IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v21y2004i4p287-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms

Author

Listed:
  • Andy Thorpe
  • Catherine Robinson

Abstract

There is a fundamental divergence of opinion between the EU and the US over how food products derived from genetically modified organisms should be labeled. This has less to do with safety, as moves towards the international harmonization of safety standards continue apace, and rather more to do with the consumers' right to know about the origins of the food they are consuming. This paper uses a framework drawn from the global public goods (GPG) literature of economics and the work by international relations theorists on formal international organizations (FIO) to explain why there is presently no global consensus on the manner (voluntary or mandatory) in which GM food products should be labeled. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Andy Thorpe & Catherine Robinson, 2004. "When goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(4), pages 287-298, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:21:y:2004:i:4:p:287-298
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-003-1204-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10460-003-1204-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-003-1204-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quick, Reinhard & Bluthner, Andreas, 1999. "Has the Appellate Body Erred? An Appraisal and Criticism of the Ruling in the WTO Hormones Case," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 603-639, December.
    2. Martin, Lisa L. & Simmons, Beth A., 1998. "Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 729-757, October.
    3. Mitchell, Ronald B. & Keilbach, Patricia M., 2001. "Situation Structure and Institutional Design: Reciprocity, Coercion, and Exchange," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 891-917, October.
    4. William A. Kerr & Jill E. Hobbs, 2002. "The North American–European Union Dispute Over Beef Produced Using Growth Hormones: A Major Test for the New International Trade Regime," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 283-296, February.
    5. Goldstein, Judith & Martin, Lisa L., 2000. "Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 603-632, July.
    6. Tomich, Thomas P. & van Noordwijk, Meine & Vosti, Stephen A. & Witcover, Julie, 1998. "Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: methods for seeking best bet alternatives to slash-and-burn, with applications to Brazil and Indonesia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 159-174, September.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Smith, James McCall, 2000. "The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 137-180, January.
    9. Kahler, Miles, 2000. "Conclusion: The Causes and Consequences of Legalization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 661-683, July.
    10. Broz, J. Lawrence, 1999. "Origins of the Federal Reserve System: International Incentives and the Domestic Free-rider Problem," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 39-70, January.
    11. Olsen, Robert A., 1997. "Prospect theory as an explanation of risky choice by professional investors: Some evidence," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 225-232.
    12. N/A, 2001. "The World Economy," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 176(1), pages 35-60, April.
    13. Moshirian, Fariborz, 2002. "New international financial architecture," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(4-5), pages 273-284.
    14. Arianne de Blaeij & Daniel van Vuuren, 2001. "Risk Perception of Traffic Participants," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-027/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Reiter, Michael & Weichenrieder, Alfons J., 1999. "Public Goods, Club Goods, and the Measurement of Crowding," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 69-79, July.
    16. Grant E. Isaac & William A. Kerr, 2003. "Genetically Modified Organisms and Trade Rules: Identifying Important Challenges for the WTO," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 29-42, January.
    17. Kapur, Devesh, 2002. "The Common Pool Dilemma of Global Public Goods: Lessons from the World Bank's Net Income and Reserves," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-354, March.
    18. Pauwelyn, Joost, 1999. "The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC--Hormones, Australia--Salmon and Japan--Varietals," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 641-664, December.
    19. Wilson, John S. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro, 2001. "Global trade and food safety - winners and losers in a fragmented system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2689, The World Bank.
    20. N/A, 2001. "The World Economy," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 175(1), pages 29-58, January.
    21. Donato Masciandaro, 1999. "Money Laundering: the Economics of Regulation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 225-240, May.
    22. Abbott, Kenneth W. & Keohane, Robert O. & Moravcsik, Andrew & Slaughter, Anne-Marie & Snidal, Duncan, 2000. "The Concept of Legalization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 401-419, July.
    23. Jansen, Marion & Lince de Faria, André, 2002. "Product Labelling, Quality and International Trade," CEPR Discussion Papers 3552, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    24. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 761-799, October.
    25. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Zago, Angelo M., 2001. "A Simple Model Of Voluntary Vs Mandatory Labelling Of Gmos," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20540, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    26. William A. Kerr, 1999. "International Trade in Transgenic Food Products: A New Focus for Agricultural Trade Disputes," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 245-259, March.
    27. Rosendorff, B. Peter & Milner, Helen V., 2001. "The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 829-857, October.
    28. Thomas P. Tomich & Meine van Noordwijk & Stephen A. Vosti & Julie Witcover, 1998. "Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: methods for seeking best bet alternatives to slash‐and‐burn, with applications to Brazil and Indonesia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), pages 159-174, September.
    29. Blackwell, Calvin & McKee, Michael, 2003. "Only for my own neighborhood?: Preferences and voluntary provision of local and global public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 115-131, September.
    30. Hackl, Franz & Pruckner, Gerald J., 2003. "How global is the solution to global warming?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 93-117, January.
    31. Sandler, Todd, 1999. "Intergenerational Public Goods: Strategies, Efficiency, and Institutions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1531, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    32. Nicholas Perdikis & William A. Kerr Shelburne & Jill E. Hobbs, 2001. "Reforming the WTO to Defuse Potential Trade Conflicts in Genetically Modified Goods," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 379-398, March.
    33. Barrett, Scott, 2001. "International cooperation for sale," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1835-1850, December.
    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. Neha Singhal, 2018. "A Study of Consumer Behaviour towards Genetically Modified Foods and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness," Vision, , vol. 22(3), pages 306-315, September.

