he Panel's report is presented to the DSB for adoption within sixty days of the circulation of the report

to Members. A party may appeal to the seven member Appellate Body on the law and legal
interpretations embodied in the report of the Panel. The DSU sets a timetable of sixty days from the
appeal.30 The Appellate Body report and its recommendations are then considered by the DSB for
adoption." Since the complaints concern inaction, an initial issue will be how to define the measures to
be examined. The substance of the EC's rules are not the issue. Rather it is the blockage in the approval
process that is being challenged. Nothing in European Communities law requires or condones a
"moratorium." In fact, the Novel Foods Directive, for example, contains specific procedural time
limits,32 33 as does Directive 2001/18 on deliberate release. The EC is expected to argue that there was
a "suspension" while new legislation was being developed, but not a moratorium. According to the this
line of argument, the spring 2004 approvals show that the suspension is no longer in place, rendering
the disputes moothe Panel's report is presented to the DSB for adoption within sixty days of the
circulation of the report to Members. A party may appeal to the seven member Appellate Body on the
law and legal interpretations embodied in the report of the Panel. The DSU sets a timetable of sixty days
from the appeal.30 The Appellate Body report and its recommendations are then considered by the DSB
for adoption." Since the complaints concern inaction, an initial issue will be how to define the measures
to be examined. The substance of the EC's rules are not the issue. Rather it is the blockage in the
approval process that is being challenged. Nothing in European Communities law requires or condones a
"moratorium." In fact, the Novel Foods Directive, for example, contains specific procedural time
limits,32 33 as does Directive 2001/18 on deliberate release. The EC is expected to argue that there was
a "suspension" while new legislation was being developed, but not a moratorium. According to the this
line of argument, the spring 2004 approvals show that the suspension is no longer in place, rendering
the disputes moot