Washington, February 8:

The United States welcomed a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling that found the European Union (EU) put up unfair restrictions on genetically modified crops.

“We’re pleased with the outcome,” said a US trade official who asked to remain anonymous but confirmed earlier reports that the confidential WTO dispute panel report backed the complaint by the United States, Canada and Argentina. “The panel agreed with us.”

The official declined to comment on the specifics of the ruling, saying US authorities had

not yet reviewed the document of several hundred pages, and that it still was subject to appeal.

“We’re not at the end of this road, but the report is a significant milestone,” the official stated.

The official said the EU moratorium affected ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ of potential trade in crops including corn, soybeans and cotton, and that “there was no scientific basis for that. The reason was a political reason.”

Although the EU officially lifted its moratorium in 2004, Washington has complained of foot-dragging by Brussels in approving new crops and argued that some individual countries were improperly banning some biotech crops. “We would hope the EU would comply with its obligations,” the official said, adding that the EU approval process has been ‘languishing’ despite the lifting of the moratorium. “When you have products that are still languishing from the mid-1990s, obviously we think there is still a problem that has to be addressed.”

In its confidential, preliminary decision, the WTO panel said that Europe must fall into line with the rules of global commerce.

These are set by the 149 trading nations in the WTO and refereed by the Geneva-based body, which can authorise retaliatory customs duties against members who fail to respect its decisions.

Argentina, Canada and the United States brought their complaint before

the WTO in May 2003, charging that a European moratorium on imports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in place since 1998 was more about business protectionism than concerns about the health of consumers or the environment.