Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:26:45.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconciling public opinion and WTO rules under the SPS Agreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2008

TRACEY EPPS
TRACEY EPPS*
Affiliation:
Lecturer, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
*
*Correspondence to: tracey.epps@otago.ac.nz.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) allows Members to enact SPS measures necessary to protect health so long as they are based on scientific evidence. This scientific evidence requirement has attracted controversy among academics, policy-makers, and civil society. The argument has been advanced that the requirement inappropriately excludes the consideration of public opinion in the domestic risk regulatory decision-making process. The article addresses the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the SPS Agreement's requirement for scientific evidence with concerns regarding exclusion of the public voice in the domestic regulatory process. It responds positively to this query, subject to certain caveats to ensure that trade liberalization goals are not undermined. It argues that the scientific evidence requirement is not only the most appropriate means available for advancing the SPS Agreement's objectives, but that it provides countries with more flexibility than critics contend, including to respond to public sentiment in cases of scientific uncertainty. Recommendations are made as to how panels and the Appellate Body should proceed in disputes under the SPS Agreement, and how governments can comply with their trade obligations while remaining responsive to public concerns.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 359 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © racey Epps 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atik, Jeffery (1996–97), ‘Science and International Regulatory Convergence’, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 17: 736.Google Scholar
Baber, Zaheer (2004), ‘Science in an Illiberal Democracy: The Genesis and Implications of Singapore's Biomedical Hub’, Paper presented to the Conference on Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 14–16 October 2004.Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich (1999), World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Breyer, Stephen (1993), Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Browne, Malcolm W. (1980), ‘In the Human Equation, Risk Perceived is Risk Endured’, The New York Times, 30 March 1980.Google Scholar
Bureau, Jean-Christophe and Stephan, Marette (2000), ‘Accounting for Consumers’ Preferences in International Trade Rules', in , National Research Council (ed.) Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Busch, Lawrence (2003), ‘Virgil, Vigilance, and Voice: Agrifood Ethics in an Age of Globalization’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(5): 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Lawrence et al. (2004), ‘Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization in the Case of EC: Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products’, WT/DS291, 292 and 293, 30 April 2004.Google Scholar
Campbell, Faith Thomson (2001), ‘The Science of Risk Assessment for Phytosanitary Regulation and the Impact of Changing Trade Regulations’, BioScience, 51(2): 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Michelle D. (1997), ‘Selling Science Under the SPS Agreement: Accommodating Consumer Preference in the Growth Hormones Controversy’, Journal of Global Trade, 6: 625.Google Scholar
Chang, Howard F. (2004), ‘Risk Regulation, Endogenous Public Concerns, and the Hormones Dispute: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself?’, Southern California Law Review, 77: 743.Google Scholar
Charnley, Gail and Donald Elliot, E. (2002), ‘Democratization of Risk Analysis’, in Paustenbach, Dennis (ed.) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, Steve (2000), ‘The Supervision of Health and Biosafety Regulation by World Trade Rules’, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 13: 271.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, Steve (2005), ‘An Analysis of Pascal Lamy's Proposal on Collective Preferences’, Journal of International Economic Law, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Peter (2004), ‘Science and Society’, Paper presented to the Conference on Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 14–16 October.Google Scholar
Cosbey, Aaron (2002), A Forced Evolution? The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Crawford-Brown, Douglas, Pauwelyn, Joost, and Smith, Kelly (2004), ‘Environmental Risk, Precaution, and Scientific Rationality in the Context of WTO/NAFTA Trade Rules’, Risk Analysis, 24(2): 461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, Frank B. (1992), ‘The Risk of Reliance on Perceived Risk’, Risk, 3: 59.Google Scholar
Danner, Allison Marston (2003), ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, American Journal of International Law, 97(510): 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derry, Gregory N. (1999), What Science Is and How It Works, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982), Risk and Culture, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
The Economist (2006), ‘Sickening Spinach’, 21 September 2006.Google Scholar
European Commission (2003), ‘Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Final Report on Setting the Scientific Frame for the Inclusion of New Quality of Life Concerns in the Risk Assessment Process’, Brussels.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel A. (2002), ‘The Case Clarity’, in Kennedy, Daniel and Southwick, James (eds) The Political Economy of International Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, Baruch et al. (1981), Acceptable Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraiberg, Jeremy D. and Trebilcock, J. Michael (1998), ‘Risk Regulation: Technocratic and Democratic Tools for Regulatory Reform’, McGill Law Journal, 43: 835.Google Scholar
