Unit 9 - Readings & Viewings

Read closely the language of GATT/WTO Agreement Article XX (so you have some appreciation of the scope of the exceptions)

Read the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement (pay particular attention to risk assessment and the rules about international standards vs national standards; remember, as we noted in this past week’s class, the SPS Agreement is the hidden twin to the NBT Agreement)

Read Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (DS245) (Appellate Report) (classic general police powers vs protectionism case;  do you know what apple blight is, the scourge of backyard apple tree gardeners?)

a. EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (DS26) (Appellate Report excerpts) (newer threats and technology, bearing in mind this is the applicable precedent for GMOs, although it is phrased in food safety terms;  ask yourself the following question, could the EU simply have prohibited the import of “conventional” meat, fruit and vegetables, permitting the import only of “organic” products, why or why not?)

b. Skim Paarlberg, “A dubious success:  The NGO campaign against GMOs,” GM Crops & Food, 2014 July-Sept, 5(3) at 223-28.

c. Skim The precautionary principle: economic implications for developing countries (Science, Technology and Innovation Viewpoints website)

d. Skim Producers argue for sound science, some consumers prefer precautionary principle ( Agricultural Policy Analysis Center website)

e. Read the findings and conclusions of the latest Biotech disputes between Argentina, Canada, US and EU, dated September 29, 2006, asking how the DSB appears to be coming out on all these hidden risk/GMO type questions?

To go a bit further into the weeds, the US is not a party to the Convention on Biodiversity (“CBD”) dating back to the 1992 UN Rio meeting (the CBD is normally to be encountered more in an international environmental law course).  Trade law assumes an open environment in which GMO flora and fauna could be shipped worldwide, following on the Beef Hormones case reasoning.  Meanwhile, other concerns animate international environmental law.  Is what you read in the WTO proceedings consistent with what you see in an amendment to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity as basic international environmental law treaty, in particular what is known as its Cartagena Protocol?   In a nutshell, the Cartagena Protocol views GMOs as a potential danger.  This is one of the first big overlaps between environmental and trade law concerns, including a treaty law question of duelling instruments (which should take precedence, and why?).  So read the Cartagena Protocol and ask yourself how do you parse at a technical level apparent conflicts between the jurisprudence affecting GMOs under GATT/WTO Art XX and the Cartagena Protocol?  FYI, the US did not join in the CBD, and so is a member of the WTO, but is not formally a member of the Cartagena Protocol.