In Brief

EU SET TO KEEP EXTRA DUTIES ON ENERGY-SAVING LIGHT BULBS FROM CHINA

A divided European Commission decided last week to retain heavy anti-dumping duties on energy-saving light bulbs from China for an additional year, angering environmental groups who argue that the move will impede efforts to curb climate change. Certain industry groups had proposed retaining the duties for an additional five years.

The EU's executive body on 29 August announced that it would urge member states to remove the extra tariffs in 2008, effectively backing down from plans to eliminate them this year. Governments are set to vote on the proposal during the next week.

Brussels has imposed the duties of up to 66 percent since 2001, claiming that "state intervention or other market distortions" meant that the Chinese bulbs were being sold in the EU "at less than their real value."

EU consumers might have been grateful for cut-rate light bulbs, and the Commission argued that it was in member states' interest to end the duties - not least to cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, European manufacturers seeking more time to adjust to Chinese competition won a reprieve.

Eivind Hoff, a trade and investment advisor for environmental group WWF, described the EU's move as "narrowly protectionist." Pointing to a "severe contradiction" between Brussels' energy efficiency objectives and the prolongation of the extra taxes, he said that it sent "a regressive message to developing country producers that they will be excluded from markets for cleaner products created by the higher environmental standards expected by European consumers."

WWF estimates that a rapid switch from traditional incandescent bulbs to more efficient lamps could reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by 0.5 percent. The Commission acknowledges that domestic production can account for only a quarter of the EU's demand for energy-efficient light bulbs.

The four European companies that manufacture such bulbs were split on the issue, based largely on how much they have invested in China. Osram, a German company that produces many bulbs in the EU itself, was the only one to lobby heavily for the extension of the duties, reports Associated Press. Dutch multinational Philips, which manufactures many bulbs in China, pushed for scrapping them. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said that the case illustrated "the complexities of managing anti-dumping rules in a global economy and against the broad range of EU interests."

Duties notwithstanding, the EU has been a vocal proponent of liberalising trade in environmental goods as part of the Doha Round WTO talks.

ICTSD reporting; "Europe to keep tariffs on light bulbs," INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 29 August 2007; "EU won't lift charges on Chinese energy-saving light bulbs for another year," ASSOCIATED PRESS, 29 August 2007; "Towards a Low Carbon Future: The Case for China and EU Collaboration," THE WORLD TODAY, October 2007 (forthcoming).

SEAL HUNT LANDS AT WTO

Canada is taking a strong stance against countries that have enacted or are planning to enact import bans with regard to Canadian seal products. The Canadian government issued a statement at the end of July on its intention to challenge Belgium at the WTO over a ban on the importation and marketing of seal products, in force since April this year.

Animal right groups worldwide strongly oppose the annual North-Eastern Canadian seal hunt, which they claim is cruel and unsustainable. Belgium is the first country to impose a full ban, soon to be followed by the Netherlands. Belgium itself does not import any seal products, while several other European countries do. The European Parliament has also called for a Europe-wide ban.

"Sealing is an important way of life for many Canadians, including Inuit and other Aboriginal peoples," commented Loyola Hearn, Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. "It is important that we pursue these consultations to maintain access to markets for all those involved in the sealing industry." The Belgian ban exempts seal products produced by Inuit and aboriginal people. These groups say, however, that the ban undermines the market as a whole, thus making the exception meaningless.

Livelihoods in the areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are suffering the consequences of the collapse of the cod fishery in the mid-nineties, which has never recovered. While seal products such as pelts bring in C$33 million in annual revenues, the Humane Society of Canada claims that the government subsidises the seal hunt to the tune of C$20 million each year. This year, 270,000 seals will be killed. According to Ottawa, the healthy seal population amounts to 5.5 million animals.

If the consultations initiated at the WTO between Canada and Belgium do not lead to a mutually-accepted solution, Canada has the right to request the establishment of a dispute settlement panel 60 days after the initial request for consultations.

