Short paper: DSB decision in the Biotech My analysis of the potential future consequences of the DSB decision on economics,

society, environment, culture and politics for one of the two parties of the dispute or for third parties, is based on the premise that GM crops are safe for consumption, which is a conclusion supported by a wide body of scientific evidence, as well as no observed evidence of harmful effects in humans or food animals that have been linked to consuming food and feed containing GM materials for the past 30 years that GM crops and food have been available on the market. Nevertheless, there can be a different view that GM crops are indeed unsafe, which would produce a different analysis altogether. The assignment has not explicitly required any particular perspective on the safety of GM crops hence I would take it that there is some discretion in deciding on taking a position on the safety aspect by the student in undertaking the assignment to develop an analysis of the different aspects of economics, society, environment, culture and politics.

Economics: The DSB decision is a very costly one for European manufacturers, particularly as it allows the US to legitimately impose retaliatory measures on European products, such as by setting tariffs on specific items. From the point of view of the US, the victor in the dispute, in principle such a decision should clearly benefit producers there and allow access of their GM products and seeds to the European market. However, this has not yet materialized due to the continued moratorium imposed despite the ruling, as the EU deliberates on how to regulate GM crops and products. Nevertheless, from a global perspective, the ruling by the DSB has allowed for free trade in agricultural products, thus providing more choices to different users of food and feed ingredients, which could potentially reduce production costs. Currently, this is the case, particularly for feed markets, as the majority of grain-based feed on the global market contains GM materials.

Society: The impact on the section on European society that does not wish to consume GM foods in mass market products will be somewhat negative, as there would be more GM products available at their supermarkets. Nevertheless, such sections of society would still have choice available to them, as current EU regulations makes GM product labeling mandatory at a very low threshold (0.9%). There are also a variety of non-GM alternatives currently available on the market, such as organic products, although such choices are often more expensive. The section of European society that is not against GM foods will benefit, as they will have access to more food availability at affordable prices. The same outcomes would apply for US consumers as well as for consumers in

third countries (negative in terms of choices available for those who do not wish to consume GM products, no change in consequence and potential benefits for those who have no issue with GM products).

Environment: I do not think it is possible to evaluate environmental consequences based on a legal outcome, as one would first have to establish whether GM crops would cause harm to the environment or not (or make an assumption). The only environmental consequence that could be concluded would be that more GM crops could be grown in Europe and therefore found in its environment (which it already is in some countries such as Spain) and also around the world (which is already happening according to ISAAA estimates). However, for more crops to be grown in the EU, this would require that the de facto moratorium is lifted.

Culture: Culture, as far as I understand, is diverse and in many cases fluid, so it is difficult to pinpoint the effects of the decision on culture, and perhaps to some extent less relevant. An example of why I think it might not be relevant is that, assuming a GM tomato and conventional tomato is substantially equivalent, they could still be used to make tomato sauce for pasta, or as part of a Caprese salad. They could also be grown organically or based on other traditional methods and likely have similar taste and qualities (if necessary, an experiment could be performed to examine this). Therefore, in that sense, culture is not affected.

Politics: Politics is the one area that I think the decision may have the most significant effect as a result of the DSB decision. For the EU, the DSB decision has more or less necessitated action by EU public authorities in deciding how to deal with the GM crops, in light of certain member states taking the position of opposing the entry of GM products and growing of GM crops in their territories. This has been happening, with one of the latest proposal being to allow individual member states to ban the growth of GM crops for reasons other than health and environmental concerns. Nevertheless, it seems like a complicated process as some member states do not agree to such a proposal since it might threaten the principles of the EU single market. For the US, it does mean that they have won a political victory in relation to how third countries will view its exported GM products, vis--vis the EUs view on the matter at the WTO. Some third countries would be discouraged to impose restrictive measures against GM products and crops without basing them on science, while other would be given the political capital to do so if they would like to import and grow GM crops for their own purposes. The decision could have likely mitigated any further increase in regulatory

burden for third countries, particularly those who wish to commercialize GM crops developed through public sector research. This is because since the EU measures have been deemed to not conform to the SPS Agreement, it could be more easily justified for third countries not to follow the EUs approach of enacting the same level of regulation (which some consider restrictive).

As I believe the DSB has ruled fairly within its mandate, I do not think there is a need for an alternative decision per se, as the decision has upheld the SPS Agreement both in principle and in spirit. It would be difficult to propose alternative decisions unless one was to amend the current SPS Agreement, for example to allow it to consider removing the centrality of science-based evidence in supporting a countrys sanitary measures, while still allowing free trade to happen. Nevertheless, it would have to be agreed upon by all members of the WTO on what criteria should be used as the basis of decision making that would be equally accountable, transparent and fair to all its members regardless of culture, political inclinations or economic standing. For example, if culture was used as a basis for decision making, it would cause conflicts since cultures are diverse and different around the world, which would inevitably lead to one culture being discriminated over another. If politics were to be the main determinant, it would be difficult as well since different countries would have different political perspectives and political opinion would also not be uniform even within a country. Therefore, science still remains one of the only possible independent bases to take decisions, as it does not consider parochial self-interests of member states. As the WTO is primarily concerned with trade, and public health might be perceived to play a secondary role, one alternative solution to the current dilemma could be to set up an international body with its primary mandate to protect public health in relation to food and/or environment. Such a body would nevertheless have to be given a legal mandate for its work on par with the WTOs mandate on trade, in order to be effective in balancing the trade-driven priorities of the WTO when dealing with food safety and other issues. Nevertheless, there would still have to be a basis for taking decisions on public health measures, which has the same problems as the WTO and could still be based on science.