By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 (IPS) -  Environmentalists joined the growing outcry against the  powers of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Thursday  and warned the trade body was undermining hard-won  safeguards to protect public health and the environment  against toxic substances.

Two new reports released Thursday condemned the  perceived influence of corporate interests at the upcoming  international trade negotiations of the WTO ministerial  conference in Seattle, Washington Nov 30-Dec 3.

''To trade or not to trade is not the question,'' said a report  from the Basel Action Network and Asia Pacific  Environmental Exchange, two Seattle- based groups who  have worked to end the international trade and dumping of  toxic waste.

Trade must have limits to ensure it does not harm people or  ecosystems, they said. They alleged that WTO rules, as  currently written, undermined beneficial trade controls on  toxic chemicals and substances.

''The WTO represents a frightening gauntlet thrown down at  the very pillars of our work for a toxics-free future,'' said the  report, titled 'When Trade is Toxic.'

Both organisations said that the trade body's ''Precautionary  Principle,'' used to instill caution in policy makers regarding  the licensing of toxic substances and chemicals, was ''non-  scientific'' and therefore could not be used as a basis to  justify regulatory actions that conflict with trade rules.

The Precautionary Principle demanded the shifting of the  burden of proof on those who would introduce new  chemicals or substances, into the environment to prove that  they were likely to not be harmful, rather than the other way  around - which is the current standard at the WTO, said the  38-page report.

Because the WTO disregards the 'Precautionary Principle'  the report warned that more challenges could be expect to  domestic laws banning chemicals, like in 1997 when the US  weakened its Clean Air Act regulations limiting gasoline  contaminants that cause pollution after Venezuela  successfully challenged them before the trade body.

''For too long we have granted chemicals, nuclear isotopes,  and genetically modified organisms ''constitutional rights'' -  that is they are considered innocent until proven guilty,'' said  the report.

Waiting until damage is substantially proven before action  was taken as currently employed under the international  trade body was ''tantamount to running an uncontrolled  experiment using human subjects,'' the report said.

The WTO's dismissal of the 'Precautionary Principle' put  numerous other public health protections at risk, according  to a second study released Thursday by the Earthjustice  Legal Defense Fund, which was once part of the Sierra Club.

In 'Trading Away Public Health,' the group said US pesticide  safeguards for children, which required that extra protection  be built into US pesticide standards where the scientific  evidence was incomplete, could be challenged easily  challenged under existing trade rules.

''This extra protection is not based on definitive scientific  evidence of harm from the particular pesticide, but rather on  the lack of studies deemed necessary to decide whether the  pesticide residues will be harmful to children,'' said  Earthjustice.

'Trading Away Public Health' said the WTO further  undermines restrictions designed to prevent toxic effects of  certain production processes, since it prohibited  discrimination between products based on how they were  produced.

Under current WTO rules, ''if the physical attributes of two  products are the same, the one produced in a manner that  depletes natural resources or pollutes the air and water must  be treated the same as the one that does not cause such  pollution,'' said Earthjustice.

Under such trade rules, the US government - on behalf of the  American Electronics Association - in early 1999 said it  would challenge the EU's proposed programme to minimize  the environmental risks from toxic chemicals produced when  electronic and electrical equipment, such as computers, are  made.

The EU programme would phase out the use of certain toxic  chemicals, mandate 70 percent of computer material be  recycled or reused, and require electronic manufacturers be  held responsible for the costs of recycling and disposal of  waste at the end of the product's useful life.

By prohibiting products to be discriminated against how they  were produced, the WTO had ''erected obstacles to toxics  bans and standards and thereby threatens to stymie pollution  prevention and public health protection strategies,'' said  Earthjustice.

Reducing import tariffs on chemical products was high on  the list of President Bill Clinton's priorities at the upcoming  trade talks at the end of this month.

But like forest protection advocates who worry that lower  tariffs on wood products will fuel harmful logging, 'When  Trade is Toxic' warned that lower prices on chemicals would  increase demand which, in turn, would increase worldwide  consumption of dangerous substances.

''Greater consumption of chemicals worldwide, means more  chemicals ending up in the environment, in our food and in  our bodies,'' it said.

While not all chemicals were hazardous, trade liberalisation  would be sought for a number of substances which  environmentalists considered harmful to health and the  environment.

Some of these chemicals, such as tetraethyl lead and  asbestos, were banned in developed countries and were  ''exported from countries like the United States and Canada  to developing countries where they are responsible for much  death, birth defects, cancer and other forms of dysfunction  and disease,'' said 'When Trade is Toxic.'

The report also warned that the WTO may override  international environmental agreements that regulate trade in  toxics, including the Basel Convention ban on exporting  hazardous wastes from industrialised nations to developing  countries and the treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants  (POPs).

While any WTO challenge of any multilateral environmental  agreement had not been forthcoming, 'When Trade is Toxic'  said powerful industry could sway use the trade body to fight  treaties which threatened their bottom line.

According to report, both the International Chamber of  Commerce and the International Council on Metals and the  Environment, an industry association, have said they may  challenge the Basel Convention, or its individual provisions,  under the WTO as a trade barrier. (END/IPS/dk/mk/99) .

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material  is distributed without profit for personal, research and educational uses.  This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been  specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This article is made  available to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights,  economic democracy and social justice issues. It is believed that this  constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section  107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material  for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain  permission from the copyright owner. **