European Union feels ever harder the trap it fell into when scaring people with Frankenstein food to create a consumers´ anti-import barrier for agrarian products. It was succeeded with help of pressure organisations. Completely against valid legislation, some member states established a moratorium in 1998 on further GMO registrations for use in EU.
That way they put a large skeleton in the closet of the international position, which tied their hands on the grounds of WTO when they wanted to defend against American steel taxation or strategy of tax paradises use. The embargo needed to be removed. But how?
On the other hand, European farming is obsolete and uneconomical, which will get even worse after new members are admitted. Also in this respect, EU gets under a great pressure. The third world countries make a pressure, as EU and US subsidies close agrarian products markets. Therefore, USA and EU promised to decrease subsidies for agrarian products.
Promises (European) are faulty. Let us look at the OECD report: a yearly increase (in billion USD) of agrarian subsidies in OECD member states 2002/2003 went from 229,7 to 257,3; i.e. by 27,6. USA decreased subsidies as it had promised (a little) from 40,8 to 38,9. On the other hand, EU in contradiction with the promise increased subsidies from 94,8 to 121,4; i.e. by 26,6. Almost all the OECD increase is on the account of EU, which has 47,2% share in all the subsidies, and thus wears a coat of shame.
Europe had to do something to repair its position. It ended the moratorium by import of canned sweet corn. Not to disturb the anti-import barrier, and to glue the little holes in it (e.g. industry was allowed to use imported soy for production of highly refined oil or imported maize for glucose syrup production), it established the labelling rule in the like of medieval strive against witches so that the people’s fear of GMO pressed down the demand of producers for imported material to zero.
This way, it also glued all the possibilities how European farmer could use modern technology to increase economy and simultaneously decrease the chemical burden on nature. Policy of approving of GMO for import and processing, not for growing, gives all the profit to overseas growers and in Europe, neither consumer nor farmer has any benefit from it. Moreover, the world situation shows (see FAO proclamation) that movement towards GMO use will speed up and EU will become an agricultural museum.
Recapitulation: abolishment of moratorium has only one positive impact. It improved an EU position on the grounds of WTO. Although it was not „under pressure from mean capitalists“, as some leftist organisations claim but under pressure of unsustainability of its agricultural policy. But – what next?