I agree with Dan Drezner that the WTO ruling on genetically modified foods will hurt the organization. The Europeans strongly feel that the WTO is stepping outside its jurisdiction by condemning EU policy on a non-trade issue, since they consider the import prohibition to be a health and safety matter. They’ll choose to suffer US sanctions rather than allow GMF imports.
Thus, this case was lose-lose for the WTO from the beginning. A ruling against the US would have condemned the <a href=”significant potential benefits of biotechnology, while the ruling against the EU will only undermine the trade body’s credibility.
Trade Diversion 
How will the WTO “lose credibility” when the EU’s very own scientists agree that GM crops and food pose no dangers to health or the environment? How can you call it a “non-trade issue” when a wilful ignorance of science blocks $200 million in trade annually? About half of the EU budget goes to agricultural subsidies and trade protectionism is about all they have available to prevent their ag sector and taxpayer base from eroding to the point of collapse. This is realpolitik, man, and being green, kind or gastronomic has nothing to do with it.
You know the Republican war on science? The EU is fighting a same kind of war. The only thing the WTO says is: hey, science does not say that gmo’s are more dangerous than “normal” foods. So from a scientific point of view there is no reason to block imports. The fact that Europe still does means that not science but good old protectionism is the case here. And i always thought that the WTO is there to eliminate protectionism. This is what it does and it has science on here side. For me this underscores the credebility of that organisation. Given all the scientific reports it could not rule otherwise. It’s for Europe to stop it’s war on science.
It’s highly likely that the EU will refuse to comply with the ruling. That is the effect that will hurt the WTO’s credibility. As Drezner wrote:
Every time the WTO issues a ruling and the response is non-compliance, it takes a hit. That’s what is going to happen here. [So they should have ruled the opposite way?–ed. No, they made the right call on the merits of the case– it’s just that I’m pretty sure the WTO would have preferred not to rule on this case at all. For them, it’s a lose-lose situation.]
I’ll address whether the WTO ought to call out protectionism-disguised-as-environmentalism in a separate post.