Danielle Knight

WASHINGTON, Dec 19 2001 (IPS) — Environmentalists worldwide have accused the United States and Argentina – two large agricultural exporters – of bullying small nations that have prohibited or proposed to prohibit the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Bolivia, Croatia, and Sri Lanka, which adopted or proposed to adopt strict rules on GMOs, have been facing increasing pressure to drop any bans or proposed restrictions on the import of products derived from modified crops, according to environmentalists in those countries.

This week Friends of the Earth International posted several leaked government documents on the Internet that supported these accusations.

The U.S. State Department and the Argentine Embassy here did not respond to requests for comment. Bolivia and Sri Lanka have been officially silent on the issue, with their embassies here also unavailable for comment. Croatia, however, has at least, acknowledged that it received a letter in late November from the U.S. embassy in Zagreb about its proposed ban on GMOs.

Bozo Kovacevic, the Croatian Minister for Environmental Protection and Zoning, told the Hina-Croatian News Agency last week that the letter was neither a request nor an ultimatum. Yet, he said he would not respond to the letter because it was not an official document.

The Croatian environmental group, Green Action, obtained the November letter from the US Embassy to the Croatian Ministry of the Environment that said the Croatia ban could violate World Trade Organisation (WTO) Rules.

“If such a ban is implemented, the U.S. government must consider its rights under the WTO,” said the letter.

The document further states that the U.S. regulatory framework and monitoring policies are adequate to ensure that GMO products are safe for human and animal consumption, an argument hotly contested by U.S. environmental organisations.

“It is outrageous that the U.S. interferes in our policy-making by imposing their trade priorities over our environment and health protection efforts,” said Damjan Bogdanovic, with Green Action. The European Union adopted a ban on GMOs in 1999. Bogdanovic said he could not understand why Croatia could not do the same.

“I do not see why Croatia should be prevented from implementing similar measures,” he said.

Pressure from the United States on other countries that have decided to restrict imports of GMOs is part of a pattern, said environmental groups.

In May, news agencies reported that Weyland Beeghly, an official at the U.S. Embassy in India, said in a speech in Colombo, Sri Lanka, that the United States might challenge a ban on modified crops in that country by submitting a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Early in the year, the government of Sri Lanka drafted a ban on GMOs in their country that was supposed to enter into force in September. But the ban has been deferred indefinitely due to pressure from the United States, said Larry Bohlen, director of health and environment programmes at Friends of theEarth US.

“The U.S. government’s promotion of genetically modified organisms is so aggressive that it is working to overturn other countries’ laws,” he said.

In August, some 200 civil society groups worldwide sent a letter of protest to US trade officials that cited several instances of pressure put on Sri Lanka and Thailand to regulate GMOs.

Not only the United States, however, has been pressuring other countries to maintain free trade in genetically modified products. Argentina and its powerful agriculture sector has successfully pressured Bolivia to drop its ban on imports of GMOs, according to confidential government correspondence obtained by FOBOMADE, a Bolivian environmental organisation.

Bolivia had adopted a one-year ban on the import of GMOs in January. In August, the Bolivian government pledged to extend the ban after December and to upgrade the resolution to a “Supreme Decree”, which would have the full force of law.

However, FOBOMADE said it recently learned that the government passed a resolution in October revoking the ban without notifying the public.

“It is outrageous that a small country like ours is forced to accept genetically modified foods, despite public opposition,” said Maria Luisa Ramos, an activist with FOBOMADE, a Bolivian environmental group.

A memo sent from the Bolivian Mission in Geneva to their Minister of Foreign Affairs dated June 12, expressed concerns that Argentina could successfully challenge the ban through the WTO.

“The present situation is very sensitive, because the reasons given by Argentina are very not valid and our country does not have any solid justification to back the measure adopted,” said the memo.

The document, labelled confidential and very urgent, asserted that Argentina’s private soy companies were behind the pressure because they export millions of dollars of genetically modified soy products.

Another document obtained by FOBOMADE is a memo from the Embassy of Argentina to Bolivia’s foreign affairs minister which requested that Bolivia amend the ban so that it would not interfere with various trade rules.

While Argentina and the United States have stated that the current regulatory framework and monitoring policies of GMOs are adequate, environmental advocacy groups pointed to the failure of U.S. regulators to prevent the commercial release of a variety of corn that they had approved only for animal consumption for fear of allergic reactions among humans.

Known as StarLink, the genetically modified corn contaminated millions of tons of corn and led to huge losses in export markets and a drop in value of the entire U.S. corn crop.

“Despite the inability of the U.S. to control GMOs, it is pushing its inadequate regulatory system on others around the world,” said Iza Kruszewska with the ANPED Northern Alliance for Sustainability, an Amsterdam- based network of environmental groups.