***The EU Ban On Agricultural Biotech Products is Illegal***

1.  Since the late 1990s, the European Union has pursued policies that
    undermine the development and use of agricultural biotechnology.

2.  In the late 1990s, six member states (Austria, France, Germany,
    Greece, Italy and Luxembourg) banned imports of corn and rapeseed
    approved by the European Union. Although these actions were a
    violation of European law, the European Commission refused to
    challenge the bans.

3.  Then, in 1998, member states began blocking EU regulatory approval
    for new agricultural biotech products.

4.  This moratorium effectively prohibits most U.S. corn exports to
    Europe. In addition to violating EU law, the moratorium clearly
    breaches World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

5.  Specifically, the WTO requires that measures regulating imports be
    based on "sufficient scientific evidence" and that countries operate
    regulatory approval procedures without "undue delay."

6.  WTO rules do not require automatic approval of biotech foods. At
    present, however, the EU refuses to grant new approvals. This
    plainly violates the EU's WTO obligations.

7.  The U.S. simply wants to EU to apply a scientific, rules-based
    review and approval process to agricultural biotech product
    applications.

8.  The U.S. case is not an attempt to "force" acceptance of biotech
    foods on European consumers. It is Europe's actions, without any
    scientific, health or environmental basis, that deprives consumers
    of choice.

***The Need to Act Now:***

***The Effects of Europe's Policies Are Spreading***

9.  The EU moratorium on agricultural biotech approvals has
    ramifications far beyond Europe. The spread of beneficial
    biotechnology is slowing, and developing countries have already
    suffered negative consequences.

10. In the fall of 2002, some famine-stricken southern African countries
    balked at U.S. food aid because of ill-informed health and
    environmental concerns, as well as fears that the countries' exports
    to Europe would be jeopardized by "contamination" of local crops.

11. Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique refused U.S. food aid made of the
    same wholesome corn that Americans eat every day. Zimbabwe and
    Mozambique eventually accepted U.S. food aid after making costly and
    cumbersome arrangements to mill donated corn so that African farmers
    could not try to grow it; governments feared their exports to Europe
    would be jeopardized. Zambia continues to refuse U.S. corn.

12. Edith Ssempala, Uganda's ambassador the United States, said she
    worries that "if Uganda accepts the GM banana, the European Union
    will retaliate and refuse to buy \[our\] food exports." (National
    Public Radio, January 23, 2003) This fear has prevented Uganda from
    taking advantage of biotech bananas developed in Belgium.

13. *"Europe has surplus food and has never experienced hunger, mass
    starvation and death on the scale we regularly witness in Africa.
    Africans can speak for themselves \... The African continent, more
    than any other urgently needs agricultural biotechnology."* -- Dr.
    Florence Wambugu, Kenyan scientist and former Director of the
    International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
    Applications

***Biotech Products Are Safe and Healthy***

14. As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million
    North Americans have been eating biotech corn and soybeans for
    years. No adverse health consequence has ever been reported.

15. The EU itself acknowledges that biotech foods on the market pose no
    threat to human health. In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
    EU Ambassador to the United States acknowledged that biotech corn
    examined by its Scientific Committees "is as safe as conventional
    corn."

16. The European Commission's Directorate-General for Research has
    stated that, "Research on the GM plants and derived products so far
    developed and marketed\... has not shown any new risks to human
    health or the environment\... Indeed, the use of more precise
    technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them
    even safer than conventional plants and foods." (DG Research Press
    Briefing, October 8, 2001)

17. In November 2000, the European Commission acknowledged that "no
    peer-reviewed scientific article reporting adverse effects on human
    health as a result of eating GM foods has appeared\..." (Working
    Document of the European Commission, November 2000)

18. A joint report from the national science academies of the UK, the
    United States, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico stated, "GM
    technology should be used to increase the production of main food
    staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the
    environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for
    small-scale farmers."

19. Every year, more than 500,000 children go blind for lack of
    sufficient Vitamin A. Iron deficiencies are responsible for anemia
    among millions of women and children worldwide. Biotech crops
    currently in field trials could help reduce these numbers.

***Biotech Products Can Spur Agricultural Productivity***

20. Farmers worldwide have recognized the economic, agricultural and
    environmental benefits of biotech crops. These plants yield more
    from the land and can thrive in poorer soils. About 145 million
    acres were planted with biotech crops in 2002. Of this, about
    one-quarter was in developing countries.

21. Up to 80 percent of some crops in Africa are lost to drought.
    Biotech drought-resistant crops could help produce food in
    developing countries struggling to feed their populations.

22. Worldwide, about 45% of soy, 11% of corn, 20% of cotton and 11% of
    rapeseed are biotech crops. In the United States, 75% of soy, 34% of
    corn, and 71% of cotton are biotech crops.

23. The United States is the largest grower of biotech crops in the
    world, with 96.3 million acres currently under cultivation. Other
    leading biotech food producers are Argentina, with 33.3 million
    acres; Canada, with 8.6 million acres; and China, with 5.2 million
    acres.

24. 12 other countries grow more than 1 million hectares (about 2.5
    million acres) of biotech crops each year. They are South Africa,
    India, Spain, Mexico, Indonesia, Honduras, Australia, Romania,
    Uruguay, Bulgaria, Colombia, and Germany.

25. *"If imports like these biotechnology crops are regulated
    unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Their
    countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial to
    reject the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late."
    --* Former President Jimmy Carter

***Choice: Let Consumers Decide***

26. The United States is not trying to "force" foods on consumers, in
    Europe or elsewhere. Consumer choice is a fundamental tenet of U.S.
    policy. The United States seeks government regulations that maximize
    choice while protecting consumer health and safety.

