WTO Ruling on the EU-US Biotech WTO Ruling on the EU-US Biotech WTO Ruling on the EU-US Biotech WTO Ruling on the EU-US Biotech WTO Ruling on the EU-US Biotech Products Dispute: A Review of Issues Products Dispute: A Review of Issues Products Dispute: A Review of Issues Products Dispute: A Review of Issues Products Dispute: A Review of Issues Biswajit Nag * Debashis Chakraborty ** Abstract: The current paper reviews the future direction of US trade policy on genetically modified (GM) crops. The US has recently won a case at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), challenging the EU’s de facto moratorium on approvals of biotech products as well as the safeguard measures undertaken for that purpose. The DSB ruled the EU policy to be inconsistent with the ‘sufficient scientific evidence’ and ‘risk assessment’ requirements under the WTO SPS Agreement. The case law sets a precedent and the US might follow the same route for other WTO members, who are currently not permitting import of GM crops within their territories. It has earlier raised concerns on the policies of several developing countries including South Africa. India, which is yet to approve any GM food crops till date, may also face similar concerns. Considering the current scenario, the paper concludes that India must keep the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in mind while developing its legal provisions for GM crops through Food Safety Bills, to ensure the precautionary principle. Keywords: GM, Cartagena Protocol, US, EU, India, Biosafety, Biotech, Cotton Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction The cultivation of various GM crops (like corn, soya and maize) have expanded in both developed as well as developing countries, especially in Argentina, Canada, China and the US, with a consequent increase in the export interest. However, the EU decision in mid-1999 on not allowing marketing of any new GMOs there before updating the EU rules, to satisfy public concerns about possible dangers to human health and the environment, caused the US farmers to complain about a sales loss of US $300 million (172 million pounds) per year in the EU markets and elsewhere indirectly as a consequence (Crop Choice, 2002). 1 In * Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. Email: biswajit@iift.ac.in ** Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. RIS Research and Information System for Developing Countries www.ris.org.in/abdr.html Asian Biotechnology and Development Review Vol. 9 No. 2, pp 123-130 © 2007, RIS. All rights reserved Printed in India