Dan,

You sort of missed the significantly more important story here...

For all of the good from increased free trade and globalization, this case is an example of the limits and potential dangers of this progress without a concurrent process of managing the political issues that are wrapped in many of these issues.

Whether you personally believe GMOs carry scientific or human health risks, there is clearly a political element to determining whether a country should use it. The WTO is making decisions without considering this political element, because it doesn't have the capacity of doing so. Instead, it is imposing one set of values onto a democracy, without a process in place for negotiating the values in an international fashion.

One could easily envision other products (stem cell therapies, abortion drugs, etc.) that the US may find objectionable-- should the WTO dictate to us that consumers must have access even if we have an elected government that has chosen otherwise?

For the WTO and globalization to be truly successful in the long run, the economic organization needs to be coupled with a political one.

Rick with all due respect I completely disagree. There is simply no scientific basis for not consuming genetically modified foods. In fact there are reasons to believe this food is actually safer because it is resistant to insects etc and requires less pesticide use.

The issue was always political. It was about protectionism for european farmers. Through political pressure this protectionism has now been rectified.

Rick,

A little food for thought (pun intended)

One concern that does exist is the control of GMO crops- there have been multiple instances where germinal seeds have been found outside of the initial growing zones, as they have been blown by the wind to other areas.

There is risk that these GMOs spread natively (particularly given their advantages of resistance) and the question then becomes how do both the crops and insects adapt in this uncontrolled environment. Like antibiotic resistance in hunmans when antibiotics are overused, the same could become true for pesticides or insects.

I agree that the overwhelming concern has been protecting European farmers. But the WTO is forcing countries to accept an industry that, despite your unsubstantiated claim, does have some very important scientific unknowns.

HGH-

One point of clarification- the scientific risk I am referring to is not about consuming the crops (I agree with you there), but rather growing them and the impact on the future.

These are scientific unknowns, which are in turn, a scientific risk.

Isn't it funny that EU trust science to modify humans but not crops?
WTA can't rule on stem cells because their isn't a large enough market.

WTO not WTA. Sorry about the typo.

Huggy,

Its a hypothetical- trying to think a little outside the box...

I think this post and its comments have a very American bent to it. Its all about whether the stuff is safe. Not about whether it tastes the same when cooked. Europeans are willing to spend more for food and eat less processed foods. Americans want to be able to eat cheap. Its a difference in philosophy. I'm sympathetic to the Europeans desire to have the freedom to eat the way they choose even if I don't want to spend that much money eating myself.

When the attitudes are as overwhelming in Europe as they are, it isn't about protectionism. Its about being allowed to eat the things you want to eat.

Chad, I think you are being way too general about European food tastes. As a national characteristic I would agree with you that France and to a lesser extent Italians spend more and eat fewer processed foods. Perhaps some Germans - but much or even most of what Germans eat is highly processed and horrible. It's not a patch on French food for quality.

The UK has some of the worst food on earth - particularly the low-end pub food. This is so bad that McDonalds is actually quite a bit better.

I'll acknowledge that you can find bad food in any country. I recall a glutinous goose stew I choked down in a small town near Lyon once which might be the worst thing I ever tried to eat. But I've had a fair sampling of British pub grub before I gave up and to be frank, the usual food available in the US at the price point is far better.

The UK does have excellent food of course. I'm a big fan of something called a 'gastropub' - usually a slightly upscale pub which offers good food, wine, and beer. And if you go high end UK restaurants are as good as any - though they cost a bomb.

Chad: How does banning stuff increase choice? How does the availability of more options prevent them from choosing the option they prefer?

Or are you saying that the "overwhelming" market demand for non-GM food in Europe is nevertheless insufficient for it to compete with GM equivalents? I think what you mean by "overwhelming" is not what the word is ordinarily taken to mean.

Why ban something nobody wants? If they really don't want it, they won't buy it anyway. No, it's banned because they're afraid people will want it.

