IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-97-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Powell, Mark

Abstract

The World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement) relies heavily on science and expert organizations to avoid and resolve trade disputes over measures enacted under the rationale of food safety or plant and animal health protection. However, the state of science for sanitary and phytosanitary risk analysis is highly uncertain, and the SPS Agreement leaves many science policy issues unsettled. The international agencies charged under the SPS Agreement with harmonizing standards and forging international scientific consensus face a daunting and politically-charged task. Two case studies are briefly developed. In the first case, the international scientific consensus strongly supports the U.S. challenge of the European Union’s ban on cattle growth hormones, but the root causes of the dispute go much deeper. The case suggests that establishing a precedent for SPS measures based solely on "sound science" may be a slippery objective. In the second case, domestic avocado producers challenged a U.S. Department of Agriculture assessment which concluded that a partial lifting of the ban on Mexican avocado imports posed a negligible plant pest risk. Although the Department’s phytosanitary risk assessment gained endorsement by independent scientists, a contributing factor to resolving this dispute was the threat of retaliation against U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico. A recent survey of current and proposed technical barriers to U.S. agricultural exports suggests that the trade impacts could approach $5 billion a year and that the most common SPS disputes in the future will be over biological hazardsparticularly plant pests and food-borne microbial pathogens. This poses a tremendous challenge, however, because the practice of risk assessment for biological stressors is much less developed than that for chemical substances. The paper concludes with some proposed criteria for evaluating the weight of scientific evidence in SPS risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Powell, Mark, 1997. "Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-50, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-97-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-97-50.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krissoff, Barry & Ballenger, Nicole & Dunmore, John C. & Gray, Denice, 1996. "Exploring Linkages Among Agriculture, Trade, and the Environment: Issues for the Next Century," Agricultural Economic Reports 33961, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Macfarlane, Ronald, 2002. "Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: the role of science and other factors+," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 65-80, February.
    2. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    3. Prestemon, Jeffrey P. & Zhu, Shushuai & Turner, James A. & Buongiorno, Joseph & Li, Ruhong, 2006. "Forest Product Trade Impacts of an Invasive Species: Modeling Structure and Intervention Trade-Offs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Liefert, William M., 1998. "Technical Barriers to Trade: Highlights of ERS Workshop, October 8-9, 1997," Staff Reports 278830, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Donna Roberts, 1999. "Analyzing technical trade barriers in agricultural markets: Challenges and priorities," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 335-354.
    6. JINJI Naoto, 2009. "An Economic Theory of the SPS Agreement," Discussion papers 09033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Implementation Of The Wto Agreement On The Application Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures: The First Two Years," Working Papers 14588, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lindsey, Patricia J. & Bohman, Mary, 1997. "Environmental Policy Harmonization," Proceedings of the 3rd Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, 1997: Harmonization\Convergence\Compatibility in Agriculture and Agri-Food Policy: Canada, United States and Mexico 16915, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
    2. Xia, Tian & Weyerbrock, Silvia, 1998. "Veterinary Standards As Barriers To Trade: The Case Of Poultry Trade Between The U.S. And The Eu," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20924, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Leetmaa, Susan E. & Krissoff, Barry & Hartmann, Monika, 1996. "Trade Policy And Environmental Quality: The Case Of Export Subsidies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-9, October.
    4. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations And Competitiveness," Working Papers 19100, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.
    5. Colyer, Dale, 2003. "Agriculture and Environmental Issues in Free Trade Agreements," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 4(2), pages 1-21.
    6. Yeboah, Osei & Thomas, Terrence W. & Gunden, Cihat & Ogbole, Enekole J., 2016. "Efficiency Measure in Nitrogen Pollution Management under U.S. Trade Induced Cotton Production," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229790, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations and Agricultural Competitiveness," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17.
    8. Donna Roberts, 1999. "Analyzing technical trade barriers in agricultural markets: Challenges and priorities," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 335-354.
    9. Hillman, Jimmye S., 1996. "Nontariff Agricultural Trade Barriers Revisited," Working Papers 14602, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    10. Powell, Mark R., 1997. "Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution," Discussion Papers 10504, Resources for the Future.
    11. Kerr, William A., 2002. "Who Should Make the Rules of Trade? - The Complex Issue of Multilateral Environmental Agreements," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-97-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.