What About Democracy?
February 8th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The WTO ruled yesterday that there is no scientific justification for opposition in the EU to genetically modified crops. According to the Financial Times,
The World Trade Organisation ruled yesterday that European restrictions on the introduction of genetically-modified foods violated international trade rules, finding there was no scientific justification for Europe’s failure to allow use of new varieties of corn, soybeans and cotton. The ruling was a victory for Washington in a long-running dispute that has pitted US faith in the benefits of the new crops against widespread consumer resistance in Europe. It was immediately welcomed by US farmers and the biotechnology industry, but castigated by environmental and consumer groups who charged the ruling was a blatant example of international trade rules running roughshod over democratic decisions aimed at protecting consumer health and safety. . . The ruling was also seized on by groups representing large food companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, which have been frustrated by the moratorium and the slow pace of approvals for new GM products. Sarah Thorn, senior director of international trade at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said: “The WTO’s decision makes it clear that biotech regulations must be based on sound science and that the EU’s approach to biotech crop approvals is unwarranted.” But Friends of the Earth criticised the ruling as an “inappropriate intrusion into decisions about what food people eat”. Brent Blackwelder, president of the group’s US division, said: “The WTO is unfit to decide what we eat or what farmers grow. It is an undemocratic and secretive institution that has no particular competence in environmental or health and safety matters. This WTO decision will only increase the determination of citizens in Europe and around the world to reject these poorly tested foods.”
We might also observe that there is no scientific justification for the following:
*Preventing Iran from having a nuclear research program
*Banning human cloning
*Disallowing performance enhancing drugs in athletics
Decisions about such issues are political decisions based on values, not science. The WTO decision is apparently based on an assumption that EU decision making about GM foods should be based only on a narrow calculus. This is of course a value judgment about what factors should matter and which ones should not in making a decision about GM foods. But shouldn’t citizens in a democracy have the right to make decisions in any which way that they choose? As suggested above, there is of course no scientific justifications for focusing on nuclear research in Iran, banning human cloning, or disallowing performance enhancing drugs in athletics. Each of these issues involves societal decisions about what is right, what is wrong, what is appropriate, what is desired. In short, none of these decisions are determined by science, but by our values and how they are manifested in policy and power. The WTO needs a broader perspective. On this issue, the EU is in the right.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:58 am
This line of argument assumes that all societal decisions are equally valid. This assumption, by assigning equal value to all societal decisions, makes it meaningless to make intercultural comparisons and thereby renders all societal decisions equally *in*valid. In a system which supports diversity in societal decisions, the first rule must be that societal decisions, whatever they might be, must tend to support the mutual benefits of diversity. When societal decisions are anti-society, those decisions must be considered to be *wrong.* And when such decisions rest on outright falsehoods, such as GM crops causing sores, lesions, rashes, pulmonary disorders, etc., they must be doubly condemned. This suggests that a more nuanced approach to the topic is in order.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:01 am
The whole point of the WTO treaty (which the EC freely signed) is to not allow member countries to capriciously discriminate against imports.
In that context the WTO got it exactly right.
You seem to be taking a quite absolutist view of democracy in this post. It is clearly a good thing that there are limits on the will of the people.
All the WTO decision will do is allow GM foods to be imported into the EU. No one will be forced to eat them or buy them or even to shop at stores that do not give them non-GM choices.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I’m afraid I must agree with D.F. Linton on this one, Pielke.
The decisions of the WTO are based entirely upon whether there is or isn’t some legitimate (e.g. scientific) reason to engage in restraint of trade–rather than simply upon each member nation’s “values and how they are manifested in policy and power.” (If every WTO member is entitled to engage in restraint of trade on the basis of nothing more than its citizens “values”–however tenuously grounded in evidence those values may be–the WTO, even the notion of free trade itself, will no longer amount to much.
Furthermore, the recent WTO decision doesn’t mean that Europe will be forced to accept GM imports. (The WTO either has a very discreet army, or none at all.) The decision simply means that the U.S. is now free to demonstrate its own “values and how they are manifested in policy and power” by implementing retaliatory bans on European goods.
Why would you, on the one hand, approve of Europe’s privilege to engage in restraint of trade based upon its “values,” but then go on to disapprove of the WTO granting *exactly* the same privilege to the U.S.?
Since I know you’re a brilliant fellow, I suspect the puzzling position you’ve adopted here stems from a lack of familiarity with the rules and role of the WTO. In any event, I think your view would benefit from some elaboration.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Roger,
Here, here!
-M
February 8th, 2006 at 8:25 am
D. F. Linton and dandragna-
I welcome your thoughts on this as as a non-expert on the WTO, I’d welcome some education.
On what formal basis can a country restrain trade under the WTO? I assume that therer are criteria beyond “science”.
Can, say, Turkey restrict the imports of tee shorts with charicatures of the Prophet Mohammad on them?
Can, say, Israel restrict the imports of pork?
Can members of the WTO restrict imports of WMD precursors to, say, Pakistan?
Thanks!
February 8th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Roger Pielke Jr. asks, “But shouldn’t citizens in a democracy have the right to make decisions in any which way that they choose?”
