IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10504.html

Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Powell, Mark R.

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 hazards--particularly plant pests and foodborne 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 R., 1997. "Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution," Discussion Papers 10504, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10504
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10504/files/dp970050.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10504?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meindert D.de Jong, 1992. "Risk Assessment for the Application of Biological Control of a Forest Weed by a Common Plant Pathogenic Fungus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 465-466, December.
    2. Powell, Mark R., 1997. "Control of Dioxins (and other Organochlorines) from the Pulp and Paper Industry under the Clean Water Act and Lead in Soil at Superfund Mining Sites: Two Case Studies in EPA's Use of Science," Discussion Papers 10610, Resources for the Future.
    3. Roberts, Donna & DeRemer, Kate, 1997. "Overview of Foreign Technical Barriers to U.S. Agricultural Exports," Staff Reports 278821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. William DOBSON, 1996. "The Bst Case," Staff Papers 397, University of Wisconsin Madison, AAE.
    5. Winters, L Alan, 1987. "The Political Economy of the Agricultural Policy of Industrial," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 14(3), pages 285-304.
    6. Powell, Mark, 1997. "Control of Dioxins From the Pulp and Paper Industry Under the Clean Water Act and Lead in Soil at Superfund Mining Sites: Two Case Studies in EPA's Use of Science," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-08-rev, Resources for the Future.
    7. William D. Dobson, 1996. "The BST Case," Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Papers 397, Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Department.
    8. Johan F. M. Swinnen, 1994. "A Positive Theory of Agricultural Protection," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 1-14.
    9. Bredahl, Maury E. & Holleran, Erin, 1997. "Technical Regulations And Food Safety In Nafta," 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 16906, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
    10. 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.
    11. Dobson, William D., 1996. "The Bst Case," Staff Papers 12597, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    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. Donna Roberts, 1999. "Analyzing technical trade barriers in agricultural markets: Challenges and priorities," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 335-354.
    2. 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.
    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(01), 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. Naoto JINJI, 2009. "An Economic Theory of the SPS Agreement," Discussion papers 09033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    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. Runge, C. Ford & Jackson, Lee Ann, 1999. "Labeling, Trade And Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos): A Proposed Solution," Working Papers 14402, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    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. Morgan, Cynthia & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron, 2014. "Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 195-224, June.
    4. Jonathan Brooks, 1996. "Agricultural Policies In Oecd Countries: What Can We Learn From Political Economy Models?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 366-389, January.
    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. Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2009. "Agricultural Protection Growth in Europe, 1870-1969," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 50296, World Bank.
    7. Falkowski, Jan & Olper, Alessandro, "undated". "Political Competition and Support for Agriculture," 2010 IAMO Forum, June 16-18, 2010, Halle (Saale), Germany 90799, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    8. 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.
    9. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-16, December.
    10. John C. Beghin & William E. Foster & Mylene Kherallah, 1996. "Institutions And Market Distortions: International Evidence For Tobacco," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 355-365, January.
    11. Johan Swinnen & Kym Anderson, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe's Transition Economies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6502, April.
    12. Swinnen, Johan F. M. & Banerjee, Anurag N. & Gorter, Harry de, 2001. "Economic development, institutional change, and the political economy of agricultural protection: An econometric study of Belgium since the 19th century," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 25-43, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Regulations And Competitiveness," Working Papers 19100, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.
    15. Clas Eriksson, 2011. "Home bias in preferences and the political economics of agricultural protection," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(1), pages 5-23.
    16. Harry de Gorter & Johan F. M. Swinnen, 1994. "The Economic Polity Of Farm Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 312-326, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Pokrivcak, Jan & Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2002. "Agenda Setting, Influence, And Voting Rules: The Influence Of The European Commission And Status Quo Bias In The Common Agricultural Policy Of The Eu," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19868, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Alessandro Olper & Jan Fałkowski & Johan Swinnen, 2014. "Political Reforms and Public Policy: Evidence from Agricultural and Food Policies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 21-47.
    20. Caswell, Julie A. & Wang, Joanne, 2001. "Quantifying Regulatory Barriers To Asian-U.S. Food Trade," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 19(2), pages 1-8.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:rffdps:10504. 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: AgEcon Search (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.