    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. Thomas Bernauer & Anna Kalbhenn & Vally Koubi & Gabriele Spilker, 2013. "Is there a “Depth versus Participation” dilemma in international cooperation?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 477-497, December.
    2. Baccini, Leonardo & Dür, Andreas & Elsig, Manfred & Milewicz, Karolina, 2011. "The design of preferential trade agreements: A new dataset in the Making," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2011-10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    3. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    4. repec:got:cegedp:94 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Fabio Franchino & Camilla Mariotto, 2021. "Noncompliance risk, asymmetric power and the design of enforcement of the European economic governance," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 591-610, December.
    6. Tobias Böhmelt & Gabriele Spilker, 2016. "The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 67-89, February.
    7. P. B. Anand, 2004. "Financing the Provision of Global Public Goods," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 215-237, February.
    8. Simon Schropp, Kornel Mahlstein, 2007. "The Optimal Design of Trade Policy Flexibility in the WTO," IHEID Working Papers 27-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised Dec 2007.
    9. Bernauer, Thomas & Kalbhenn, Anna & Koubi, Vally & Ruoff, Gabi, 2010. "On commitment levels and compliance mechanisms: Determinants of participation in global environmental agreements," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 94, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Mark Axelrod, 2017. "Blocking change: facing the drag of status quo fisheries institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 573-588, August.
    11. Maximilian S. T. Wanner, 0. "The effectiveness of soft law in international environmental regimes: participation and compliance in the Hyogo Framework for Action," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    12. Maximilian S. T. Wanner, 2021. "The effectiveness of soft law in international environmental regimes: participation and compliance in the Hyogo Framework for Action," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 113-132, March.
    13. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Regional governance by the South Asia Cooperative Environment Program (SACEP)? Institutional design and customizable regime policy offering flexible political options," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 454-470.
    14. Tobias Böhmelt & Edita Butkutė, 2018. "The self-selection of democracies into treaty design: insights from international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 351-367, June.
    15. Jennifer Tobin & Susan Rose-Ackerman, 2003. "Foreign Direct Investment and the Business Environment in Developing Countries: the Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 587, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    16. Tadashi Ito, 2007. "NAFTA and productivity convergence between Mexico and the US," IHEID Working Papers 26-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised 27 Nov 2007.
    17. Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Regional economic regimes and the environment: stronger institutional design is weakening environmental policy capacity of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 19-52, February.
    18. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    19. Andrea Gerlak & Jonathan Lautze & Mark Giordano, 2011. "Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 179-199, May.
    20. Julia Gray & Jonathan Slapin, 2012. "How effective are preferential trade agreements? Ask the experts," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 309-333, September.
    21. Heinz Hauser & Alexander Roitinger, 2002. "A Renegotiation Perspective on Transatlantic Trade Disputes," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:21:y:2004:i:4:p:287-298. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.