eu proposal to amend regulation ec no. 1829 2003 to allow eu member states to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed in july 2015 argentina raised concerns about this amendment notified in g tbt n eu 284 which would allow eu member states to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed approved at eu level. currently member states had the right to restrict or prohibit imports of such products when there was scientific proof that they represented a risk for health or for the environment. the new eu proposal would allow member states to ban or restrict the use of these products without requiring scientific evidence. in the past the european union and its member states had attempted to justify restrictions on use of gmos for scientific reasons without success. this new proposal could be considered as an alternative way to reach the same objective. the measure would enable eu member states to create unnecessary barriers to international trade. it would also introduce unpredictability in commodity trade and would affect the single market and the free movement of goods in the european union. argentina therefore invited the european union to reconsider this draft amendment and to implement the current eu legislation on authorization and approval of gmos in the entire european union in accordance with multilateral rules. paraguay shared argentinas concerns with respect to the eu proposal which could have an effect on products used for several years and which had not had any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment. the amendment would allow member states to take measures not be based on scientific evidence which would therefore not comply with the sps agreement. the european union was a major trading partner for paraguay and argentina and the proposal was of great concern for their producers. paraguay therefore asked the european union to reconsider the amendment of the regulation. the united states also shared the concern raising procedural questions since the eu proposal had only been notified to the tbt committee but should also have been notified to the sps committee in accordance with article 7 and annex b of the sps agreement and the sps committees recommended transparency procedures contained in g sps 7 rev.3. the amendment related to regulation ec no. 1829 2003 that was an sps measure because it governed the health and safety approvals of biotech products. this measure had been notified to the sps committee in g sps n eec 149 with several addenda and corrigenda. the united states also expressed substantive concerns regarding the amendments potential adverse effects on trade including unfair competition regulatory uncertainty increased costs and damages to integrated supply chains. the proposal could lead to a proliferation of arbitrary and discriminatory measures and to a lack of clarity and certainty. finally the united states recalled the ec-biotech 2006 dispute in which the dsb had found that nine eu member state bans of biotech products approved at the eu level were inconsistent with the european unions obligations under the sps agreement. yet some eu member states had maintained such bans and adopted new ones. the united states urged the european union not to adopt the proposal. brazil canada and uruguay also shared this concern emphasizing the measures potential negative effect on trade and seeking additional information. the european union explained that the proposal was not an sps measure. it had no relation to the protection of life or health since restrictions linked to health risks or to the environment were excluded. as a consequence the measure did not fall under the scope of the sps agreement. the european commission would report the comments received from the wto members to its co-legislators. the european union indicated that it had complied with its transparency obligations by notifying the legislation which clearly indicated that member states could not invoke the risks to health or life to impose a ban or a restriction on gmos.