Can the WTO/GATT Agreements on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade be Renegotiated to Accommodate Agricultural Biotechnology

Source: RePEc
6 Reads
  • Source
    • "Ironically, it was not producers in the EU who were asking for protection but, rather, consumers. The hormone case does illustrate a weakness of the WTO – it only recognises producers as sources of protectionism (Perdikis et al., 2000). The beef hormone case has only clouded this issue because the EU attempted to use an inappropriate mechanism – the SPS – to obtain protection for what was a consumer issue. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At the time, the negotiation of the SPS agreement was seen as a major accomplishment of the Uruguay Round. One of the first major tests of both the SPS and the WTO's new dispute settlement system was the long standing and acrimonious dispute between the EU and the US and Canada over trade in beef produced using hormones. Both the SPS and the disputes system performed as expected but the EU, the loser in the case, has chosen to ignore the WTO Panel's ruling and accept retaliation. As a result, the credibility of the WTO is threatened and the outcome suggests that new negotiations may be required. The issues in the case are outlined and implications for trade in biological products drawn. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.
    World Economy 02/2002; 25(2):283-296. DOI:10.1111/1467-9701.00431 · 0.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods (GMFs) differ widely, particularly between North America and Europe. Information asymmetry, incomplete information and uncertainty arise as a result of concerns over GMFs. This paper explores the evolution of consumer attitudes towards genetically modijed foods in Europe and in North America and discusses a number of private market and public policy solutions to the problems of imperfect information and uncertainty. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
    Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie 12/1999; 47(4):445-455. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7976.1999.tb00442.x · 0.86 Impact Factor