Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Issue:
The issue at hand at your upcoming meeting at the World Trade Organization is regarding
the national ban on biotech products by Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Portugal,
Norway and Greece. These bans deal in particular with Genetically Modified foods, which the
aforementioned countries have deemed to be unfit for trade. The WTO is taking up this issue at
the request of the United States who believes that these national bans constitute a violation of
WTO regulations. Specifically, the United States is asserting that these bans violate the WTO
SPS agreement which states that trade can be restricted when it threatens safety and public
health. The US is arguing that these products have been approved by the European Commission
and therefore it doesn’t see a legitimate reason for these products to be banned by EU member
states. However, these eight countries, claim that there is too much scientific uncertainty
regarding the health risks posed by Genetically Modified foods and therefore these products
cannot be approved as easily as the United States would like them to be.
Relevant Interests:
This issue is of great importance to the European Union for two primary reasons: the
United States’ desired outcome undermines the sovereignty of the eight EU member states in
question and secondly because these products may pose a health risk to the citizens of the
European Union. If the United States is able to win this case in front of the WTO then these eight
member states will be forced to open up trade of biotech products with the US. This will mean
that the United States will benefit economically as a primary source of biotech products,
however it will undermine the sovereignty of eight nations by imposing trade policy that is
contrary to their national interests. Secondly, the eight nations mentioned believe there is a great
deal of scientific uncertainty regarding biotech products and therefore do not feel that these
products would be safe for their citizens to consume. If these concerns turn out to be true, they
may pose substantial unforeseen health risks to the countries and may cause these countries to
The ruling will also be important for precedence issues; if the US is able to prove that
these bans have been a violation of the SPS agreement, this case would be cited in the future to
settle disputes regarding the legality of other trade restrictions. Furthermore, a ruling against
these eight countries would be a blow to European Union cohesiveness and may create a lack of
trust in the mechanism of the EU as a bargaining and representative body. Considering it has
only been five years since the EU was formed and considering that the EU draws its relevance
and its bargaining power from the cooperation of member states, such a loss of confidence in the
EU would be a critical blow to the effectiveness of the EU. Thus, an extremely important issue
for the EU to address as a failure to do so would result in a the undermining of sovereign powers
of member states, potential health risks as well as precedence and EU credibility issues.
Our Position:
Given the interests of the relevant parties, it would be in the best interest of the European
Union to adamantly defend the right for the eight countries to impose trade restrictions on
biotech products, regardless of whether these products have approved by the European
Commission. The EU should defend the legality of these bans under the SPS agreement.
Arguing for the bans and their legality will allow the EU to avoid the negative ramifications of a
pro-US judgment some of which are outlined above. By making this argument the EU should be
able to convince the WTO that the trade restrictions by the eight nations in question are not in
violation of WTO trade agreements and fall under the provisions outlined by the SPS agreement.
This will allow the countries to maintain the status quo and would be seen as a victory for the
It is advisable for the European Union to take a two pronged approach when presenting
this issue to the WTO panel: the first prong should cover the relevant legal arguments found in
the SPS and other WTO agreement, and the second prong should address the precedence for such
cases and the precedence that will be sent by the decision reached in this case. This approach will
The main premise of the legal argument being presented by the United States is that the
national bans on biotech foods are in violation of WTO agreements; specifically the SPS
agreement and whether the bans fall outside the SPS’ delineated rubric of what constitutes a
safety and public health risk. It ought to be noted that the European Union believes that the SPS
allows for such bans under Article 3.3 of the SPS. Article 3.3 states:
products from their countries they did so because they believe that the current level of scientific
evidence does not meet their nations’ sanitary/health measures. Furthermore, Article 5.7 states
“In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally
adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information,
including that from the relevant international organizations as well as from sanitary or
phytosanitary measures applied by other Members. In such circumstances, Members shall
seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of
risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable
period of time.”
The only requirement posed by Article 5.7 is that members shall seek to obtain more
information, Article 5.7 says that members may use information obtained by other members and
organizations but does not make this a requirement. Therefore, these countries are under no
obligation to accept the European Commission’s findings regarding biotech products, and there is
no evidence to suggest that these countries are not pursuing further research into the
environmental and health risks of biotech products. Finally, the last legal argument propelling the
case for these countries is that the definition of “environment” present in SPS is too vague and
therefore the SPS is incapable of providing a way to measure environmental risk. The European
Union believes that the WTO ought to look at other international agreements to better determine
the definition of “environment” and definitions under agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol
would allow for the bans imposed by the eight nations.
There are two primary cases that the WTO can turn to help determine the outcome of this
case. One such case was decided upon in 1998, the USEU Beef Hormones case. In that case the
WTO ruled in against the EU which had banned beef imports from the US containing 6 beef
hormones despite them having been determined safe for consumption in the US. The reason why
this case is not relevant to our discussion is because in this case the EU stated that scientific
evidence was not as important as environmental and consumer concerns. However, the eight
countries in question are not denying the importance of scientific evidence; rather they are stating
that they would like to have more scientific evidence present before allowing such imports. This
desire for greater evidence is based on reasonable concerns which have emerged as a result of
biotech companies bribing politicians as was the case with Monsanto in Europe. Secondly, in the
Japan Apple Case, Japan blocked imports on US grown apples over concerns of pest related
disease, particularly fire flight. However, the US made significant efforts to prevent the apples
from being infested with fire flight by changing how the apples were planted and stored. Japan
continued to ban imports of US apples which eventually led to the WTO ruling in favor of the
US, stating Japan’s ban was illegal. However, the case of biotech products is quite different: in
the Japan Apple Case, it was made clear as to what the threat to the apples was and it was known
what measures could be taken to address the problem, however in the case of biotech products
there is scientific uncertainty as to what potential risks these products present. Therefore these
eight countries are basing their bans on the unknown risks while the Japanese ban was based on
known risks.
Finally, the panel should rest assured that ruling in favor of the EU will not change the
status quo of trade and as soon as these countries feel safe about biotech products trade would
increase, thereby increasing economics gains from trade. However, ruling against the EU could
provide undermine the EU structure and therefore create further barriers to trade. As for
precedents that will be set by this case, the WTO will set a precedence of upholding
environmental and health concerns and would uphold Articles 3.2 and 5.7 of SPS by ruling in
favor of the European Union.
For the reasons stated above, we, the European Union, find it to be in the best interest of
the WTO to rule in favor of the eight countries in question.