The Contrast between Risk Assessment and Rules of Evidence in the Context of International Trade Disputes: Can the U.S. Experience Inform the Process?

Risk Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 449-459

  Anderson, Elizabeth L ^a   St Hilaire, Catherine ^a  

^a Sciences International Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

International trade litigation; Public health policy; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

INTERNATIONAL TRADE DISPUTES; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO);

RISK ASSESSMENT;

DISPUTE RESOLUTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRADE RELATIONS; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 2442493190     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00447.x     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Albert, R. E., Train, R. R., & Anderson, E. L. (1977). Rationale developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the assessment of carcinogenic risks. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 58, 1537.
2. Anderson, E. L. (2003). The red book in context: Science at the center. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9,1197-1202.
3. Atik, J. (1996-1997). Science and international regulatory convergence. NW Journal of International Law and Business, 17, 736.
4. Bradford-Hill, A. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295.
5. Byrne, D. (2000). How governments can meet consumer concerns on the trade agenda. Speech to Plenary Meeting of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue. Washington, D.C.
6. Caswell, J. A. (2000). Overview. In Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2001). Risk Analysis Policies of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. ALINORM 01/9.
8. Commission of the European Communities. (2001). White Paper. Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. Brussels, February 27, 2001, COM(2001) 88 final.
9. EC (European Commission). (2003). Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment. Part 1. Joint Research Centre. EU 20418 EN/1.
10. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Mission Statement. Available at http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/mission. htm.
11. EPA. (1976). Health risk and economic impact assessments of suspected carcinogens: Interim procedures and guidelines. Federal Register, 41(102), 21402-21405.
12. EPA. (1986a). Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register, 51(185), 33992-34008.
13. EPA. (1986b). Guidelines for the health risk assessment of suspect developmental toxicants, Federal Register, 51, 34028.
14. EPA. (1986c). Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment. Federal Register, 51, 34006-34012.
15. EPA. (1986d). Guidelines for the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. Federal Register, 51(185), 34014-34025.
16. EPA. (1986e). Guidelines for estimating exposure. Federal Register, 51(185), 34042-34058.
17. EPA. (1991). Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assessment. Federal Register, 56, 63798-63826.
18. EPA. (1996a). Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register, 61, 17960-18011.
19. EPA. (1996b). Guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assessment. Federal Register, 61, 56274-56322.
20. EPA. (1996c). The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Washington, DC, August, 1996.
21. EPA. (1998). Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment. 630/R-95/001F. April 30, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, p. 90.
22. EPA. (1999). Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. NCEA-F-0644, July 1999. Review draft. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf.
23. EPA. (2000a). Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/002, August 2000.
24. EPA. (2000b). Science Policy Council Handbook: Risk Characterization. EPA 100-B-00-002. Dec. 2000.
25. EPA. (2003). Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001A. NCEA F0644A. February. Available at www.epa.gov/NCEA/RAF/Cancer2003.htm.
26. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). (1987). Regulation of Carcinogenic Compounds Used in Food-Producing Animals. Title 21, Parts 500.80-500.92 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
27. FDA. (1995). Food additives: Threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles; final rule. Federal Register, 60(136), 36581-36596.
28. FDA. (2002). Revision of the definition of the term "no residue" in the new Animal Drug Regulations. Federal Register, 67(246), 78172-78174.
29. GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). (1947). Art X. Oct. 30.
30. Howse, R. (2000). Democracy, science and free trade risk regulation on trial at the World Trade Organization. Michigan Law Review, 98, 23-29.
31. IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2000). Gulf war and health. In C. E. Fulco & C. T. Liverman (Eds.), Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines, Vol. 1. Committee on Health Effects Associated with Exposures During the Gulf War, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.
32. IOM. (2003). Gulf war and health. Insecticides and Solvents, Vol. 2. Committee on Gulf War and Health: Literature Review of Pesticides and Solvents.
33. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). (2003). Preamble to the IARC Monographs. Available at http:// monographs.iarc.fr/monoeval/preamble.html.
34. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2003). IPCS Harmonization Project. Available at http://www.who.int/pcs/harmon_site/harmonize/index.htm.
35. IRLG. (1979). Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 63, 241-268.
36. Koch, R. (1984). Die Aetiologie der Tuberkulose. Mittheilongen aus dem Kasiserlichen Gesundheitsamte, 2, 1-88.
37. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). (1994). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2002). Report on Carcinogens, 10th ed. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program.
40. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President). (1985). Chemical carcinogens: A review of the science and its associated principles. Federal Register, 50, 10371-10442.
41. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. (1994). Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Art 7 and Annex B. Reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 69-81.
42. WTO. (2003). Available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/ whatis_e/whatis_e.htm.