I agree that you have a right to make decisions about what you put in *your* body, but I strongly disagree that you have a right to make decisions about what I put in *my* body!
If you don’t want to put any GM foods in your body, then don’t. You can buy only food that is certified NOT to contain any GM components. It will probably cost more, but if you think it’s worth it, that’s up to you.
Personally, I *like* GM foods. I think they’re cheaper and better for me. (But even if I’m wrong on both counts, it’s *my* body.)
The E.U. is completely antithetical to excellent principles on which the U.S. was founded (and from which it has sadly moved away):
1) Democracy is best practiced at a *local* level (not a federal level…and certainly not a multinational level), and
2) Even local democracy should not be able to trample on basic human rights.
How more basic a human right can one get than the decision of what to put in one’s own body?
The EU is wrong on this issue.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Roger Pielke Jr. is dreaming of hypotheticals
:
“Can, say, Turkey restrict the imports of tee shirts with caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad on them?”
See, Roger, that’s the beauty of free trade. Even if Turkey COULD restrict imports of such tee shirts, no one would contest it.
No company would be stupid enough to attempt to export such tee shirts to Turkey, because they wouldn’t SELL!
That’s the big difference between sending GM foods to Europeans and sending Islam-insulting tee shirts to Turkey, or pork products to Israel.
You seem very eager to defend the “right” of people to make decisions that restrict other peoples’ freedoms…while ignoring the legitimate right of consumers to buy the products they want.
If individual EU consumers don’t WANT GM foods, they won’t BUY them. Why should other people have the “right” to tell individual EU consumers what they can or can not eat?
February 8th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Are you suggesting that the EU is right to restrict GM foods or that it has the right to restrict GM foods?
February 8th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Chris-
Thanks. If the WTO’s basis for its decision is that there is no scientific justifcation for the EU to restrict trade in GM foods, that I find this unjustified.
Under this conetxt, which admittedly probably has more complexities than I am aware of, the EU has the right to ban GM foods. I personally don’t agree with that stance, but I am pretty sure that science per se doesn’t compel a deicsion one way or another.
Of course, if the EU based its claim to the WTO on a scientific justification only, and the WTO deicsion is a response to that claim, then perhaps we have a different situation.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
This is an example of what happens when economists are put in charge of judging whether public policies have a proper scientific basis. The WTO operates on what amounts to the antithesis of the precautionary principle.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Roger,
There are so many more issues here then are being discussed.(e.g. Corporate control of the genetic material of food. The accountability of the WTO. Balance of power in trade negotiations. Patentability and ownership of genetic material. The definition of GMO. Even labeling of GMO food. I believe much has been written on the numerous social justice issues regarding the power and structure of the WTO.)
This is a really complicated issue. Unfortunately I can’t shed much light on it, but I think just about everything written here is overly simplistic.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Hi Roger,
This is just “semantics”…but I think semantics are important. You write,
“Under this conetxt, which admittedly probably has more complexities than I am aware of, the EU has the right to ban GM foods.”
I forget where I read this (libertarian-oriented literature, I’m sure
), but someone made the point that governments don’t have “rights.” People have “rights.” Governments have “authorized powers.”
This reasoning follows from both the Declaration of Independence (a statement of ideals, not a legally binding document) AND the Constitution (which used to be a legally binding document, before the federal government stopped following it).
That is:
1) Individual people have rights. Those rights are endowed at birth (some witnesses say at conception) by their Creator(s). So people HAVE rights, regardless of whether or not governments protect those rights.
2) Governments have authorized powers. A legitimate purpose–or maybe the only legitimate purpose–of those authorized powers is to protect the rights of those individual people.
So I disagree that the EU has any “rights.” The EU is a government, so it has “authorized powers”…not “rights.”
And who gave the EU government its “authorized powers”? Well, one would hope it was The People of the EU. And what are those “authorized powers”? Well, if there was an EU constitution, presumably the powers would be ***enumerated*** (specifically listed) in that document.
But as I understand it, the authorized powers of the EU are contained in a bunch of treaties. To me, it sounds messy and prone to abuse. (But since our own government doesn’t follow its Constitution, I can’t claim our system is clearly better.)
ANYWAY, I don’t think you should use “rights” when referring to governments. (One reason I never refer to “states’ rights.”) You should use, “authorized powers.”
Now, does the EU have the “authorized power” to deny whether consumers within the EU can eat GM foods? Well, to answer that, you’d have to point to the document(s) that authorized that power.
You seem to be asserting that the EU government has the “right” (“authorized power”) to prevent consumers within the EU from obtaining GM foods, based on the premise that governments can do whatever they want, as long as they are democratically elected. But that’s not the Rule of Law. That’s the Rule of Men and Women. That’s tyranny. So unless you know specifically that there is some document that authorizes the EU government to block their consumers from getting GM foods, I don’t think you should automatically assume that the EU government has that authorized power, simply because it’s democratically elected.
Best wishes,
Mark
February 8th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Roger Pielke asked: “On what formal basis can a country restrain trade under the WTO?”