Garvin, Theresa (2001), ‘Analytical Paradigms: The Epistomological Distances between Scientists, Policy Makers, and the Public’, Risk Analysis, 21(3): 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Bernard and Russellyn, S. Carruth (2004), ‘The Precautionary Principle and/or Risk Assessment in World Trade Organization Decisions: A Possible Role for Risk Perception’, Risk Analysis, 24(2): 491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Andrew J. (1997), ‘Public Participation and Environmental Policy Outcomes’, Canadian Public Policy, 23(4): 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Robert (1996), ‘Regulatory Reform: What Do the Government's Numbers Tell Us?’, in Hahn, Robert (ed.) Risks, Costs and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Andrew (2001), ‘It's a Mad, Mad, Mad-Cow World’, Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2001, A13.Google Scholar
Howse, Robert (2000), ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization’, Michigan Law Review, 98: 2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrudey, Steve E. and William, Leiss (2003), ‘Risk Management and Precaution: Insights on the Cautious Use of Evidence’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(13): 1577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudec, Robert (2003), ‘Science and “Post-Discriminatory” WTO Law', Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 26(2): 185.Google Scholar
Jardine, Cindy G. et al. (2003), ‘Risk Management Frameworks for Human Health and Environmental Issues’, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 6(Part B): 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Cindy G., Predy, G., and Mackenzie, A. (2007), ‘Stakeholder Participation in Investigating the Health Impacts from Coal-Fired Power Generating Stations in Alberta, Canada’, Journal of Risk Research, 10(5): 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (1995), Science at the Bar, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Branden B. and Vincent, Covello (1987), The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, Christine, Cass, R. Sunstein, and Richard, Thaler (1998), ‘A Behavioural Approach to Law and Economics’, Stanford Law Review, 50: 1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josling, Tim, Donna, Roberts, and David, Orden (2004), Food Regulation and Trade, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. and Donald, Braman (2005), ‘Cultural Cognition and Public Policy’, Yale Law School Public Law Working Paper No. 87.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. and Paul, Slovic (2006), ‘Cultural Evaluations of Risk: “Values” or “Blunders”?’, Harvard Law Review [forthcoming].Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. et al. (2006), ‘Fear and Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk’, Harvard Law Review, 119: 1071.Google Scholar
Kerr, William A. (2003), ‘Science-based Rules of Trade – a Mantra for Some, an Anathema for Others’, The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 4(2): 86.Google Scholar
Klapp, Merrie G. (1992), Bargaining with Uncertainty, Westport, CT: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Kriebel, David and Joel, Tickner (2001), ‘Reenergizing Public Health Through Precaution’, American Journal of Public Health, 91(9): 1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lave, Lester B. (1987), ‘Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions’, Science, 236(4799): 291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindseth, Peter L. (1999), ‘Democratic Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: The Example of the European Union’, Columbia Law Review, 99: 628–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowrance, William W. (1986), Modern Science and Human Values, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, Howard (2005), Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Markell, David L. (2005), ‘Slack in the Administrative State and Its Implications for Governance: The Issue of Accountability’, Oregon Law Review, 84: 1.Google Scholar
Markell, David L. and Tom, Tyler (2007), ‘Using Empirical Research to Design Government Citizen Participation Processes: A Case Study of Citizens' Roles in Environmental Compliance and Enforcement’, FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 270, 2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper, FSU College of Law, Law and Economics Paper No. 07–014.Google Scholar
Martin, Brian and Evelline, Richards (1995), ‘Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, and Public Decision-making’, in Jasanoff, Sheila (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 506.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. (1985), Due Process in the Administrative State, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
G., Mayo and Hollander, Rachelle (eds) (1991), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, David and Celeste, Monforton (2005), ‘Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment’, American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1): S39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miljan, Lydia (2001), ‘Unknown Causes, Unknown Risks’, in Jones, Laura (ed.) Safe Enough? Managing Risk and Regulation, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, p. 31.Google Scholar
Mori, Ipsos (2005), ‘Science in Society: Findings From Qualitative and Quantitative Research’, survey conducted for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry, UK.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000), Strengthening Science of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Neal, Mark (2000), ‘Risk Aversion: The Rise of an Ideology’, in Jones, Laura (ed.) Safe Enough? Managing Risk and Regulation, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, p. 13.Google Scholar
Paustenbach, Dennis J. (2002), ‘Primer on Human and Environmental Risk Assessment’, in Paustenbach, Dennis (ed.) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 3.Google Scholar
Perdikis, N., Kerr, W. A., and Hobbs, J. E. (2000), ‘Can the WTO/GATT Agreements on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitory Measures and Technical Barriers be Renegotiated to Accommodate Agricultural Biotechnology?’, in Lesser, W. H. (ed.) Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, Connecticut: University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Centre.Google Scholar
Perrez, Franz Xaver (2000), ‘Taking Consumers Seriously: The Swiss Regulatory Approach to Genetically Modified Food’, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 8: 585.Google Scholar
