Given the sizes of the European and American economies and the amount of trade between them, it is inevitable that disputes will arise. I will focus on the continuing clash over the European ban on hormone-treated beef and the recent dispute over American steel safeguard measures. These two trade disputes represent different types and different issues within the trade relationship, although both expose weaknesses in the WTO system.
The beef hormone dispute represents a new type of ideologically-based trade dispute that is becoming more and more common . Hormone treated beef was first banned in 1989 by the European Community, and in 1995, the beef hormone case was one of the first cases brought to the newly formed World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US claimed that the ban on hormone treated beef was inconsistent with the new Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS agreement), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Trade Round. This agreement established rules governing food safety regulations, stating that such regulations must be supported by scientific risk assessment . A WTO dispute panel ruled in favour of the United States, saying that the EU’s use of the precautionary principle (which justified the ban on the ground of scientific uncertainty about the health effects of hormones ) could not override the terms of the SPS agreement. The EU did not alter its regulations, prompting the United States to instigate tariffs against $116.8 million of European goods, mostly luxury items from France, Germany and Italy, countries that the US saw as the strongest supporters of the ban . These tariffs remained in place for years as attempts to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiation repeatedly...
... middle of paper ...
...he Global Economy, edited by Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, xi, 354 p. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Pollack, Mark A., and Gregory C. Shaffer. "The Challenge of Reconciling Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and Gmos in the Transatlantic Relationship." In Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy, edited by Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, xi, 354 p. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
"Q&A: Us-Eu Steel Dispute." BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/3291675.stm.
Raymond J. Ahearn, John W. Fischer, Charles B. Goldfarb, Charles E. Hanrahan, Walter W. Eubanks, Janice E. Rubin. "European Union–U.S. Trade and Investment Relations: Key Issues." In CRS Report for Congress, 35 pp.: Congressional Research Service, 2008.
"Special Report: Dangerous Activities - Trade Disputes." The Economist 363, no. 8272 (2002): 92.
A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk assessments. This essay argues that GM foods should be rigorously and independently tested for safety; and, consumers be given the right to choose or reject GM foods through mandatory labels. What is the need for impartial examination of safety of transgenic foods? And why label them? GM foods are not “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, genetic engineering of agricultural crops is not a mere extension of traditional plant breeding, and finally, there are human health implications associated with it.
Bentley, J., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Trade and encounters a global perspective on the past. (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 182-401). New York: McGraw-Hill.
The momentum generated by the passage of the Meat Inspection Act helped secure the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, which had been stalled in Congress since 1905. With these two pieces of legislation, the federal government took important steps to assure the public that the food they were eating met minimu...
Another economic disadvantage linked to the GM food market is affecting international trade. The difference in regulations and public opinions concerning the GM food industry in some countries has a direct impact on the international trade. The global issue is led by the United States, which is a massive GM food producer, and Europe, strictly regulated among the GM food production and supply. This has resulted in a dramatic decline of exports from the US to Europe and has led to significant losses for the agricultural industry.(
As explained in previous sections, Big Food has immense power to influence government decision making. It is important to understand how Big Food is able to participate and use the political system to their advantage. The main way that Big Food influences government decision making is through lobbying. Lobbying is a common practice within the American political system that is utilized by industries to further their interests. Lobbying manifests in two major ways within the political system. Industries lobby Congress for favorable regulations, and the White House for beneficial trade agreements. For this purpose of this thesis, the aspect of lobbying surrounding favorable regulations in Congress will be explored as it pertains to Big Food.
Should you worry about GMOs? (2013). Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter, 31(9), 4-5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1458270646?accountid=39340
GM food has generated polemic debate amongst: governmental regulators, biotechnology companies, scientists, economic activists, environmentalists and consumers. The main areas of controversy correlated to GM food are the neutrality of scientific examination and publication, the results of GM crops on the environment and health and the role of the crops in feeding the world population.
Sheldon, Ian. “Food Principles: Regulating Genetically Modified Crops After The 2006 WTO Ruling.” Brown Journal Of World Affairs 14.1 (2007): 121-134.Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
According to the Department of Agriculture, cotton, corn and soybeans are the most common GM crops in the U.S. In 2012, GM cotton accounted for 94 percent of all cotton planted, GM soybeans accounted for 93 percent of soybeans planted, and GM corn accounted for 88 percent of corn planted (add in text citation). This suggests that a large percentage of processed foods sold by supermarkets in the U.S. contain some ingredients derived from GM crops, primarily corn, soy, and canola. Yet, most Americans may not know that the products they consume contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Genetically Modified Food under Reasonable Government Regulation, is necessary for the continued and further success of the food supply chain.
Kanter, James. “E.U. animal-welfare plan may limit trade; A new law could protect test animals but could block more meat imports.” International Herald Tribune. 27. April 2010: 1. eLibrary. Web. 05 May 2010.
When the term “Globalization” is discussed, most academics, scholars, professionals and intellectuals attempt to define and interpret it in a summarized fashion. My main concern with this approach is that one cannot and should not define a process that altered decades of history and continues to, in less than 30 words. Global Shift is a book with remarkable insight. Peter Dicken rather than attempting to define the commonly misused word, explains Globalization in a clear and logical fashion, which interconnects numerous views. Dicken takes full advantage of his position to write and identify the imperative changes of political, economic, social, and technological dimensions of globalization.
...ation of specialized commissions to regulate and control the industry. The United States and the European Union have similar vested interests in stability and terrorism prevention and trade. Some of the Consequences of the EU and the United States interaction for international politics are, in most cases that going into conflicts may ultimately delay the effectiveness of the nation-states ability to influence as a world leader.
After the failed International Trade Organization, Rodrik discusses the Bretton Woods Agreement, the transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and T...
“National: Environment; Europe Accused of Hypocrisy Over Opposition to GM Crops.” Observer [London, England] 23 Oct. 2011: 23.Infortrac Newsstand. Web. 31 Oct. 2011
Many countries do not have or do not apply any legislation or regulation about food or GM crops, others have a law, but do not apply it, and others continue to study and promote measures to protect consumers. The European Union and OMS have studied and analyze the benefits and harms of genetic alteration in food in the market to support the use of one or the other altered product.