212 | Five
the case of the USA, for instance. In a report to the president of the European Commission in 1999 one observer of the Codex committee meetings discussing standards on the cattle growth hormone rbST stated: ‘The ways and means by which rbST was re-evaluated last year strengthens our belief that powerful politico-economic interests and multinational companies exercise improper influence and control in the work of Codex Alimentarius and its scientific committees whose supposed primary task is to protect human health’ (Food Magazine 1999: 2). Once accepted by Codex, a standard becomes extremely difficult for national governments to override – by setting higher standards, for instance. Governments able to produce scientific evidence to support their case might be able to argue for higher standards. Final judgment on the evidence, however, is made by a WTO dispute settlement panel. If there is scientific uncertainty, as is often the case with the potential long-term health effects of food production processes, for example, the WTO system prevents national governments from adopting the precautionary principle and regulating trade. Yet the Codex standards for food trade are low, by comparison with those set by regional groups of countries, such as the European Union, even allowing for residues of artificial hormones in beef (Wallach and Sforza 1999: 56). Codex standards allow DDT residues to be fifty times greater than allowed by US law (Korten 1995: 179), and Codex is considering a standard that would allow for higher amounts of lead and other contaminants in mineral water (Wallach and Sforza 1999: 73). The main point is this: the notion that the WTO makes fair judgments based on issues relating to trade, the environment, food issues and the like, based on neutral scientific evidence provided by experts beyond question or reproach, is a figment of the imagination. Instead, the WTO makes anti-environmental judgments biased by its guiding principles of the ‘liberalization’ of trade and disguises them as fair, equitable and based in the neutral principles of science. A confidential document from the WTO Secretariat dated 19 March 2001 obtained by Greg Palast, a journalist at the Guardian and the Observer, two British newspapers, discusses Article VI.4 of the GATS agreement. It addresses the balance between two potentially conflicting priorities: promoting trade expansion versus protecting the regulatory rights of governments. Under the GATS treaty, Article VI.4, known as the Necessity Test, the GATS Disputes Panel will determine whether a national or state law or regulation is ‘more burdensome than