Risk assessment frameworks in the multilateral setting

Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 203-216

  Jackson, Lee Ann ^a  

^a WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922947843     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9780857938350.00020     Document Type: Chapter

References (26)

1. Button, C. (2004), The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
2. Codex (2002), ‘Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology’, CAC /GL 44-2003, Rome: FAO /WHO.
3. Codex (2003), ‘Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants’, CAC /GL 45-200, Rome: FAO /WHO.
4. Codex (2007), ‘Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments’, CAC /GL 62-2007, Rome: FAO /WHO.
5. Codex (2008), ‘Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals’, CAC /GL, Rome: FAO /WHO.
6. Codex (2011), ‘Working principles for the application of risk analysis in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius’, Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual, 20th edn, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
7. FAO /WHO (2006), ‘Food safety risk analysis: a guide for national food safety authorities’, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 97, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
8. FAO (2007), ‘FAO biosecurity toolkit’, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
9. IPC (2004), ‘Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms’, ISPM No. 11, Rome: IPC.
10. IPC (2007), ‘Framework for pest risk analysis’, ISPM No. 2, Rome: IPC.
11. Jackson, L. and M. Jansen (2010), ‘Risk assessment in the international food policy arena: can the multilateral institutions encourage unbiased outcomes?', Food Policy, 35(6), 538-47.
12. National Research Council (1983), ‘Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process’, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. National Research Council (1994), ‘Science and judgment in risk assessment’, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. National Research Council (1996), ‘Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society’, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. OIE (2011a), ‘Aquatic animal health code’, Paris: OIE.
16. OIE (2011b), ‘Terrestrial animal health code’, Paris: OIE.
17. OIE (2011c), ‘Guidelines for assessing the risk of non-native animals becoming invasive’, Paris: OIE.
18. Pauwelyn, J. (1999), ‘The WTO Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures as applied in the first three SPS disputes’, Journal of International Economic Law, 641-64.
19. Peel, J. (2004), ‘Risk regulation under the WTO SPS Agreement: science as an international normative yardstick?', Jean Monnet Working Paper June 2004, New York: New York University Law School.
20. WTO (1995), ‘Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures’, Geneva: WTO.
21. WTO (1998), ‘Australia-measures affecting importation of salmon’, WT/DS18/AB.
22. WTO (1996), ‘European Communities-measures concerning meat and meat products’, WT/DS26/R.
23. WTO (2003), ‘Japan-measures affecting the importation of apples’, WT/DS245/R.
24. WTO (2006), ‘European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products’, WT/DS291/R.
25. WTO (2008), ‘United States-Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute’, WT/DS/320/R.
26. WTO (2010), ‘Australia-measures affecting the importation of apples from New Zealand’, WT/DS367/AB.