by some of the richest and most powerful lobbyists in US politics, is determined to use the secretive, biased and undemocratic procedures of the WTO to bully people into accepting food they do not want," Bohlen added.
Juan Lopez of Friends of the Earth in Brussels added : "If this attempt succeeds, the US will force GM foods onto European markets regardless of the wishes of consumers. The European Commission and national governments must find the courage to stand up to this outrageous piece of bullying. Decisions over the future of GM crops in Europe must not be made in the George Bush White House." [FOE International Media Release May 2003]
Greenpeace Australia GE campaigner, John Hepburn, said "This announcement by our Trade Minister is clearly a political manoeuvre, as it makes no trade sense. Given that Australia does not grow GE food crops, it is ludicrous that we should lobby the EU to accept GE - thereby removing a source of our competitive advantage". "Australian farmers can currently sell their GE-free food into virtually every market in the world", Mr Hepburn said. "The US, Canada and Argentina cannot, because they made the mistake of embracing GE food crops without adequately evaluating the health, environmental or economic consequences... Our willingness to join the US in an action that would appear to disadvantage Australia, indicates that the Federal Government has it's own agenda for GE crops, regardless of the desires of Australian farmers and consumers. This decision also signals a real threat to Australia's own GE labelling laws which are in danger of being watered down, under US demands in current Free Trade Agreement negotiations".
Greenpeace says Australia should instead be actively supporting the right of Europeans to buy and consume GE-free food, saying "after all, that's what we produce and sell". [Greenpeace Australia Media Release May 2003]
Four Australian States have currently placed a moratorium on GE crops: Western Australia and Tasmania for 5 years; New South Wales 3 years and Victoria for 1 year. South Australis - won't allow planting this year but has not placed a moratorium. However, these moratoria do not cover all crops: eg NSW grows GE cotton. TAs has done it through Quarantine - the other states have seperate legislation.
Richard Sanders, of Quest 2025, says "Why then, is this subtle coup on democracy being allowed to happen? Indeed, why is government actively facilitating it? The WTO Training Package provides a powerful explanation: "there are various economic and political advantages associated with liberalisation commitments under the GATS … [including] … overcoming domestic resistance to change." In other words, it provides an excuse for governments wanting to impose economic rationalist policies against the democratic wishes of the public. But why would they want to impose such policies? The simple answer is that they have been conned by a long running corporate propaganda campaign that stretches back half a century and arose as a reaction against the prescriptions of Keynes. The message endlessly repeated through the '60s, '70s and '80s was that the private sector is efficient while the public sector is inefficient. In reality the efficiencies of both sectors are, on average, similar. However, the public sector can provide a service 10% more cheaply because a profit dividend does not need to be extracted."
Democrats' Agriculture spokesperson Senator John Cherry said it was "incredible" that the Australian Government had joined the action when Australia exported no genetically modified food crops, and at least two states have no plans to do so.
"The American and Australian Governments are wrong when they say that there are no scientific research concerns with GM crops. The British Medical Association, the European Environment Agency, the Royal Society of Canada, the British Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Public Health Association of Australia have all produced reports expressing concerns about the possible health and environmental risks of GM crops. "The most recent research from Britain shows that gene transfer does occur within the gut of humans from GM foods, and that the gene transfer from crops to nearby weeds is also higher than expected.
"Other research from Canada and the United States suggests that the growing of crops which are genetically modified to be herbicide resistant could result in increased use of some herbicides with adverse health and environmental effects. "These legitimate concerns need to be tested. The European GM ban and the Australian moratoria on the development of GM crops provide a breathing space to allow this research to occur. "The US challenge to the World Trade Organisation interferes with the right of each nation to protect legitimate environmental and health issues within its borders, and should be opposed rather than supported by the Australian Government," Senator Cherry concluded.