Post, Diahanna L. (2006), ‘The Precautionary Principle and Risk Assessment in International Food Safety: How the World Trade Organization Influences Standards’, Risk Analysis, 26(5): 1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, Mark R. (1999), Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Prévost, Denise (2005), ‘What Role for the Precautionary Principle in WTO Law After Japan–Apples?’, Journal of Trade and Environment Studies, 2(4): 1.Google Scholar
Rowe, Gene and Lynne, J. Frewer (2000), ‘Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Gary P. (2001), ‘Risk and the WTO’, in Robertson, David and Kellow, Aynsley (eds) Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, Joanne (2000), ‘On Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): Trade and Environment in the EU and WTO’, in Weiler, J. H. H. (ed.) The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Dayna Nadine (2005), ‘Nature/Culture Clash: The Transnational Trade Debate Over GMOs’, Global Law Working Paper 06/05, Hauser Global Law School Program, New York.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Lennart (2004), ‘Principles of Risk Perception Applied to Gene Technology’, Special Issue EMBO Reports, 5: 547 at S48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogstad, Grace (2001), ‘Internationalization, Democracy, and Food Safety Measures: The (Il)Legitimacy of Consumer Preferences?’, Global Governance, 7: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogstad, Grace and Sarah, Hartley (2004), ‘Science and Policy-Making: The Legitimate Conundrum’, Paper presented to the Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy, The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 15–16 October.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987), ‘Perception of Risk’, Science, 236(4799): 280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, Paul (2000), The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul (2002), ‘Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield’, in Paustenbach, Dennis (ed.) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 1377.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H. V. (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC: Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2001), ‘Book Review – The Laws of Fear’, Harvard Law Review, 115: 1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2002), Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2005), Laws of Fear – Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2006), ‘Misfearing: A Reply’, Harvard Law Review, 119: 1110.Google Scholar
R., Sunstein (ed.) (2000), Behavioural Law and Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taverne, Dick (2005), The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul B. (1990), ‘Risk Objectivism and Risk Subjectivism’, Risk, 1(3): 22.Google Scholar
Trebilcock, Michael J. and Julie, Soloway (2002), ‘International Policy and Domestic Food Safety Regulation: The Case for Substantial Deference by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body Under the SPS Agreement’, in Kennedy, Daniel and Southwick, James (eds) The Political Economy of International Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1.Google Scholar
Turnley, Jessica Glicken (2002), ‘Risk Assessment in its Social Context’, in Paustenbach, Dennis (ed.) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 1359.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom (1990), Why Do People Obey the Law? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (2005), Trading Precaution: The Precautionary Principle and the WTO, Yokohama, UNU IAS.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2000), Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review, Washington, DC: EPA.Google Scholar
US National Research Council (1983), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
US National Research Council (1996), Understanding Risk – Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Vern (1998), ‘Keeping the WTO from Becoming the “World” Trans-science Organization: Scientific Uncertainty, Science Policy, and Fact-Finding in the “Growth Hormones Dispute”’, Cornell International Law Journal, 251.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. M. (1987), ‘Science and Its Limits: The Regulator's Dilemma’, in Whipple, C. (ed.) De Minimus Risk, New York: Plenum Press, p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Susan B. T., Gene, Rowe, and Nigel, Lambert (2004), ‘The Risks of Eating and Drinking’, European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 5: S27.Google ScholarPubMed
Woolgar, S. (1988), Science The Very Idea, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Marion (2001), ‘Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Policy-Making’, in Robertson, David and Kellow, Aynsley (eds) Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, p. 81.Google Scholar
WTO (1994) ‘Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (1997), ‘European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): Report of the Panel’, WT/DS26/R/USA of 18 August, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (1998), ‘European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS26/AB/R of 16 January, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (1998a), ‘Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon: Report of the Panel’, WT/DS18/R of 12 June, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (1998b), ‘Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS18/R/AB of 20 October, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (1999), ‘Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS76/AB/R of 19 March, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2001), ‘European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS135/R of 12 March, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2003), ‘Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples: Report of the Panel’, WT/DS245/R of 15 July, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2003a), ‘Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS245/AB/R of 26 November, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2006), ‘European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products: Report of the Panel’, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar