Truth about GMO

The bitter dispute between the United States, Canada and Argentina, on the one hand, and the European Union (EU), on the other hand, whose restrictive policy towards genetically modified foods reached what is likely as a bitter climax this week when the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the EU rules violated trade rules by blocking food, with the techniques of modern biotechnology. Erbitterter, because the EU is threatening to pre-emptively dishonour the verdict, when it comes to the benefit of the USA, Canada and Argentina. The EU is keen to block genetically modified foods without scientific justification.

The dispute dates back to the spring of 1998, when five EU member states Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg - a declaration to block GMO approvals, unless The European Commission (EC) proposed legislation on the traceability and labelling of GMOs. A year later, in June 1999, the EU environment ministers, the six years de facto moratorium on GMOs all. The official moratorium, however, fell, as the EU rebellions against GMOs and obstruction remains.

EU 'ban on GMOs has annoyed the United States, Canada and Argentina - the leading producer of GMO crops with extensions - to initiate a WTO dispute settlement proceedings against the EU - In May 2003 with the argument that the moratorium harm farmers and their export markets, particularly for corn and soybeans, and the critical sources of income for farmers.

Now the WTO ruling today (7 February 2006). They have already reported, it will be the longest report document of its kind. This suggests that the EU's policy can have a beneficial seeped into the WTO process complicated, what should be a simple procedure for resolving trade disputes. This is unfortunate, for more than just the two parties involved.

The stakes are too high, not just for the parties in dispute, but for the whole world, and especially developing countries. The dispute is not only a transatlantic trade battle. At stake are the rights of consumers to real alternatives in terms of their food, and farmers' freedoms to use approved tools and technologies for the production of these foods safe choices.

The EU has never justified its restrictive policy towards GMOs, make everyone question the motive behind GMO ban. When it slapped a moratorium on GMOs, the EU undefined cited security concerns as the reason for the drastic measure. Their own scientists and regulators have repeatedly pointed to the issues of security for these GMO crops. Similar products defined standards precautionary principle to other growing practices - such as organic - Europe would have to similarly ban all foodstuffs.

In the absence of verifiable scientific justification to block GMOs from their territories, the EU is guilty of violating the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), which it has signed. The PLC, in particular, recognize that countries have the right to regulate the plants and foods to protect the health and the environment. The agreement requires, but "sufficient scientific evidence" to support trade-restrictive regulations on crops and food products to protect the argument environment.

The EU in the WTO dispute is heavily eroded by the fact that different scientific institutions have , repeatedly, GM confirmed. For example, the UK Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFT) - an independent body for food scientists and technologists - has declared that "genetic engineering has the potential to offer very significant improvements in the quantity, quality and acceptability of World food supply. "

In 2004, the American National Research Council (NRC), a division of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), has submitted a report in which it found that genetic engineering" is not inherently a dangerous process "Calls fears of the anti-biotech quantity" scientifically unjustified. "

In June 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report acknowledged that the potential of genetically modified food to the improvement of human health and development. The report, Modern Food Biotechnology, Health and Human Development, notes that pre-market assessments so far have not found any negative health effects of consuming genetically modified foods. Certainly not a serious scientific body would be a bad innovation.

These findings may help to explain why agricultural biotech innovators and product developers continue to thrive. Cropnosis - a leading provider of market research and consulting in the areas of crop protection and biotechnology - estimates that the global value of biotech crops is $ 5.25 billion, or 15 percent of the $ 34.02 billion crop protection market in the year 2005, and 18 percent of the 30 billion US dollars 2005 global commercial seed market.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), in a report published earlier this year, shows that since the commercialization of the first genetically modified crops a decade ago , 1 billion hectares, in 21 countries, is under biotech crops. In 2005 alone, the global area of biotech crops has been approved 222 million hectares, of the 200 million hectares in 2004. This represents an annual growth rate of 11 percent.

The lucrative nature of GM plants - high and they require less pesticides and herbicides - is pushing many developing countries to embrace. However, many, especially in Africa, where agriculture represents 30 percent of the continent's gross domestic product (GDP), has been reluctant to cultivate GMOs for fear of losing their European agricultural markets. This is the reason why Europe to the accession of GMOs remains critical to Africa's adoption of GMOs. The EU, which standardmaig prevents many poor countries to benefit from GMOs.

If Europe opens its doors to GMOs, many poor countries the advantages of this technology in both economic life saving advantages to offer. Many people in poor countries, mainly live on agriculture. You have a chance to use modern agricultural technologies, including biotechnology. Denying poor countries a chance to reap from plant biotechnology, which proved so successful, in other parts of the world, which amounts to pay the billions of people living in poor countries to a slow and painful death.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Wachai