Europe's evolving regulatory strategy for GMOs-the issue of consistency with WTO law: of kine and brine (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking About Judicial Review in the WTO
Current Legal Problems, 2004
This paper examines the role of 'judicial review'in the WTO, by reference to a case study on the European regulation of GMOs. It argues that 'judicial review' may, in this setting, be conceived as re-enforcing rather than negating democracy, by enhancing accountability, and in particular the external accountability of states. It draws on the work of Robert Keohane, who understands external accountability as accountability to people who while situated outside of a given polity are affected by decisions adopted within it. The paper supports this argument with reference to cases such as Shrimp/Turtle and, more recently, GSP. It concedes, however that as the Appellate Body of the WTO comes to elaborate stronger substantive benchmarks for review-rationality or proportionality type tests-'judicial review' also raises a democracy dilemma for the WTO. One aspect of this dilemma concerns the place of public opinion in risk regulation, and the legal entitlement of Member State governments to be responsive, in their regulation, to such opinion. This democracy dilemma presents an audacious challenge for the WTO, and one which admits of no easy or absolute answers. European Regulation of GMOs The European approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is predicated upon the concept of prior approval. The legal framework for prior approval is finally in place. Amidst a mass of legislation, two instruments stand out as central, viz. the 2001 Deliberate Release Directive, 1 and the 2003 GM Food and Feed Regulation. 2 As may be exemplified by specific reference to the latter, European Union law performs a threefold function in relation to the prior approval of GMOs. * Reader in European Law, University of Cambridge. Visiting Professor, Columbia Law School (Spring 2004). This paper is based upon a lecture given at University College London in December 2003. It will be published in (2004) Current Legal Problems which is published on behalf of the UCL Faculty of Law. Many thanks to Jane Holder and Michael Freeman for the invitation to present this lecture, and to Lord Hope of Craighead in his capacity as Chair. Thanks also to them and to all present for their thoughtful comments and questions. Gráinne de Búrca, Jeffrey Dunoff, Rob Howse, Maria Lee, Petros Mavroidis, Bill Simon and Margaret Young kindly read a draft of this paper and provided valuable comments; not all of which I have been able to take on board in this paper. Errors and misconceptions definitely remain my own. 1 Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms OJ [2001] L106/1 By way of background reading see T. Hervey, Regulation of Genetically Modified
Transatlantic GMO Dispute in the WTO: Will Europe further abstain from Frankenstein Foods?
2016
Das Europainstitut der Universität Basel ist ein rechts-, politik-und wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Lehre und Forschung zu europäischen Fragen. Neben einem einjährigen, praxisbezogenen und interdisziplinären Nachdiplomstudium zum Master of Advanced European Studies und dem Vertiefungsstudium Major in Conflict and Development werden spezielle Weiterbildungskurse angeboten. In der Forschung werden in Zusammenarbeit mit benachbarten Instituten sowohl fachspezifische wie multidisziplinäre Themen bearbeitet. Das Europainstitut ist als Ansprechpartner für Politik, Wirtschaft und Verwaltung beratend tätig. Elze Matulionyte graduated as Master of Advanced European Studies at Europainstitut of Basle University in October 2004. This article is based on her master thesis of the postgraduate programme at Europainstitut. The thesis was carried out under the supervision of Dr. Christa Tobler, LLM and Dr. Krista Nadakavukaren-Schefer, to whom the author expresses her deepest gratitude. Since the graduation of MAES in October 2004 in Basel she works as a head of division at
CEFAGE-UE Working Papers, 2008
The biggest producers and exporters of agricultural products have been adopting the genetic engineering in order to improve the factors productivity and the firms profits In the last decade, the United States of America (US) and the European Union (EU) have established a high divergent regulation on production, distribution and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Apparently, the EU´s complex legislative framework related to GMOs was intend to satisfy the European consumers which are concerned about food safety and whish to make more informed choice about the food they eat. The aim of this paper is to understand the potential motivations behind the different policies on GM products adopted by US and EU.
The GMO Dispute before the WTO: Legal Implications for the Trade and Environment Debate
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2005
USA, Canada and Argentina have challenged before the World Trade Organisation the European Communities' (EC) denial of Genetically Modified (GM) product imports, which took place from 1998 to 2004. Against this background, the goal of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we will determine which WTO provisions would have been violated by the EC. Secondly, we will highlight the dispute's most important legal issues in order to see to what extent the dispute might influence the ongoing trade and environment debate. The paper concludes that the role of the precautionary principle in the application of the EC legislation is one of the dispute's main issues. Furthermore, the Panel findings on the legal nature of the precautionary principle, and on its relevance for the interpretation of WTO provisions, will finally determine the influence of the GMO dispute on the trade and environment debate.
Cet article explore la conformité des règles d'étiquetage des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) de l'Union européenne (UE) avec les règles de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Cette réglementation, qui demande l'étiquetage des OGM autorisé à placer sur le marché de l'UE, représente des implications économiques et pratiques pour les producteurs américains. La différente perception de risques, ainsi que différentes approches à la réglementation se trouve au coeur de débat. Après une brève présentation du système d'étiquetage européen, l'auteur se penche sur sa conformité avec certains accords internationaux au sein du régime de l'OMC, plus particulièrement l'Accord sur les standards sanitaires et phytosanitaires, l'Accords sur les barrières techniques dans les accords commerciaux, ainsi qu'avec les règles de base du GATT. L'auteure conclut que le système d'étiquetage européen n'applique pas l'Accord sur les standards sanitaires et phytosanitaires, mais il est conforme à la fois aux règles de l'Accords sur les barrières techniques dans les accords commerciaux et du GATT. L'objectif d'article est non seulement de présenter l'analyse juridique d'un des sujets d'actualité en matière du commerce internationale, mais aussi de mettre en accent lacune qui peut paraître entre la libéralisation du commerce international et les politiques internes qui expriment des valeurs autre que l'élimination des barrières tarifaires. This article examines the WTO-consistency of the EU labelling scheme on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). This regulation, requiring the labelling of authorised GMO food and feed placed on the market in the EU, presents serious economical as well as practical implications for US producers. At the heart of the debate are the different risk perceptions as well as regulatory approaches on both sides of the Atlantic. After a brief presentation of the European labelling scheme, the author examines its compliance with several agreements within the WTO international trading regime, namely the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards Agreement (SPS), the Technical Barriers in Trade Agreements (TBT) as well as basic GATT rules. Her analysis brings her to the conclusion that despite the non-application of the SPS agreement, the EU labelling scheme is in conformity of both the TBT and the basic GATT rules. The overall aim of the article is not only to present a legal analysis of one of the issues on the front burner of the global trade talks, but also to underline the difficulty in drawing the line between international free trade and domestic regulation expressing other values and objectives that affect trade as a non-tariff barrier.
Different Regulatory Approaches to Risk Management of GMOs in the EU and the US
2016
Trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is being discussed under the negotiated draft of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US due to different regulatory approaches to the risk management of GMOs on both sides of the Atlantic. The aim of this paper is to examine whether the EU's precautionary principle can be reconciled with the US science-based approach in such a way as to avoid future trade disputes between the EU and the US within the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the reluctant approach of the EU with respect to GMOs was challenged by the US in the past before the Dispute Settlement Body. Even though the EU has authorized some GMOs to be marketed, they have to be labelled properly unless they are contained in foodstuffs as trace elements only. In the US, on the contrary, the labelling of GMOs is not mandatory and proceeds on a voluntary basis. Since the EU aims at maintaining a high level of consumer protection, it...