Given the unending stream of natural disasters and violent conflicts occurring throughout the world, the public tends to assume that food aid is an unqualified lifesaver when employed in stricken countries. In fact, food is is surrounded by fierce controversy. When food aid is exploited by wealthy nations interested in their own prosperity, that food aid can become a detriment to the economies of developing and undeveloped nations. Food aid has played a large role in the continued poverty of the developing world.

Despite the complex implications of this issue, its root cause can be summarised by one simple truth: As large, industrialised corporations in the developed world are capable of producing food at costs astronomically lower than those attainable by farmers in the developing world, when that food is exported under the umbrella of “food aid” at costs far below local market values, the local agricultural market is wiped out—and the cycle of poverty marches on.

Food aid used in non-emergency situations has the potential to destroy local agriculture, bankrupting farmers and widening the disparity between prosperous, industrialized developed nations and developing nations. Historically, food aid has been linked to a continued dependence on long-term food imports, and a decrease in local food production. Food aid can also push exporters out of developing nations, solidifying the economic advantage of a few economic superpowers and making it more difficult for developing economies to become competitive agricultural exporters; thus, reducing opportunities for those developing countries to permanently build wealth and stability. The label of “food aid” has also been used to dispose of surplus food without violating current anti-dumping regulations. Within the private sector, food aid has often been viewed as a convenient method to dump surplus or sub-par crops without facing export subsidisation regulations. Furthermore, food aid has been used as a means of commandeering markets that are potentially to become profitable. Lastly, food aid has become highly monetized over the past decade, which leads to highly inefficient, trade-distorting aid systems.

Its problems notwithstanding, food aid is a highly important aspect of the movement to bring change and development to impoverished nations; however, this aid must be re-examined to ensure its pros solidly outweigh its cons. Current regulations do not provide sufficiently strong rules for the administration of food aid, offering only vague guidelines without any actionable means attached to possible abuses. Additionally, current anti-dumping regulations are not applied to food aid, which was exempted from regulation in the Uruguay Round. More effective measures are necessary to ensure that food aid is used as a means of improving living standards in the developed worlds, and not as a exploitative tool for the profit of industrialized superpowers.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose genes have been altered to achieve new, tailored traits. Genes are added to the DNA of the organism, genes that may come from species completely unrelated to the modified organism. GMOs are usually plants but animal GMOs are becoming increasingly common. Genetically modified (GM) foods have been around since the 1990s, when the United States introduced GM maize to its market. GM foods are now shipped around the world. Usually, GM crops are not labeled as such, and are often mixed indiscriminately with non-GM foods. Most consumers were unaware that they were, in fact, consuming GM foods until recently.

The trade controversy relevant to the WTO arises from Europe’s de facto moratorium on GMO imports. Though the EU has not specifically stated that it has banned all GMO imports to its territory, the nature of its regulatory processes regarding GMOs has effectively accomplished just that. In response, the US has called for WTO intervention, arguing that the EU is creating an unfair trade situation by rejecting GMO imports. In defense, the EU claims that insufficient scientific analysis has been performed to ensure the safety of GMO products, and that as a result the EU is unwilling to allow their sale to their consumers. In essence, the EU has embraced what is known as the “precautionary principle”, i.e., the EU has decided to ban GMO imports without waiting until scientific data proves that GMO-associated health risks exist, because they wish to take pre-emptive precautions to protect Europeans in the event that GMOs do, in fact, present significant health risks. The US and other GMO-exporting countries argue that current data on GMOs does not demonstrate any negative impacts on human health, and that consumers in GMO-friendly countries have been eating GM crops for years without any discernable issues. Pro-GMO groups believe the EU has gone too far with its precautionary principle, and is, as a result, violating the principles of free trade. In order to fall within WTO free trade guidelines, the EU is supposed to prove that in banning GMOs it is protecting human or environmental health against known health risks. This means the EU needs to actively seek out scientific proof that GMOs pose health threats, or drop the heavy regulations it has placed on GM foods.

Controversy also surrounds the question of labeling and mixing of GM and non-GM foods. Countries that support GM foods, such as the US, do not label GM foods and their GM foods are often mixed with non-GM foods during harvest, transport and production. As a result, consumers are often unaware of the presence or percentage of GM foods in their diet. In contrast, some countries will only accept GM food that is tightly regulated, separated from non-GM foods and labeled for consumer awareness. The controversies over GM food production and distribution are both scientific and economic, bringing together the need to protect human health while maintaining free trade.