IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00639442.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Impact of European Measures on GMOS Condemned by the WTO Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Anne-Célia Disdier

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Lionel Fontagné

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CEPII - Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales - Centre d'analyse stratégique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

In May 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina launched a World Trade Organization (WTO) case against the European Union concerning its authorization regime for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The complainants challenged three types of measures: (i) an alleged general moratorium on the approval of GMOs; (ii) delays in the processing of product-specific applications; (iii) national safeguard measures adopted by certain Member States banning the marketing of certain genetically modified products. In November 2006, the WTO condemned the European regime. Using the most recent advances in gravity equation, we estimate the reduction in exports of potentially affected products from the complainants to the European Union. Export losses are calculated by product, complainant country and measure at stake. Our results tend to confirm the foundations of the dispute: the European moratorium and product-specific measures have a negative effect on trade, as do safeguard measures adopted by Germany, Italy and Greece.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade Impact of European Measures on GMOS Condemned by the WTO Panel," Post-Print hal-00639442, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00639442
    DOI: 10.1007/s10290-010-0057-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joe L. Parcell & Nicholas G. Kalaitzandonakes, 2004. "Do Agricultural Commodity Prices Respond to Bans against Bioengineered Crops?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(2), pages 201-209, July.
    2. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    3. Perez, Oren, 2007. "Anomalies at the precautionary kingdom: reflections on the GMO Panel's decision," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 265-280, July.
    4. GianCarlo Moschini & Harun Bulut & Luigi Cembalo, 2005. "On the Segregation of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Products in European Agriculture: A Multi‐market Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 347-372, December.
    5. Richard Baldwin & Daria Taglioni, 2006. "Gravity for Dummies and Dummies for Gravity Equations," NBER Working Papers 12516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Redding, Stephen & Venables, Anthony J., 2004. "Economic geography and international inequality," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82, January.
    7. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    8. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    9. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Kimberly Ann Elliott & Tess Cyrus & Elizabeth Winston, 1997. "US Economic Sanctions: Their Impact on Trade, Jobs, and Wages," Working Paper Series Working Paper Special (2), Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    10. Rauch, James E., 1999. "Networks versus markets in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 7-35, June.
    11. Martin, Will & Pham, Cong S., 2008. "Estimating the gravity model when zero trade flows are frequent," Working Papers eco_2008_03, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
    12. Santos Silva, J.M.C. & Tenreyro, Silvana, 2011. "Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 220-222, August.
    13. Conrad, Christiane R., 2007. "The EC–Biotech dispute and applicability of the SPS Agreement: are the panel's findings built on shaky ground?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 233-248, July.
    14. Alessandro Olper & Valentina Raimondi, 2008. "Explaining National Border Effects in the QUAD Food Trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 436-462, September.
    15. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    16. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.
    17. Gruère, Guillaume P., 2006. "An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries:," EPTD discussion papers 147, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    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. Mauro Vigani & Valentina Raimondi & Alessandro Olper, 2010. "GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards," LICOS Discussion Papers 25510, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    2. Stéphan Marette & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Anastasia Bodnar & John Beghin, 2023. "New plant engineering techniques, R&D investment and international trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, June.
    3. Mahdi Ghodsi, 2018. "The Impact of Chinese Technical Barriers to Trade on its Manufacturing Imports," wiiw Working Papers 146, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    4. Santeramo, Fabio G., 2017. "On Non-Tariff Measures and Changes in Trade Routes: From North-North to South-South Trade?," 2017: Globalization Adrift, December 3-5, 2017, Washington, D.C. 266809, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Ghodsi, Mahdi, 2020. "How do technical barriers to trade affect foreign direct investment? Tariff jumping versus regulation haven hypotheses," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 269-278.
    6. Murat Genç & David Law, 2014. "A Gravity Model of Barriers to Trade in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 14/05, New Zealand Treasury.
    7. Boza, Sofía, 2013. "Assessing the impact of sanitary, phytosanitary and technical requirements on food and agricultural trade: what does current research tell us?," Papers 926, World Trade Institute.
    8. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    9. Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine & Beckman, Jayson, 2015. "Estimating the Effects of Selected Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade on U.S.-EU Agricultural Trade," Economic Research Report 212887, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Céline Carrere & Jaime Melo De, 2011. "Notes on Detecting the Effects of Non Tariff Measures," CERDI Working papers halshs-00553600, HAL.
    11. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Beckman, Jayson & Dyck, John & Heerman, Kari, 2017. "The Global Landscape of Agricultural Trade, 1995-2014," Economic Information Bulletin 265270, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Pascal L. Ghazalian, 2012. "Home Bias in Primary Agricultural and Processed Food Trade: Assessing the Effects of National Degree of Uncertainty Aversion," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 265-290, June.
    14. Wilson, Norbert L. W., 2017. "Labels, Food Safety, and International Trade," ADBI Working Papers 657, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    15. Kareem, Fatima Olanike & Martinez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2016. "Fitting the Gravity Model when Zero Trade Flows are Frequent: a Comparison of Estimation Techniques using Africa's Trade Data," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 230588, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Boza, Sofía, 2016. "Determinants of SPS notification submissions for Latin American WTO members," Papers 970, World Trade Institute.
    17. Carrère, Céline & de Melo, Jaime, 2011. "Notes on Detecting The Effects of Non Tariff Measures," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 26, pages 136-168.
    18. Sofiane Ghali & Habib Zitouna & Zouhour Karray & Slim Driss, 2013. "Effects of NTMs on the Extensive and Intensive Margins to Trade: The Case of Tunisia and Egypt," Working Papers 820, Economic Research Forum, revised Dec 2013.
    19. Mahdi Ghodsi, 2020. "The impact of Chinese technical barriers to trade on its manufacturing imports when exporters are heterogeneous," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1667-1698, October.
    20. José Manuel Álvarez Zárate (Editor), 2016. "¿Hacia dónde va América Latina respecto al derecho económico internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 860, March.
    21. Pamela Smith & Xiangwen Kong, 2022. "Intellectual property rights and trade: The exceptional case of GMOs," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 763-811, March.
    22. Kjersti Nes & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel P. Scheitrum, 2022. "Global Food Trade and the Costs of Non‐Adoption of Genetic Engineering," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 70-91, January.
    23. Payam Elhami & Mahdi Ghodsi & Robert Stehrer, 2021. "Quality of Goods Imports: Which Role for Non-tariff Measures?," wiiw Policy Notes 46, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.

