Message-ID: <v04003a03b35bf01587db@[141.244.115.106]> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 02:37:59 +0200 From: mailto:alternativ@OEHSERV.BOKU.AC.AT Subject: Fwd: [urgent sign on letter - please forward to other To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
FYI -- 'special' Technology Transferplease send all signed replies to: "Mark Ritchie" <<mailto:mritchie@iatp.org>
<excerpt>
X-Sender: mailto:mritchie@iatp.org
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 07:20:56 -0500
From: "Mark Ritchie" <<mailto:mritchie@iatp.org>
Subject: urgent sign on letter - please forward to other lists/groups
Mime-Version: 1.0
Status:
Dear Friends,
Below is a draft US NGO letter in response to the US Council on International Business attack on the precautionary principle and eco-labeling, reported in the April 23 edition of Inside US Trade<bold>. Quoting from the USCIB letter to USTR regarding the March WTO High Level Symposium, ".</bold>.... <bold>we were concerned by the U.S. Government (USG) delegation's statements on the Precautionary Principle and non-product related Processing and Production Methods (PPM's)...
We are concerned that the U.S. government's characterization of the Precautionary Principle at the High-Level Symposium would seemingly undermine the fundamental importance of sound science as a basis for environment and other regulation.
As you well know, U.S. trade has suffered substantially from trade restrictive measures by other countries which have based their actions on unacceptable interpretations of the Precautionary Principle, as Europe has done in the beef hormone case. Similar challenges face U.S. business in trade of biotechnology products with Europe, in the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, and in European environmental labeling programs. These examples demonstrate all too clearly how interpretations of the Precautionary Principle which neglect scientific considerations can prevent legitimate trade in products whose risks can be identified and managed." End Quote...
</bold>All of us, Consumer, Environment and Agriculture NGOs, must respond to these sorts of attacks to make it clear to the US Government that we are engaged in this debate and our views must be taken into account in the formulation of complex policies. The attached response has been drafted by Community Nutrition Institute and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy staff. It is our hope that you will add your organization to the list of signers. We are planning to gather signatures until the end of business Monday and to send the letter to the administration and to the relevent business press immediately.
Please send us your comments and your confirmation by email, phone or fax by 5 pm CST Monday, May 10.
Thanks for your consideration and your support.
Best regards,
Niel Ritchie
______________________________________________________________________
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
During the High Level Symposium on Trade and Environment held in March at your request by the World Trade Organization (WTO), country representatives gave significant attention to the precautionary principle. This focus reflects the search for standards and rules to address the increasing levels of risk in complex systems, such as health, safety and the environment, which are evident globally. The precautionary principle is a science-based concept that enables public policies on risk to health and the environment to be formulated which cope with the inadequacies that limit science currently. Included in this is the inability to assess and evaluate a system whose properties are not fully explained by an understanding of its component parts.
U.S. delegates to the Symposium spoke vaguely about the precautionary principle, more to acknowledge awareness of the concept than to suggest that the U.S. might actually consider its applications. In fact, the U.S. over the past 40 years has applied the precautionary principle on a case-by case basis to protect health and the environment.
For that reason, we note with some amusement the heavy-handed response of the United States Council of International Business (USCIB): "These statements by US delegates in the Symposium raise considerable doubt about the consistency of U.S. trade policy," the USCIB stated in an April 14 letter to Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, "especially in light of the government's strong stance in the beef hormone case and in other current trade disputes and international negotiations."
The failure of the Administration to denounce the precautionary principle "appear(s) to represent a major shift in the U.S. policy. We would appreciate confirmation that the U.S. government's statements should not be read to detract from our strong support for the trading system and strict adherence to the principles of the WTO," the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB) and other trade groups said in the letter.
The USCIB position is both ironic and potentially lethal. The irony is that the U.S. already applies the precautionary principle in relation to health and environmental protection for American citizens and their communities. The Delaney Clause, a 40-year-old statutory prohibition on the use of cancer causing chemicals as food additives, is an early example of the precautionary principle. The recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish guidelines prohibiting the use as additives in animal feed of certain antibiotic drugs essential to human health is a precautionary policy to slow development of drug resistant bacteria. The enactment two years ago of legislation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish tolerance levels for the use of toxic pesticides based on the metabolism of children is another precautionary practice. Rather than recognize the value of these policies, this industry representative fulminates against the precautionary principle that serves as their foundation.
