LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Approved-By:  Hopwoods <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:  <l03130306b45cf5086206@[198.234.69.171]>
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:03:53 -0800
Reply-To: Biotech Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Biotech Forum <[log in to unmask]>
From: Hopwoods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      letter to Barshefsky
To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

(The Sierra Club sign on probably came from Dan Seligman.)

Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

Dear Ambassador Barshefsky:     November 18, 1999

Our organizations are deeply concerned about the United States' proposal to
include biotechnology on the agenda of upcoming negotiations at the World
Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. proposal, which requests the WTO to
address "disciplines to ensure trade in agricultural biotechnology products
is based on transparent, predictable and timely processes," may undermine
the ability of governments to address the serious ethical, health, and
environmental challenges posed by biotechnology.

At a time when regulators are struggling to address the challenge of
biotechnology, the U.S. proposal threatens to "chill" the development of
new national and international safeguards for trade in agricultural
biotechnology products. In the context of the WTO, which has the
overarching objective of trade expansion and does not adequately
incorporate consideration of environmental impacts, rules requiring
"predictable processes" and "science-based disciplines," for example could
fail to acknowledge the extensive scientific uncertainty surrounding
biotechnology, and could place excessive constraints on the rights of
governments to regulate, hampering their ability to respond to
scientifically uncertain threats on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Similarly, rules requiring "transparent and timely processes" may pressure
importing governments to authorize GMO products without fully understanding
the health and environmental implications. They suggest a window into the
regulatory process -- such as the proposed EU-U.S. "early warning system"
-- to establish a new foothold for GMO exporters to place downward pressure
on already flagging GMO regulations.

Bringing biotechnology to the WTO also threatens the Biosafety Protocol,
which is currently being negotiated by over 140 governments to address GMO
risks to biodiversity. The United States' proposal runs counter to proposed
protections in the Biosafety Protocol to track and provide "advance
informed agreement" of GMO shipments. It may also reduce the scope of the
Biosafety Protocol by allowing the WTO to define "agricultural
biotechnology products" and to bring these products into its exclusive
coverage.

Finally, by bringing national food safety regulations further into the
province of the WTO where panels pass judgement on democratically
determined laws, new WTO rules on biotechnology may undermine support for
the multilateral trading system. Already, citizens all around the world are
questioning the legitimacy of the WTO. Introducing biotechnology threatens
to further politicize the
Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky
November 18, 1999
Page 2

upcoming WTO ministerial meeting, as well as the role of the U.S.
government in international trade negotiations.

Our apprehension about the U.S. proposal also extends to proposals by Japan
and Canada for a WTO Working Party on Biotechnology, and we request the
United States to publicly reject these proposals. Such a Working Party
might lead to new restrictions on right of governments to require labeling
of GMO products to promote consumers' right-to-know. The use of "sound
science" to discipline labeling has already been suggested by the United
States at the Codex Alimentarius Commission. We oppose any attempt to
introduce these measures into the WTO as they fail to recognize a variety
of consumer concerns including ethical, religious and dietary factors that

are not reducible to science.

To conclude, we call on U.S. government to promote a sound, precautionary
response to the risks posed by biotechnology. We call for the successful
and early conclusion of a strong Biosafety Protocol to address risks to
biodiversity. We urge you to reject proposals by Canada and Japan to
establish a Working Party on Biotechnology at the WTO. Finally, we call on
the U.S. government to reconsider its proposal for the WTO to address
disciplines on agricultural biotechnology products. We believe that this is
the only course of conduct compatible with the vision of leadership and
responsibility articulated by President Clinton when he committed to "make
the global economy work for ordinary citizens."

Thank you for your serious consideration of our views, and we look forward
to discussing this issue with you in the days remaining before the Seattle
ministerial. Our views about the United States proposal are further
reflected in the attached, draft discussion paper prepared by the Center
for International Environmental Law. Please do not hesitate to let us know
if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Center for International Environmental Law
Community Nutrition Institute
Consumer's Choice Council
Corporate Agribusiness Research Project
Defenders of Wildlife
Falls Brook Centre
Friends of the Earth
Sierra Club
Transnational Resource & Action Center
Union of Concerned Scientists


cc: Members of the official U.S. delegation to the Seattle ministerial
meeting of the WTO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]