USDA and the EU: Different approaches to GMOs

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with state governments, regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and are responsible for letting the public which GMO products are safe (Curtis, 2005).  GMOs are used to create plants that are drought resistant, pest resistant, or ripen on the vine while shipping.  There are no regulations requiring companies to mark the labels of GMO plants or animals fed GMO feed.

However, there is a process that must be followed to grow GMO crops.  Companies that wish to produce or grow a GMO crop must first obtain a permit from the USDA (Curtis, 2005).  Common crops, like corn or wheat, can be field tested while the company is under the notification procedure; however, plants used for pharmacology must wait for the permit (Curtis, 2005).  The main factor for the USDA or the FDA is the safety of the food product and not necessarily that it was produced in a new way.

There is a different process for GMOs in Europe, however.  The European Commission requires labeling on products containing more than 0.9% GMO (Habeck, 2003).  The industry must also keep records of products that either contain GMOs or are produced by GMOs (Habeck, 2003).  The European Commission’s labeling of GMO products gives consumers informed consent.   The EU’s regulatory process for GMOs is a longer process than that of the United States.  Because the European Commission regulates both the product and the process, the regulatory process can take up to 2-3 times longer than in the United States (Kelch et al, 1998).  This process was put in place because the EU could not determine the long-term effects of GMOs (Kelch et al, 1998).

These regulations, coupled with the United States inability to measure the amounts of GMO in a product, have led to the European Union banning shipments of United States corn gluten animal feed because there is no effective way to test for Bt10 (Casert, 2005).  The process that the European Commission uses takes too long for the United States crops to be able to be imported.  This has resulted in about a $450 million loss in corn gluten feed for the United States in one year (Casert, 2005).

In 1997, United States representatives met with European Union scientists and regulators to discuss the new GMO regulations.  The purpose of this meeting was to find out the details of the new labeling regulations for GMOs and determine its effect on trade from the United States with countries in the European Union (Reuter, 1997).  The United States representatives were also interested in whether the European Union was going to discipline member countries that went their own way with GMOs  (Reuter, 1997).

On August 18, 2003, the United States joined Argentina and Canada in requesting the World Trade Organization (WTO) settle the dispute between them and the EU over the GMO ban (HKTDC, 2003).  The United States is using testimony from scientists showing the safety of GMOs (IPT, 2003).  The United States Trade Representative and the United States Secretary of Agriculture argue that the actions of the European Union are hurting biotechnology and the bottom line for the farmers (IPT, 2003). 

It is the position of the USDA that GMOs should not need to be labeled as such if there is no significant difference in the nutritional content of the product (Kelch et al, 1998).  Consumer perception is also a factor.  It is possible that consumers would consider a product labeled as GMO negatively even though scientists have approved it.  Also, the USDA believes that because of the “coordinated framework” in place, GMOs are safe and monitored; therefore, adding a label is unnecessary (Kelch et al, 1998).

The WTO has requested the Dispute Settlement Body to set up a panel to help settle the case.  There are several factors that complicate the case.  First, there is no definitive way to measure the amount of GMO in a product.  Second, the USDA and the EU have different approaches to regulating GMOs.  Third, not all member states of the EU are in compliance with the European Union regulations; for example, France does not allow GMOs (Reuter, 1997).   With these factors and the differences in regulating the process of GMOs as well as the product, the WTO may still be years from resolution.

Casert, Raf (2005)  EU to ban suspected GMO corn imports.  Retrieved on June 25, 2012, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2005-04-15-eu-bans-gluten-imports_x.htm

Curtis, Patricia (2005)  Guide to Food Laws and Regulations  Blackwell Publishing

Habeck, Martina (2003)  Europe’s new rules on GMOs.  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(8), 400.  Ecological Society of America

HKDTC (2003)  EU’s GMO stance angers US and others, leads to WTO action.  Retrieved on June 25, 2012, from http://info.hktdc.com/alert/eu0318b.htmI

Kelch, David; Simone, Mark; Madell, Mary Lisa (1998)  Biotechnology in Agriculture Confronts Agreements in the WTO.  Retrieved on June 26, 2012, from www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs984/wrs984e.pdf

IPT (2003)  USDA takes EU to WTO over GMO.  Retrieved on June 26, 2012, from http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/lead/7357/mtom_20030516_2836_lead2

Reuter (1997)  USDA Pressures EU officials over GMO foods.  Retrieved on June 26, 2012, from http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1997/8.96-5.97/msg00210.html