The USCIB position is potentially lethal because, under current WTO rules, any precautionary applications in U.S. regulatory policy could be challenged as trade barriers and subject to a finding that they violate the trade agreement. For example, the Delaney Clause is not based on conventional scientific principles and violates WTO rules; the ban on drugs in animal feed is unacceptable within current scientific criteria employed by the WTO; and the adoption of pesticides exposure levels that recognize that children are not small adults is a barrier to trade, i.e., the economic interests of industry.
The debate, in fact, is not over trade but over the role of science in a global economy. WTO standards use science to justify the introduction of risk to people and their communities, which is the real objective of the USCIB. The precautionary principle incorporates the elements of democratic governance in risk management while introducing a new level of scientific rigor to reduce the level of risk to health and the ecology. The Delaney Clause incorporates the right of citizens in each country to lawfully elect to avoid risks. The ban on antibiotics in animal feed recognizes that the lack of measurable risk often indicates uncertain or unknown risk, a reason for caution, not the absence of risk. And, the adoption of pesticide tolerances to protect the health of children recognizes that tolerance levels based on a simplistic reading of data does not fully explain the risks in a complex system -- i.e., a more disciplined and vigorous practice of science is required than is currently applied in the unsound approach of the WTO championed by many in industry.
The application of the precautionary principle by the Congress and many in U.S. regulatory agencies is a case-by-case response to health and environmental conditions which do not lend themselves to the reductionist principle espoused by USCIB et.al. in its April 14 letter , i.e., "risk (that) can be identified and managed." The reductionist principle limits risk assessment to the singular impact of a substance on health and/or the environment and assumes that when no risk is identified, the substance must be licensed by government. The Delaney clause recognized that the health risks of some substances are not evident until 20 years or more after the injury. The ban on antibiotics as feed additives recognizes that uncertain risk identifies conditions where precautionary management is appropriate. Tolerances that ignore the metabolism of children demonstrate that risk identification is unlikely if valid scientific data is ignored, i.e., if unsound science is the basis for managing risk.
The real fear, the basis for the USCIB's alarm is that the Clinton administration will recognize the value and the scientific validity of the U.S. experience from the case-by-case approach, and seek to identify the common element, i.e., the general precepts, which define the precautionary principle. If that identification is done, the work will begin on establishing the precautionary principle as a framework to manage the lowering of the levels of risk in a global economy. The consequence of lowering the risk to people and their communities is well understood by Thomas Billy, leader of the U.S. delegation to Codex Alimentarius, the international body setting global standards for products and processes. He warned the European Union last month that adopting the precautionary principle in Codex would create grounds for legal action by industry for damages to recover lost opportunities to profitably exploit risk. No clearer purpose for the use of unsound science by the WTO could be stated, although the decision by U.S. officials to defend "science" as an instrument of exploitation is objectionable and inexcusable. Indeed, the kind of threat evoked by the US Codex delegate, i.e. that adoption of the precautionary principle would be grounds for industry vs. State lawsuits has led the City Council of Seattle, the site of the WTO Ministerial meeting in November, to declare the city as a Multilateral Agreement on Investment-Free Zone.
We urge you to reject the USCIB attack on the precautionary principle. You should recognize it as a not too subtle effort to intimidate any remaining staff of U.S. regulatory agencies who might view science as a means to improve health and the environment rather than a way to justify introducing risk to health and the environment. For example, the implementation of the legislation to incorporate metabolic data on children in establishing pesticide tolerances has been delayed now by EPA for two years. Last month the citizen and environmental organizations participating in an EPA advisory committee on the issue resigned in protest over the delay, condemning the deference paid to industry at the expense of the health of children. Accommodating this industry group on its request to reject the statements of the U.S. delegation to the High Level WTO Conference would signal the betrayal of the nation's environmental programs and policies.
Many of the organization's listed below have participated in the transatlantic dialogues between non-government organizations (NGOs) in the U.S. and E.U. on environmental and consumer issue. Both the Clinton Administration and the E.U Commission support this process to encourage the development of civil societies. Participants in dialogues last month in Brussels recommended that both governments incorporate the precautionary principle in agreements on trade between the US. and the E.U. Any accommodation of industry groups on the precautionary principle would be regarded as a unilateral decision by your administration to reject these recommendations out of hand, and a dismissal of the transatlantic dialogue as a means of strengthening U.S. and E.U. efforts to promote civil societies.
Sincerely,
Copies to:
Vice President Al Gore
Secretary of State Madeline Albright
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner
Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky
Mark Ritchie, President
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Ave. South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA
612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax)
mailto:mritchie@iatp.org www.iatp.org
</excerpt>
<excerpt>.
</excerpt>