Does science speak clearly and fairly in trade and food safety disputes? The search for an optimal response of WTO adjudication to problematic international standard-making.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Kuei-Jung Ni
{"title":"Does science speak clearly and fairly in trade and food safety disputes? The search for an optimal response of WTO adjudication to problematic international standard-making.","authors":"Kuei-Jung Ni","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most international health-related standards are voluntary per se. However, the incorporation of international standard-making into WTO agreements like the SPS Agreement has drastically changed the status and effectiveness of the standards. WTO members are urged to follow international standards, even when not required to comply fully with them. Indeed, such standards have attained great influence in the trade system. Yet evidence shows that the credibility of the allegedly scientific approach of these international standard-setting institutions, especially the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) governing food safety standards, has been eroded and diluted by industrial and political influences. Its decision-making is no longer based on consensus, but voting. The adoption of new safety limits for the veterinary drug ractopamine in 2012, by a very close vote, is simply another instance of the problematic operations of the Codex. These dynamics have led skeptics to question the legitimacy of the standard setting body and to propose solutions to rectify the situation. Prior WTO rulings have yet to pay attention to the defect in the decision-making processes of the Codex. Nevertheless, the recent Appellate Body decision on Hormones II is indicative of a deferential approach to national measures that are distinct from Codex formulas. The ruling also rejects the reliance on those experts who authored the Codex standards to assess new measures of the European Community. This approach provides an opportunity to contemplate what the proper relationship between the WTO and Codex ought to be. Through a critical review of WTO rulings and academic proposals, this article aims to analyze how the WTO ought to define such interactions and respond to the politicized standard-making process in an optimal manner. This article argues that building a more systematic approach and normative basis for WTO judicial review of standard-setting decisions and the selection of technical experts would be instrumental to strengthening the mutual supports between the WTO and international standard-setting organizations, and may help avoid the introduction of a prejudice toward a justified science finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":"68 1","pages":"97-114, ii-iii"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most international health-related standards are voluntary per se. However, the incorporation of international standard-making into WTO agreements like the SPS Agreement has drastically changed the status and effectiveness of the standards. WTO members are urged to follow international standards, even when not required to comply fully with them. Indeed, such standards have attained great influence in the trade system. Yet evidence shows that the credibility of the allegedly scientific approach of these international standard-setting institutions, especially the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) governing food safety standards, has been eroded and diluted by industrial and political influences. Its decision-making is no longer based on consensus, but voting. The adoption of new safety limits for the veterinary drug ractopamine in 2012, by a very close vote, is simply another instance of the problematic operations of the Codex. These dynamics have led skeptics to question the legitimacy of the standard setting body and to propose solutions to rectify the situation. Prior WTO rulings have yet to pay attention to the defect in the decision-making processes of the Codex. Nevertheless, the recent Appellate Body decision on Hormones II is indicative of a deferential approach to national measures that are distinct from Codex formulas. The ruling also rejects the reliance on those experts who authored the Codex standards to assess new measures of the European Community. This approach provides an opportunity to contemplate what the proper relationship between the WTO and Codex ought to be. Through a critical review of WTO rulings and academic proposals, this article aims to analyze how the WTO ought to define such interactions and respond to the politicized standard-making process in an optimal manner. This article argues that building a more systematic approach and normative basis for WTO judicial review of standard-setting decisions and the selection of technical experts would be instrumental to strengthening the mutual supports between the WTO and international standard-setting organizations, and may help avoid the introduction of a prejudice toward a justified science finding.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在贸易和食品安全争端中,科学能清晰公正地发言吗?寻求WTO裁决对有问题的国际标准制定的最佳反应。
大多数与健康有关的国际标准本身都是自愿的。然而,将国际标准制定纳入WTO协议,如SPS协议,极大地改变了标准的地位和有效性。世贸组织成员被敦促遵守国际标准,即使没有被要求完全遵守这些标准。事实上,这些标准在贸易体系中产生了很大的影响。然而,有证据表明,这些国际标准制定机构,特别是管理食品安全标准的食品法典委员会(食典委)所谓的科学方法的可信度,已受到工业和政治影响的侵蚀和削弱。它的决策不再基于共识,而是基于投票。2012年,以非常接近的票数通过了兽药莱克多巴胺的新安全限量,这只是食典委有问题操作的又一个例子。这些动态导致怀疑论者质疑标准制定机构的合法性,并提出纠正这种情况的解决方案。WTO先前的裁决尚未注意到食品法典决策过程中的缺陷。然而,最近上诉机构关于激素II的决定表明,对不同于食典委配方的国家措施采取了恭恭敬敬之的态度。该裁决还拒绝依赖起草食品法典标准的专家来评估欧共体的新措施。这种方法提供了一个机会来思考世贸组织和食品法典之间的适当关系应该是什么。通过对WTO裁决和学术建议的批判性回顾,本文旨在分析WTO应如何定义这种相互作用,并以最佳方式应对政治化的标准制定过程。本文认为,为世贸组织对标准制定决定的司法审查和技术专家的选择建立一个更系统的方法和规范基础,将有助于加强世贸组织与国际标准制定组织之间的相互支持,并有助于避免引入对合理科学发现的偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
期刊最新文献
Life, Liberty, [and the Pursuit of Happiness]: Medical Marijuana Regulation in Historical Context Implementing a Public Health Perspective in FDA Drug Regulation Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments. FDA-Required Tobacco Product Inserts & Onserts–and the First Amendment. Proposed Industry Best Practices in Development and Marketing of Medical Foods for the Management of Chronic Conditions and Diseases while Awaiting Regulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1