    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. Mauro Vigani & Valentina Raimondi & Alessandro Olper, 2010. "GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards," LICOS Discussion Papers 25510, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    2. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné & Olivier Cadot, 2015. "North-South Standards Harmonization and International Trade," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 29(2), pages 327-352.
    4. Delgadillo Chavarria, Carlos Bruno, 2019. "El Efecto de la Mediterraneidad sobre el Flujo Comercial Internacional: Evidencia Empírica Internacional y para América del Sur (1990-2016) [The Effect of Landlocked Country Status on International," MPRA Paper 96294, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Sep 2019.
    5. Scott L. Baier & Amanda Kerr & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Gravity, distance, and international trade," Chapters, in: Bruce A. Blonigen & Wesley W. Wilson (ed.), Handbook of International Trade and Transportation, chapter 2, pages 15-78, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Delgadillo Chavarria, Carlos Bruno, 2019. "El Efecto de la Mediterraneidad sobre el Flujo Comercial Internacional: Evidencia Empírica Internacional y para América del Sur (1990-2016) [The Effect of Landlocked Country Status on International," MPRA Paper 96093, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Sep 2019.
    7. Pascal L. Ghazalian, 2012. "Home Bias in Primary Agricultural and Processed Food Trade: Assessing the Effects of National Degree of Uncertainty Aversion," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 265-290, June.
    8. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    9. Michele Fratianni & Francesco Marchionne, 2011. "The Limits to Integration," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    11. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2008. "International Trade Integration: A Disaggregated Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 7103, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Martin,William J., 2020. "Making Gravity Great Again," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9391, The World Bank.
    13. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    14. Anne-Célia Disdier & Silvio Tai & Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer, 2010. "Bilateral trade of cultural goods," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(4), pages 575-595, January.
    15. Fally, Thibault, 2015. "Structural gravity and fixed effects," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 76-85.
    16. de Faria, Rosane Nunes & Wieck, Christine, 2015. "Empirical evidence on the trade impact of asynchronous regulatory approval of new GMO events," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 22-32.
    17. Rebecca Freeman & Mario Larch & Angelos Theodorakopoulos & Yoto V. Yotov, 2021. "Unlocking New Methods to Estimate Country-Specific Trade Costs and Trade Elasticities," CESifo Working Paper Series 9432, CESifo.
    18. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2013. "The log of gravity revisited," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 311-327, January.
    19. Zongo, Amara, 2020. "The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Food Trade," MPRA Paper 101658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ingo Borchert & Mario Larch & Serge Shikher & Yoto V. Yotov, 2022. "Disaggregated gravity: Benchmark estimates and stylized facts from a new database," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 113-136, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gravity; genetically modified organisms; international trade; WTO panel;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F18 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Environment

    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:hal:journl:hal-00639442. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.