An Analysis Of Trade Related International Regulations Of Genetically Modified Food And Their Effects On Developing Countries

This paper reviews current trade-related regulations of genetically modified (GM) food and discusses their effects on developing countries. There is a large heterogeneity in current import approval and marketing policies of GM food worldwide. At the international level, the harmonization efforts are led by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the World Trade Organization. While internationally harmonized guidelines for safety approval have been finalized, we show that there is no clear consensus on labeling regulations for GM food, and there is an increasing risk of conflicts among international agreements. We analyze the GM food regulations of two large rich importers, Japan and the European Union (EU) and discuss their differences and their potential impact on international trade. We also show that the effects of international and domestic trade related regulations critically depend on the type of traded products and their intended use: food and unprocessed products are subject to more stringent regulations than animal feed and processed products. Finally, we identify the main spillover effects of national and international regulations on developing countries' policy making, and suggest four policy arrangements on GM food to enable developing countries to satisfy production, consumption, international trade, and risk management objectives simultaneously while complying with their international obligations.

This publication, one of a series of UNCTAD studies which discuss key international trade and development policy issues, focuses on the trade implications of the application of biotechnology techniques in agriculture and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived from them. Topics considered include: domestic legislation on agro-biotechnology in selected developed and developing countries; the multilateral legal framework, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; actual and potential GM-related trade disputes.

"Anderson, Damania, and Jackson develop a common-agency lobbying model to help understand why North America and the European Union have adopted such different policies toward genetically modified (GM) food. Their results show that when firms (in this case farmers) lobby policymakers to influence standards, and consumers and environmentalists care about the choice of standard, it is possible that increased competition from abroad can lead to strategic incentives to raise standards, not just lower them as shown in earlier models. The authors show that differences in comparative advantage in the adoption of GM crops may be sufficient to explain the trans-Atlantic difference in GM policies. On the one hand, farmers in a country with a comparative advantage in GM technology can gain a strategic cost advantage by lobbying for lax controls on GM production and use at home and abroad. On the other hand, when faced with greater competition, the optimal response of farmers in countries with a comparative disadvantage in GM adoption may be to lobby for more-stringent GM standards. So it is rational for producers in the European Union (whose relatively small farms would enjoy less gains from the new biotechnology than broad-acre American farms) to reject GM technology if that enables them and consumer and environmental lobbyists to argue for restraints on imports from GM-adopting countries. This theoretical proposition is supported by numerical results from a global general equilibrium model of GM adoption in America with and without an EU moratorium. This paper a product of the Trade Team, Development Research Groupis part of a larger effort in the group to understand the economic implications of standards and technology policies in a multilateral trading environment"--World Bank web site.

The controversial issue of genetically modified (GM) food is discussed in this book. While the United States (US) is a strong supporter of GM technology having adopted a rather lax regulation of trade with GM products, the European Union (EU) is representing a sceptical position towards this new technology and has even imposed a de facto moratorium on further approval of GM products from 1998 to 2004. The purpose of this book is an extensive analysis of the current status on risks and benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and a suggestion on how an appropriate regulation of GM products could be derived. Potential guidelines are provided for policy formulation both in a qualitative and in a quantitative dimension. The US is applying the principle of substantial equivalence, which means that GM products are in their substance identical to products produced by conventional methods. Therefore, no new regulations are necessary for the trade with GM products. In contrast, the European Union (EU) disagrees that GM products are equivalent to their conventional counterparts due to the different production process. Instead, the EU refers to the precautionary principle in its GMO policy, meaning that trade with GM products should be restricted until it will be proven that no additional risks are implied by the use of these products. The divergence of opinions about the right policy to regulate GM products has significant impacts on trade flows and welfare effects. The US and the EU have already tried to resolve their dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO). Relevant laws of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO are presented as well as indications for a potential consensus.

Genetically modified food is at the heart of a new global conflict over how to govern risky technologies in an era of globalization. This timely collection brings together experts from the fields of IR, environmental studies, trade and law to examine the sources of international friction and to explore the prospects for international co-operation.

The transatlantic dispute over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has brought into conflict the United States and the European Union, two long-time allies and economically interdependent democracies with a long record of successful cooperation. Yet the dispute - pitting a largely acceptant US against an EU deeply suspicious of GMOs - has developed into one of the most bitter and intractable transatlantic and global conflicts, resisting efforts at negotiated resolution and resulting in a bitterly contested legal battle before the World Trade Organization. Professors Pollack and Shaffer investigate the obstacles to reconciling regulatory differences among nations through international cooperation, using the lens of the GMO dispute. The book addresses the dynamic interactions of domestic law and politics, transnational networks, international regimes, and global markets, through a theoretically grounded and empirically comprehensive analysis of the governance of GM foods and crops. They demonstrate that the deeply politicized, entrenched and path-dependent nature of the regulation of GMOs in the US and the EU has fundamentally shaped negotiations and decision-making at the international level, limiting the prospects for deliberation and providing incentives for both sides to engage in hard bargaining and to "shop" for favorable international forums. They then assess the impacts, and the limits, of international pressures on domestic US and European law, politics and business practice, which have remained strikingly resistant to change. International cooperation in areas like GMO regulation, the authors conclude, must overcome multiple obstacles, legal and political, domestic and international. Any effective response to this persistent dispute, they argue, must recognize both the obstacles to successful cooperation, and the options that remain for each side when cooperation fails.

This book provides expertly written guidance on the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in developing countries, including recommendations about risk analysis and governance.