First, let me dispense with your wider hypotheticals by noting that, to my knowledge, none of them have as yet been presented to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body. (There is, in other words, no universal WTO standard applicable a priori to every hypothetical trade dispute. There are instead specific agreements included within the WTO regarding specific industries or trade matters.) The legitimacy of banning the importation of Genetically Modified Organisms, however, *has* been presented to that body, and there actually is an agreement already incorporated within the WTO specifically relevant to GMOs: The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
A central holding of that Agreement, as interpreted by the WTO, is that signatories must base their national food safety standards on well-established *international* standards, measures and guidelines. (Standards outlined in such instruments as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics, and the International Plant Protection Convention.)
If any member state wishes to enforce a different standard than those already internationally recognized, the Agreement maintains that the member must support its novel standard with scientific evidence.
The 150 member states of the WTO are each voluntary signatories to The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Each is bound by the Dispute Settlement Body’s interpretations of that Agreement. (In the case of your WMD hypothetical, I suspect that other formal treaties, including The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, would likely take precedence.)
Advocates of “the precautionary principle” have argued that the recent Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety somehow takes precedence over the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. That Protocol, however, explicitly notes that its “precautionary” standards aren’t meant to conflict with any previous international treaty.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Dan- Thanks, enlightening stuff.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
More here:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7e3bb752-98db-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html
February 9th, 2006 at 8:31 am
I agree with you – see this post about “>The missing Puccini Factor )(and the previous one it links to). Other than that, I don’t really know the associated issues well enough to address the other complexities but they problem seems to be that the WTO agreement requires the use of scientific criteria. So the problem may be with what was agreed to. Within Europe, they place great importance on origin, and label products accordingly, as “DOC” to indicate “Denomination of Controlled Origin.” This practice is rooted in social norms – within Italy, no one would dream of calling cheese “parmigiano” if it wasn’t actually made in Parma – even if made the same way (my relatives even go there just to buy it so they can get exactly what they want – I have some of that in my frig and I feel sorry for those who do not know the difference). I see it also a form of intellectual property right accorded to communities, which recognizes that such things are products of the local culture as well as of the ingredients used, and the environmental factors associated with places. My uncle wouldn’t dream of calling his wine “Sassicaia” even though he has the genetically same grapes and his land is just outside the border of the region that Sassicaia comes from – since it is only made for family use it remains nameless – we just drink it. There is a lot of local lore that goes into everything they produce. This kind of labeling might go a long way towards resolving European concerns but is, of course resisted by those who would have to remove or re-name existing products. As for the science, we probably need to know more but the issue seems to be mostly one of trust in the scientific regulatory institutions that review and approve products. Practices that led to Mad Cow Disease had been approved as “safe” – and the EU was nearly bankrupted. Trust in the US is even lower right now.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Geographical indications are the World Intellectual Property Organization’s term for what Sylvia describes.
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/geographical_ind.html
The link explains that these indications are regulated mostly through national laws and relevant international agreements (TRIPS – Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights is one such agreement that deals with this, at least in part)
I think Roger’s main criticism, the relative undemocratic nature of the ruling (or at least his perception of the ruling as such) would be familiar to many critics of globalization (the current form, anyway). We have an unelected entity deciding how goods are to be regulated. Their primary (some would say only) concern is the health and welfare of the global economy. The philosophy behind the WTO’s idea of a healthy global economy requires free markets (the freer the better), anything else is either secondary or irrelevant.
Whether a scientific criteria is used to justify the WTO decision, I can certainly see how this would be interpreted as an imposition of values – a political decision.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Although dan has an excellent argument and his comments are well-constructed, the basic question that Roger asks, and its implied issue, is still one of democracy (his post heading).
The EU doesn’t want this stuff. Period. Why are we making them take it? And the argument above about ’semantics’ neglects the consideration that the EU is the voice of the majority.
Best,
D
February 9th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Just some thoughts.
If the WTO is doing its job why do we have a fair trade movement and the US can get away with restrictions on Canadian timber or other things its wants restricted or kept out?
If you want international treaties that help protect the environment or open up trade -based on good science- you have to take decisions that go against you.
A certain amount of responsibitlity must be with the consumer, let them vote with wallets and not buy the stuff.
BTW I think GM food is over engineered, much better to use practices that don’t degrade the environment than create a plant that can grow in salt affected ground or is resistant to braod swath herbicides.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Dano writes, “The EU doesn’t want this stuff. Period. Why are we making them take it?”
Nobody is “making” anyone “take” anything. If no single farmer or no single consumer in the EU WANTS GM products, then the WTO can not force a single farmer or single consumer in the EU to take GM products. The WTO has no armies. (This can be contrasted to the EU.)
If, on the other hand, farmers and consumers within EU countries WANT GM products, the WTO has ruled that, according to treaties EU countries signed, the EU can not block farmers and consumers who want GM products from getting them.
Why not support the freedom of farmers and consumers in the EU to get GM products, ****IF**** they want them?
July 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am
GMO’s are the wave of the future! There should clear labels non-GMO and GMO. Let consumers set the market!