Personally, I think people who object to GM foods are, in essence, afraid of witchcraft.

If the greenies have their say, we would all be eating organic food, which is good and expensive. I think the Euros should label the food, and raise the concerns that GM food may or may not cause cancer. The statement is true since everything we ingest, the air we breathe, may or may not cause illness. Since nobody will want unhealthy food, nobody will buy the GM food.

You know the Republican war on science? The EU is fighting a same kind of war. The only thing the WTO says is: hey, science does not say that gmo's are more dangerous than "normal" foods. So from a scientific point of view there is no reason to block imports. The fact that Europe still does means that not science but good old protectionism is the case here. And i always thought that the WTO is there to eliminate protectionism. This is what it does and it has science on here side. For me this underscores the credebility of that organisation. Given all the scientific reports it could not rule otherwise. It's for Europe to stop it's war on science.

HGH and Ivan,
Doesn't the pervasive opposition to GMOs among the general European electorate suggest that it's not, in fact, protectionism that's primarily driving these policies? When the U.S. imposes protectionist policies, it's usually because there's acute demand for them among a small subset of affected actors while the spirit of opposition is widespread but diffuse and weak (trying to remember my poli sci jargon here). In Europe's case, consumers outnumber farmers, and consumers would economically benefit, in theory, from lower prices and more options, but it's the consumers who are strongly opposed to GMOs.

The interesting question to me is why Dan Drezner is so blase about an international organization trying to impose its rules on sovereign nation-states and overrule the express political will of democratic majorities in those nations. Aren't you conservative-libertarian types supposed to hate that sort of thing? Does it really hinge on whether you think the true motive was special-interest protectionism or majoritarian decision-making, and if so, how do you decide which it was? OR do you not care - if the world body decides the nation-state's majority is simply wrong on the merits, should it be okay to overrule them? Rick Latshaw's hypothetical is apposite here - and it's more than just a hypothetical. Dispute resolution bodies have already ruled that consumer-protection laws in the U.S., such as keeping out asbestos-laden products from Canada, were "non-tariff barriers to trade" and thus illegal.

Aren't you conservative-libertarian types supposed to hate that sort of thing?

Uh, no. "Libertarian types" don't believe in "express political will of democratic majorities in those nations." "Libertarian types" believe in individual choice, not collective "choice."

(Also, the WTO neither "imposes" nor "overrules" anything. It simply says that other states can penalize you if you chose to engage in illicit behavior.)

The interesting question to me is why Dan Drezner is so blase about an international organization trying to impose its rules on sovereign nation-states and overrule the express political will of democratic majorities in those nations.

Those "sovereign nation-states" chose to join the WTO. If their people hate the rulings so much, then those nations should leave the WTO.

Oh, and with regard to taste, for corn, soybeans, etc., there's no difference. Only naive consumers would think that there is.

The only thing the WTO says is: hey, science does not say that gmo's are more dangerous than "normal" foods.

This is exactly my point. The WTO is purely a trading organization and does not have the people or statute to perform these types of organizations. They can't do this assessment because its not part of their limited scope. The WTO concept needs to be part of a larger organization that is equipped to deal with the larger scientific, political and moral questions.

The only thing the WTO says is: hey, science does not say that gmo's are more dangerous than "normal" foods.

This is exactly my point. The WTO is purely a trading organization and does not have the people or statute to perform these types of organizations. They can't do this assessment because its not part of their limited scope. The WTO concept needs to be part of a larger organization that is equipped to deal with the larger scientific, political and moral questions.

Neema,

GMO and non-GMO will taste the same if isogenic and grown under comparable conditions (In general...I can imagine making a GM food taste different on purpose, and we want the crops to taste different to insects). But the subset of varieties that are GM is small enough that there are not GM versions of other varieties that taste different.

But so what? This is only a problem if the GM-ness somehow prevents farmers from growing those varieties for those who prefer that taste...and are willing to pay for it.