27. The EU moratorium constrains choice and opportunity by denying
    consumers the option of purchasing foods grown through agricultural
    biotech methods. This illegal and unjustified ban has no scientific
    basis.

28. The evidence suggests that, when given the choice, many consumers
    will purchase biotech foods. According to the International Service
    for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, the total amount
    of land under cultivation with GM crops grew by 12% in 2002,
    continuing a half-decade of consumer-driven double-digit growth.

29. The rising popularity of organic foods in the United States suggests
    that some consumers are willing to pay more for non-biotech foods.
    Yet many consumers do choose biotech foods, even when they are sold
    beside organic crops.

***Biotech Crops Benefit the Environment***

30. **Pesticide Reduction**: "In the U.S. in the last 8 years, we have
    reduced the consumption of pesticide by 46 million pounds of active
    ingredients in cotton and corn, while increasing yield and reducing
    production costs." Dr. C.S. Prakash, Professor of Cellular Plant
    Biotechnology, Tuskegee University

31. **Soil & Water Conservation**: No-till acreage\--farmland in which
    plowing of soil is reduced or eliminated\--has increased by 35
    percent since biotech crops were introduced. As a result, biotech
    crops have reduced soil erosion by 1 billion tons per year,
    according to the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC).
    Further applications of conservation tilling using biotech crops
    could save up to \$3.5 billion in water treatment and storage costs
    per year.

32. **Wildlife Protection**: Biotech crops can create more hospitable
    environments for wildlife, including fish living in streams and
    rivers spared from chemical pesticides. In addition, research shows
    that biotech crops do not negatively impact species such as the
    monarch butterfly.

33. **Drought-Resistant Crops:** Biotech rice currently under
    development is about twice as resistant to drought and salt water,
    and will withstand temperatures about 10 degrees lower than,
    conventional rice. Farmers are able to grow biotech rice in fields
    where cultivation once was impossible, according to Ajay K. Garg, a
    Cornell University researcher and author of a study in the
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 26, 2002

34. *"Through the development of GM cotton, we can reduce the use of
    pesticides by more than 80%\... and can reduce pesticide poisoning
    cases by 90%."* -- Professor Guo Sandui, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    and inventor of Chinese GM cotton.

***Five Years of U.S. Patience, Five Years of European Delays***

**April 1990:** The EU adopts Directive 90/220, which establishes an
approval process for products of agricultural biotechnology.

**May 1995:** First US approval of a commercially significant biotech
soybean, called Roundup Ready, in the U.S.

**1994-1998:** The EU authorizes 9 crop products/plants, mostly
varieties of corn, soybeans, and oilseeds. But the process becomes
progressively more difficult and politicized.

**February 1997:** Austria bans a corn variety (Novartis Bt176) that has
already been approved by the EU. The Commission refuses to challenge
this action. This begins a trend of EU member states placing
unchallenged bans on EU-approved products: In 1999, Austria bans two
other EU-approved corn varieties, France bans two EU-approved rapeseed
varieties in 1998, Germany bans an EU-approved corn variety in 2000,
Greece bans an EU-approved rapeseed variety in 1998, Italy bans four
EU-approved corn varieties in 2000, and Luxembourg bans an EU-approved
corn in 1997.

**October 1998:** **The EU Commission and member states stop approving
all agricultural biotech crops.** Two biotech carnation varieties become
the last biotech crops approved under Directive 90/220.

> Commission officials assure the U.S. they will restart the approval
> process again provided companies submitting applications agree to
> abide by newly proposed revisions to the approval procedures before
> they become law.
>
> Applicant companies agree to comply voluntarily with the new
> procedures, yet the EU approval process does not resume.

**June 1999:** EU members call for a moratorium on new approvals of
agricultural biotech products. EU Environmental Council says a new
approval regime should be linked to new rules on labeling of biotech
foods and companies ability to trace minute levels of biotech products
in food products. Ministers from Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and
Luxembourg declare they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that new
approvals are suspended until new rules are in place.

**June 2000:** Another roadblock emerges. French Environmental Minister
Dominique Voynet insists on the need for a "liability scheme" for
biotech products. Voynet says there are "no divisions among the five
member states who voted for a moratorium on GMO's \... \[w\]e believe
there needs to be a liability scheme in place before any new GMOs are
approved."

**July 2000:** EU Environmental Ministers meet at an informal session
and support continuing the EU moratorium at least until the Commission
prepares proposals for labeling and for tracing minute amounts of
biotech products in foods such as vegetable and corn oils. The
Commission assures the U.S. that it will develop its proposal by the end
of the year and restart the approval process promptly.

**July 2001:** The Commission produces its traceability and labeling
proposals. The Commission assures the U.S. they will lift the moratorium
within weeks. Several EU member states again move the goalposts. At an
October 2001 informal meeting of the Environment Council, eight Member
States -- France, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Italy, the
Netherlands and Sweden -- effectively reject the Commission's plan to
consider new authorization and declare that the new regulations must be
in force before they will allow the approval process to operate. The
Commission's traceability and labeling proposals are unlikely to be
implemented before 2004.

**October 2002:** Directive 2001/18, the successor to Directive 90/220
is implemented on Oct. 17, 2002. EU Environment Commissioner Wallstrom
states on October 17: "I have stopped guessing when the moratorium would
be lifted. We have put in place the legal framework\... but some member
states are opposed to GMOs and they will try to move the goal posts.
They will try to find another obstacle."

**December 2002:** The Council agrees to a Common Position on
traceability and labeling legislation. The Danish delegation declares
the moratorium should remain in place until the EU has developed and
implemented special environmental liability legislation for biotech
products.