Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.990811220054.27658C-100000@world.std.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:35:27 -0400 From: Renewable News Network <mailto:rnn@RNN.COM> Subject: Re: Action against the WTO To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
All I know is what I read in the papers. Fortunately, there was an op-ed piece last week, in the Boston Globe. That, plus an e-mail from a few Months ago, has given me something to think about - two things, in fact:WTO on hormones WTO and the forests
WTO on hormones --------------- By Mark Weisbrot, 08/04/99
WASHINGTON, D.C. Should countries have the right to set health and safety standards for the food their citizens eat? Should they be allowed to exclude foreign-produced foods that don't meet national standards? Or should these questions be decided by the World Trade Organization?
Like it or not, these issues are being decided right now. In the latest trade dispute between the world's two largest trading partners, our government placed sanctions last week on $117 million worth on European goods. The purpose of the sanctions is to force the Europeans to import American beef raised with growth hormones. Ordinarily this decision to place 100 percent tariffs on French truffles, foie gras, and other delicacies most of us have never tasted would violate our international trade agreements. But in this case the United States has the backing of the World Trade Organization, a 134-nation body that was created four years ago to negotiate and govern world trade. The WTO has ruled that Europe's ban on hormone-treated beef is illegal, and it authorized the United States to impose retaliatory trade sanctions against the European Union.
Consider the arguments: The Europeans don't allow beef treated with growth hormones to be sold in their markets, regardless of where it is produced. They just don't think it is all that safe to eat. But most US beef is, in fact, treated with these hormones. So our government, at the request of the beef industry, filed a complaint at the WTO, arguing that the ban was an unfair restriction on trade. The rules of the WTO say that any health or environmental standard that affects trade must be supported by scientific evidence. So the WTO appointed a three-judge panel, which decided in March 1997 that there was not enough scientific evidence to justify Europe's ban on hormone-treated beef. But two months ago an independent panel of scientists asked by the European Commission to consider these questions reached a different conclusion. The scientists found that one of the six hormones commonly found in beef is a ''complete carcinogen.'' The panel concluded that further study would be needed on the other five hormones, although anyone reading the 142-page report would undoubtedly wonder why we Americans allow these drugs to be pumped into our own livestock. We probably wouldn't, especially for consumption by those most susceptible to the effects of the hormones, such as children and pregnant women, if most people knew what they were eating. But there are no labeling requirements for these extra ingredients in your hamburger. Regardless of how one assesses the scientific evidence, shouldn't the Europeans be allowed to err on the side of caution if they so choose? Most people would say yes. This case is particularly worrisome because everyone agrees that the law against hormone-treated beef was designed to protect Europe's consumers, not its domestic cattle industry. And the law applies without discrimination to both domestic and foreign producers. Yet the WTO insists that an unaccountable, three-judge panel meeting in secret can overturn a European law simply because it has an adverse impact on trade. The tail (trade) is wagging the dog (public health) here, and this is exactly what environmental, consumer, and labor groups warned would happen when the WTO was created four years ago.
If Americans think this is only Europe's problem, they should look at a few key WTO decisions in the last couple of years that have gone against Americans. In 1997 the US Environmental Protection Agency weakened its regulations on contaminants in imported gasoline in order to comply with a WTO ruling that found these rules to be an unfair trade barrier. The enforcement of our Endangered Species Act -specifically, the protection of sea turtles - has also been compromised by recent WTO rulings. From the point of view of big business, and especially large multinational corporations, these are not disturbing developments. For business interests it is only natural to see human beings and our environment as instruments of global trade and commerce. They are quite comfortable with having these decisions made by a tribunal of an international organization where they can have the dominant influence, unencumbered by any congress, parliament, or other elected officials that might have to care what ordinary citizens think. The WTO is their creature, and it has been pretty consistent in taking the side of business against the rights of citizens and the larger community. The dispute over hormone-treated beef is another round of the ongoing fight to assert these rights. It won't be the last. Mark Weisbrot is research director at the Preamble Center in Washington.
