{
  "id": "RL31970",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31970",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101649,
      "date": "2003-06-19",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:43:07.633544",
      "title": "U.S. Agricultural Biotechnology in Global Markets: An Introduction",
      "summary": "U.S. farmers have been rapidly adopting genetically engineered (GE) crops -- mainly corn,\nsoybean,\nand cotton varieties -- to lower production costs and improve management. However, the U.S.\nagricultural economy is highly dependent upon exports, at a time when many foreign consumers are\nwary of the products of agricultural biotechnology. As a result, U.S. exporters often have\nencountered barriers to trade in these markets.\n  Among the most controversial barriers is in the European Union (EU). The EU, the\nfourth-largest foreign market for U.S. agricultural products, since 1998 has maintained a de facto\nmoratorium on approvals of new GE crop varieties. In May 2003, the United States launched a\nformal challenge of the EU policy, contending that it both violates international trade agreements\nand causes unwarranted concerns about the safety of agricultural biotechnology throughout the\nworld.\n  The EU and other important U.S. trading partners around the world have adopted widely\ndivergent approaches to regulating biotechnology. The wide range of approaches to GE product\nregulation is in part due to the fact that an international consensus on how to regulate agricultural\nbiotechnology is still evolving. U.S. officials say they are active globally to ensure that national and\ninternational standards for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are consistent, transparent, based\non scientific principles, and compliant with international trade rules (e.g., those administered through\nthe World Trade Organization). For example, they have been working to ensure that the so-called\nCartagena Biosafety Protocol, a multilateral agreement on the safe handling, transfer, and\ntransboundary movement of living modified organisms, does not present new obstacles to U.S.\nexports of such products.\n  Another issue involves recent difficulties in moving U.S. food aid to certain African countries\ndue to what U.S. officials said were unwarranted, EU-provoked concerns that such aid's possible GE\ncontent could pose safety problems for recipients. Debate also revolves around the potential benefits\nand problems of introducing GE crops to developing countries.\n  Congress continues to follow these issues closely. For example, a number of leading\n lawmakers\npressed hard for the Administration to aggressively challenge the EU moratorium. Following the\nAdministration's decision to do so, the Senate and House passed resolutions ( S.Res. 154 ;  H.Res. 252 ) in support of the action. Several House hearings have been held to\nreview barriers to the adoption of, and trade in, GE agricultural products; and to review challenges\nand opportunities for plant biotechnology development in Africa. Additional hearings are possible. \nWhether the 108th Congress will consider other legislation affecting agricultural biotechnology was\nuncertain in June 2003. This report will be updated if events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL31970",
          "sha1": "eaf184d9d9bbdb82df2939afb47c4a92009f3ecb",
          "filename": "files/20030619_RL31970_eaf184d9d9bbdb82df2939afb47c4a92009f3ecb.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31970",
          "sha1": "6c366fa0b6f70af94bddb8f5fa97a9689bb4f430",
          "filename": "files/20030619_RL31970_6c366fa0b6f70af94bddb8f5fa97a9689bb4f430.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}