Government▼Watch Transatlantic food fight
BGVV
An acrimonious trade dispute between the United States and the European Union (EU) over crops containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) now looks increasingly likely. U.S. officials announced in mid-May that they will ask the World Trade Organization (WTO) to investigate whether the EU’s system for authorizing GMOs is legal. The United States alleges that the EU’s failure to approve any GM products for the past five years has damaged the U.S. agricultural sector. European officials say the U.S. move is legally unwarranted, economically unfounded, and politically unhelpful.
Not in my store. EU and the United States battle over genetically modified organisms.
Canada, Argentina, and Egypt joined the United States in the WTO challenge, with third-party support from nine countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and Chile. If the WTO can’t reach an initial agreement, the dispute could last up to two years and result in trade sanctions for the EU. The United States claims the EU has banned authorization of new GMO-containing products since October 1998, preventing U.S. agricultural exports from reaching EU markets. The crux of the U.S. charge is that the EU is violating WTO rules, arguing that it doesn’t have sufficient scientific evidence showing that GM products are harmful to health or the environment.
EU officials deny there is an official ban in place, but certain member states, including France and Germany, blocked approvals of new GMO products while waiting for improved legislation on safety and labeling. Officials there argued that their actions were a reflection of public concern about the possible negative effects on the environment, such as cross-contamination with non-GM crops and the growth of “super weeds” resistant to herbicides. An updated approval system entered into force in October 2002, which EU officials assert complies with WTO rules, and is clear, transparent, and nondiscriminatory. This update was essential to restore consumer confidence, they point out. However, officials from other EU member states are indicating that they want to continue with the unofficial moratorium until a bill on labeling and traceability of GMOs becomes law. U.S. officials are also claiming that the EU ban has undermined efforts to provide food aid to developing countries. Several African nations, such as Zambia, have rejected U.S. food aid because it contained GM corn. These countries fear Europe could reject all of their imports if GM corn accidentally contaminated their crops or was fed to cattle. The EU maintains that the Bush administration is overselling biotech crops in developing countries to force global acceptance and is really trying to find outlets for a domestic surplus. MARIA BURKE
Small business loan patterns linked to sprawl Small businesses may have a tougher time getting federal loans to build on suburban farmland and open space, as a result of a March 27 agreement settling a lawsuit against the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The lawsuit, brought by the environmental groups Friends of the Earth
248 A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / JULY 1, 2003
and the Forest Conservation Council, charged that the SBA has for years neglected to conduct environmental assessments of loan applications and, as a result, has promoted urban sprawl. The plaintiffs presented as evidence a Geographic Information System study performed by the Forest Conservation Council showing that most of the $391 billion in loans made in the Washington, D.C. area between 1997 and 2000 went to businesses in the fastest-growing, most sprawling suburbs at the fringe of the urban area. An SBA spokesperson, Mike Stamler, says there is no evidence that the SBA’s loans drive sprawl. This is a problem generated by state and local zoning decisions, Stamler adds. The out-of-court settlement requires the SBA to revise its procedures for conducting environmental reviews of loans and to publish the draft regulations in the Federal Register by June 27. The new regulations must create procedures for mitigating the impacts of lending decisions on sensitive resources such as historic properties, wetlands, and protected farmlands. The settlement agreement also requires SBA to study the cumulative environmental impacts of its business loan programs and involve the public in the study. The SBA, along with all other federal agencies, is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider the environmental impact of its activities. Although the SBA promulgated regulations to comply with NEPA in 1981, none of the agency’s loan decisions have been reviewed under NEPA, according to Brian Dunkiel, attorney with Shems, Dunkiel, and Kassel. The settlement is part of a larger campaign to compel the federal government to review how its decisions about loans, highway construction, and the siting of federal facilities contribute to sprawl, says John Talberth, of the Forest Conservation Council. —JANET PELLEY © 2003 American Chemical Society