This story ran on page A23 of the Boston Globe on 08/04/99.
---------------------------------------------
WTO and the forests ------------------- SEATTLE, Washington - International forest protection leaders today announced a global campaign to derail World Trade Organization (WTO) plans to write trade agreements that will threaten the world's forests at the upcoming WTO Ministerial here this November.
"The WTO is a threat to forests around the world, and forest protection activists around the world will work to stop it," said former US Congressman Jim Jontz, now Executive Director of American Lands Alliance.
The campaign announcement followed a forest protection summit held outside Seattle that included forty activists from fourteen countries. Representatives came from forest products-exporting nations Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, and Russia, where the bulk of the Earth' s remaining old growth forests are located, and from heavy forest products-using countries Japan, the United States and the European Union. A wide range of Seattle-based forest protection organizations also participated.
"With such diversity and depth of experience, we are confident of ending WTO measures that will increase consumption of forest products without any regard for the well-being of the environment," said conference organizer Victor Menotti of International Forum on Globalization.
The organizations outlined regional problems in which proposed WTO trade initiatives would exacerbate forest destruction, and developed strategies to preempt decisions at the Seattle Ministerial. Each group will bring pressure to bear on the WTO, from lobbying governments to demonstrations in the streets of Seattle.
"Seattle is a hotbed of forestry activism," said Paige Fischer of Pacific Environment and Resources Center. "The WTO is coming here to sign deals that will fast-track the destruction of the world's forests, so they can expect significant opposition."
A meeting of the gathered organizations developed the following position statement:
The WTO is bad for forests. Measures to expedite trade in forest products will increase consumption without concurrently implementing conservation measures. In the WTO, trade provisions are supreme over the laws of nations, taking power away from local communities and governments and giving it to corporations. This makes it a direct threat not only to the world's remaining forests, but also to basic individual and states' rights. The WTO is fundamentally flawed because it develops far-reaching policies without public participation. These policies are prioritized only by their benefit to trade, without consideration for local economies, the environment, labor and human rights. Before the WTO takes on any new powers, or enacts any new provisions, each member government must step back and look at how the WTO has helped or hurt its citizens and the world environment.
Organizations at the summit - from the USA unless otherwise indicated - included: A SEED (UK), American Lands Alliance, Bureau for Regional Public Campaigning (Russia/Siberia), Citizens Committee of Puerto Mott (Chile), Earth Justice Law Center, Forum on the Environment (Indonesia), Friends of the Earth, GATT Watchdog (New Zealand), International Forum on Globalizati on, Institute for Socio-Economic Analysis (Brazil), Otway Foundation (Chile), Pacific Environment and Resources Center, Raincoast Conservation Society (Canada), Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, Tropical Forest Kyoto (Japan), Valhalla Wilderness Society (Canada), World Forest Movement (UK).
___________________________________________
Rainforest Action Network 221 Pine Stret #500 San Francisco, CA 94014
Telephone: 415/398-4404; fax: 415/398-2732 Website: http://www.ran.org
100 % Recycled Electrons
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:09:01 -0700 From: Mark Westlund <mailto:ranmedia@ran.org> To: mailto:rags-rap@ran.org Subject: Global campaign to stop WTO forestry plans announced
For immediate release, Monday June 28, 1999
Press contacts: Mark Westlund, RAN -- mailto:ranmedia@ran.org Robin Denburg, APEX -- mailto:denburg@u.washington.edu telephone: 206-427-5128; 206-324-5675
Send announcements, stories, and notices of interest to: <RNN> Renewable News Network 44 Norfolk Street Needham, MA 02492 USA Contact: Ross M. Donald 781-453-9668 <mailto:rnn@rnn.com>
With a "Sol Kitchen" Solar Coffee Can Cooker Kit, its just food.
To get the Environmental Review send mailto:mailto:er-list@rnn.com, for Solar Utilities messages, send mailto:mailto:rnn@rnn.com
<RNN>