"Seal appeal pits animal rights v. trade," GLOBE AND MAIL, 1 August 2007; "Canada seeks WTO consultations on Belgium seal products ban," AFP, 31 July 2007; "Canada Files Complaint at WTO Against Belgium Over Seal Ban," BLOOMBERG, 31 July 2007; "Canada Fights Belgian Ban on Seal Trade at WTO," REUTERS, 31 July 2007; "Canada To Request WTO Consultations On Belgium's Ban On The Importation Of Seal Products," FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE CANADA RELEASE, 31 July 2007.

EU FOOD SAFETY AGENCY: GM FEED DOES NOT AFFECT MEAT, EGGS, DAIRY

.A statement from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), dated 20 July, says there is no evidence that genetically modified (GM) animal feed can negatively effect meat, eggs and dairy products.

In March this year international environmental group Greenpeace and one million EU citizens petitioned the European Commission to labels food products (such as meat, milk and eggs) from animals that have been fed with genetically modified feed. The European Commission proceeded by requesting the EFSA to assess the potential for transgenes or their products to be incorporated into animal tissues or products such as eggs and milk.

The EFSA study was based on a literature survey and showed that "recombinant DNA did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of healthy human subjects fed GM soya." The study said that the rapid breakdown of DNA and proteins during digestion reduces the chance of them being absorbed intact into the muscle, milk, or eggs of animals. "After ingestion, a rapid degradation into short DNA or peptide fragments is observed in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans," the report stated. "To date, a large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids or edible products of farm animals like broilers, cattle, pigs or quails."

EU regulations that came into force in April 2004 require any food containing a GM ingredient or derivative (like processed oils and lecithin) in amounts of more than 0.9 percent to be labelled as containing GM material. This rule, however, does not apply to products like milk, meat and eggs from animals raised on GM feed.

EU feed imports -- mainly soybeans and maize -- come from countries like the US, where GM crops are common through the crop supply chain. Approximately 90 percent of the EU's imports of GM grain and oilseeds are used as animal feed, and EU feed manufacturers say the constant need to import high-protein feed materials makes it impossible to supply non-GMO feed on a large scale.

Additional resources

EFSA statement on the fate of recombinant DNA or proteins in meat, milk and eggs from animals fed with GM feed, 20 July 2007 is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/gmo/statements.Par.0002.File.dat/EFSA_statement_DNA_proteins_gastroint.pdf

"No GMO From Feed Found in Meat, Eggs, EU Agency Says", PLANETARK, 6 August 2007; "EFSA: GM Feed Does Not Affect Meat", CHECKBIOTECH, 2 August 2007.

ICELAND FINDS NO MARKET FOR WHALE MEAT

Fisheries Minister Einar Guofinnsson recently announced that he would refrain from issuing a new quota for commercial whaling until the market for whale products improved. The old quota -- issued in October last year for 30 minke whales and 9 fin whales in defiance of an international whaling moratorium that has been in place for two decades (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 October 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-10-20/inbrief.htm) -- expired on 31 August.

Over the past year, Icelandic whalers killed 7 minke and 7 fin whales, both of which are listed as endangered species. Iceland, along with Japan and Norway, also maintains a programme of whaling on "scientific" grounds. However, demand for whale meat has decreased, and Iceland had trouble exporting the whale meat to Japan due to its high concentration of toxic chemicals.

Meanwhile, anti-whaling nations and animal rights groups have noted that while commercial whaling yields very little profit, Iceland's whale-watching industry accumulates over US$20 million in revenues per annum.

The last meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June this year rejected requests from pro-whaling nations to challenge the IWC's international ban on commercial whaling (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 June 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-06-22/inbrief.htm#2).

"Iceland Puts Down Its Whaling Harpoons for a Year," ENS, 27 August 2007; "New Zealand welcomes Iceland's decision to not issue new whaling quotas this year," INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 27 August 2007.