Biotechnology Regulations And The Wto
This paper examines the regulation of trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite rapid adoption of GMOs by a few exporters, many importers have developed relatively restrictive procedures for pre-market approval of GMOs, and are introducing mandatory labeling. While exporters have yet to seek a ruling from the WTO on these regulations, a trade dispute over GMOs is likely to occur before too long. Exporting countries will likely argue that importing countries' regulations are too restrictive, given existing scientific knowledge of the safety of current GM crops, and that labeling of GM foods is unnecessary due to the fact that they are typically similar to their conventional counterparts. In response, importing countries will likely argue that existing scientific knowledge about GMOs is insufficient, and that a precautionary approach to approval is appropriate. In addition, importers will claim that labeling is necessary due to the fact that they are not equivalent to their conventional counterparts, and consumers have a right to choose whether or not consume such foods, be it for religious, ethical or other reasons. In the event a panel will have decide on whether GM and non-GM products are "like goods", whether adequate risk assessment was undertaken for any regulation introduced for health reasons, whether labels constitute the "least trade distorting" way of meeting legitimate objectives, and whether regulations imply discrimination among suppliers or in favor of domestic producers. Experience with the SPS and TBT Agreements has not been extensive enough to indicate how such a panel might rule. But one can also view the issue in broader trade policy terms, as a balance between market access obligations that need to be adjusted as domestic regulations on new technologies are developed. A possible solution is for importing countries with tough GM regulation and mandatory labeling to offer reciprocal increases in market access for non-GM foods in compensation for any losses of market access for GM foods. There is a question though of whether such "rebalancing" is actually practical, and it would certainly add to the costs of dispute settlement in the WTO, but it may be the only viable solution in the long run if the WTO is not to be dragged in to evaluating social and ethical bases for regulation of biotechnology.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1997.
"An Economic Theory of GATT,"
NBER Working Papers
6049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2001.
"Domestic Policies, National Sovereignty, and International Economic Institutions,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 519-562.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1999. "Domestic Policies, National Sovereignty and International Economic Institutions," NBER Working Papers 7293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gollier, Christian & Jullien, Bruno & Treich, Nicolas, 2000. "Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 229-253, February.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2001. "The WTO as a Mechanism for Securing Market Access Property Rights: Implications for Global Labor and Environmental Issues," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
- Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 377-405, September.
- Christian Gollier, 2001. "Should we beware of the Precautionary Principle?," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 301-328, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14594. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.