Mr Zoellick used strong language to condemn the EU ban. "I think the European view on this is Luddite", he said, adding that he was very concerned that European resistance to the technology appears to be influencing the trade policies of other nations, even of African governments that have turned down genetically-modified American grain intended for starving people. "I see something extremely disturbing: the European anti-scientific view spreading to other parts of the world - not letting Africans eat food you and I eat, and instead letting people starve", he said. "I find it immoral that people are not being able to be supplied food to live in Africa because people have invented dangers about biotechnology. That puts it rather high on my scale to deal with." He said that after long debate, there was now "pretty wide agreement" within the Bush Administration to lodge a WTO biotech suit against the EU. At the same time, White House officials insisted the Administration had not decided whether to lodge the case. 

Attitudes hardened. 

However, Mr Zoellick admitted that even a successful case at the WTO would probably not pry open the EU market or change consumer attitudes there, because resistance among Europeans is perceived to be overwhelming. But it could set an important precedent, Mr Zoellick said. He cited a continuing spat with the EU over its refusal to allow in US beef containing growth hormones. In 1998, the US won a beef-hormone case against Europe at the WTO, and although it did not force open the EU market, Mr Zoellick said it stopped other countries from following the EU's lead. 

The European Commission says the ban needs to be lifted, but Austria, France, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg and Belgium insist the ban must remain until the EU implements rigorous labelling rules that US food exporters say could cause even worse havoc. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy responded by saying that the issue should be settled through negotiation instead of litigation, adding that a trade suit would make finding a solution "more complex". But he added: "If there was to be litigation, of course we would fight it, and I believe we would win it". 

There is also concern that a suit could stir up European public opinion against the United States - and possibly even set off a wider trade war, prompting the EU to impose sanctions in unrelated trade battles. So far, the EU has held back from setting sanctions against the US in the case over export subsidies known as Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) despite winning the right to claim Euro 4 billion in damages by the WTO. But this - and the restraint over US steel tariffs set last March - could change if the Bush Administration goes ahead with a GM-food complaint. 

--A series of food disasters in the EU, involving problems such as mad cow disease being passed to humans through food, was followed in the late 1990s by a fierce controversy over genetic manipulation of crops. EU governments adopted labelling laws and imposed a ban on the crops, costing US farmers at least Euro 300 million a year in export revenue.--