International trade in living modified organisms: The new regimes

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 856-866

  Schoenbaum, Thomas J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847773408     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S002058930006468X     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. See To Plant or not to Plant”, The Economist, 15 Jan. 2000, p.30.
2. Source: Biotechnology Industry Association, Washington D.C as reported by USA Today, 13 Jan. 2000, p.1.
3. “Sticky Labels”, The Economist, 1 May 1999, pp.75–76.
4. In the United States, three governmental agencies regulate the introduction of genetically-modified plants and foods: the U.S. Department of Agriculture has responsibility for protecting plants and American agriculture under the Federal Plant Pest Act, 7 U.S.C ss.l50aa-190jj
5. the Food and Drug Administration regulates novel foods under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C ss.301–395
6. and the US Environmental Protection Agency regulates genetic techniques to develop plants that produce their own pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C ss.136–136y.
7. An entomological study indicated that monarch butterfly caterpillars could be killed by pollen from GM corn crops planted in the vicinity of the milkweed plants on which the caterpillars feed. This conclusion was debated at a Monarch Butterfly Research Symposium hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, 2 Nov. 1999. Peer reviewers minimised the problem, but research is continuing on possible “sub-lethal” effects on caterpillars, 22 Int'l Envt. Rptr, (BNA) 822 (Current Developments, 10 Nov. 1999).
8. A study carried out in the United Kingdom which concluded that GM potatoes have negative impacts on the health of rats was criticised by scientists as “half-baked” and “hopelessly confused” because of procedural flaws. The Economist, 16 October 1999, p.85.
9. Susan Boensch Meyer, “Genetically Modified Organisms” YB Colo. J. Int'l Envt. L. & Pol'y 102, 111 (1998).
10. For perhaps the most comprehensive review to date of the issues and problems as well as recommendations for future research, see Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2000).
11. This was duly predicted by John H. Barton, “Biotechnology, the Environment, and International Agricultural Trade”, 9 Geo. Int'l Envt'l L Rev. 95,112–115 (1996).
12. 30 Oct. 1947, Tl AS No. 1700,55 UNTS188. As a result of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, this was repromulgated as “GATT 1994”. Legal Texts, Geo. Int'l Envt'l L Rev. at 481.
13. SPS Agreement, Arts.3.1 and 3.2.
14. European Communities, Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS 26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (World Trade Organization Appellate Body, 16 Jan. 16,1998). (“Hormones”).
15. Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WTO Doc. WT/DS18/AB/R (World Trade Organization Appellate Body, 6 Nov. 1998). A similar case was decided by a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel, which ruled that Japan violated Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement by maintaining phytosanitary measures without sufficient scientific evidence and failing to ensure that they were not more trade restrictive than necessary. Japan also breached its duty of transparency under paragraph 1 of Annex B and Article 7 of the SPS Agreement. Japan Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS76/R (World Trade Organization Panel Report, 27 Oct. 1998).
16. See discussion accompanying notes 53–56, infra.
17. See Edith Brown Weiss, Stephen C McCaffrey, Daniel B. McGraw, Paul C. Szasz and Robert E. Lutz, International Environmental Law and Policy 127–135 (1998).
18. U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 39/27 (1969), 81.L.M.679 (1969). Done in Vienna on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 Jan. 1980.
19. See the definition in Annex A of the SPS Agreement.
20. SPS Agreement, Annex A, Definition 1.
21. See the discussion in Sara Pardo Quintillan, Free Trade, Public Health Protection and Consumer Information in the European and WTO Context, 33 J. World Trade 147,171–172, and 190–191 (1999).
22. See the Report of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, J. World Trade 10, at 6.
23. For details, see “U.S. Split on Approach to Precautionary Principle in Codex”, Inside U.S. Trade, Vol.28, No.7, p.1 (April 28, 2000).