NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. 43-3AEK-6-80107 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07090-2
Additional copies of this report are available from
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
T. KENT KIRK, Chair,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
DAVID H. BAKER,
University of Illinois, Urbana
SANDRA S. BATIE,
Michigan State University, East Lansing
MAY R. BERENBAUM,
University of Illinois, Urbana
ANTHONY S. EARL,
Quarles & Brady Law Firm, Madison, Wisconsin
ESSEX E. FINNEY, JR.,
Mitchellville, Maryland (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, retired)
CORNELIA B. FLORA,
Iowa State University, Ames
ROBERT T. FRALEY,
Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Missouri
GEORGE R. HALLBERG,
The Cadmus Group, Inc, Waltham, Massachusetts
RICHARD R. HARWOOD,
Michigan State University, East Lansing
GILLBERT A. LEVEILLE,
McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
HARLEY W. MOON,
Iowa State University, Ames
WILLIAM L. OGREN,
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (U.S. Department of Agriculture, retired)
G. EDWARD SCHUH,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
JOHN W. SUTTIE,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
THOMAS N. URBAN,
Des Moines, Iowa (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., retired)
ROBERT P. WILSON,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State
JAMES J. ZUICHES,
Washington State University, Pullman
Staff
WARREN R. MUIR, Executive Director (since June 1999)
MYRON F. UMAN, Acting Executive Director (through May 1999)
DAVID L. MEEKER, Director (since March 2000)
MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS, Director (through January 1999)
CHARLOTTE KIRK BAER, Acting Director (from February 1999 through February 2000) and Associate Director
SHIRLEY B. THATCHER, Administrative Assistant
Project Staff
LUCYNA K. KURTYKA, Project Officer (since November 1999)
MARY JANE LETAW, Project Officer (through October 1999)
KAREN L. IMHOF, Project Assistant
STEPHANIE PADGHAM, Project Assistant
ELAINE McGARRAUGH, Editor
Preface
As the world economy has moved toward more open trade under the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), there has been an increasing focus on managing potential conflicts between a country's right to take measures to protect its citizens, production systems, and environment (including plant and animal species) from risks and the effects of such protection on trade. In the area of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations, the concern is that domestic regulations ostensibly designed as a means to protect plants, animals, or people may actually be used to protect domestic industries and interests. International standard-setting activities, the SPS Agreement of the Uruguay Round of GATT, and ongoing bilateral and multilateral negotiations are part of a process through which countries are attempting to manage conflicts between protective regulation in the SPS area and open trade.
Progressive trade liberalization has increased the importance of managing SPS issues (e.g., quarantine policies, product and process standards) between countries as they seek to protect human, animal, and plant life and health from biological and chemical risks, while simultaneously facilitating trade. The SPS Agreement, which went into effect in 1995, itself defines a set of principles for this management and provides a forum for settling disputes within the World Trade Organization framework. However, the operation of that set of principles will only be fully defined through experience under the agreement. Furthermore, the acceptable relationship between SPS measures and trade is the subject of ongoing negotiation
between countries through the standard-setting activities of international organizations and multilateral and bilateral trade discussions. Thus, we are in a period of active institutional innovation that is resulting in a revised set of international relationships.
In 1998, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture asked the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources of the National Research Council to organize a conference to address the roles of science, economics, and culture in agricultural trade policy. The conference was to focus on how scientific standards could be applied to international trade agreements in the post-Uruguay Round era but also take into account critical nonscientific factors surrounding SPS standards and related technical barriers to trade. Specifically, the conference was to focus on: (1) the critical roles and binding limitations of science in assessing SPS barriers to trade; (2) the critical roles and binding limitations of economics in assessing SPS barriers to trade; (3) the roles of values, other socioanthropological factors, and associated politics in determining SPS barriers to trade; and (4) an analytical framework for incorporating science, economics, values, and politics in SPS decision making.
The conference was held on January 25-27, 1999, at The National Academies' Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The participants focused on the roles of the biological and natural sciences, economics, sociology, politics, and culture, and approaches in understanding and evaluating differences in risk perception, assessment, and management across countries; the impact of SPS measures on plant, animal, and food safety; and the relationship between SPS measures and open trade.
This report presents a synopsis of the two-and-a half-day event. The overview, which was prepared by Julie Caswell, provides a summary of the broad range of issues identified by the speakers and participants of the conference. I would like to thank Julie for her outstanding contributions to this volume both in this summary and in her thoughtful evaluations of the papers. I would also like to thank Timothy Josling, Raymond A. Jussaume, Jr., Peter Kareiva, D. Warner North, and David Vogel who assured the effort would be a success through thoughtful insights in the conference design and significant contributions during the meeting.
The concepts presented in the overview are the result of many excellent ideas that grew out of formal presentations and group discussions during the conference. Chapters that follow reflect views and opinions of individual authors.
It is conference organizers' hope that the ideas contained in this document and summarized in the overview, enlighten and inform future approaches to ensuring that scientific, cultural, and economic considerations are reflected in SPS standards in international trade.
V. Kerry Smith
Center For Environmental and Resource Economic Policy
Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics
North Carolina State University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals contributed to organizing the conference, and to conference discussions and its proceedings. The Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their valuable assistance and contributions:
JULIE CASWELL, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
TIMOTHY JOSLING, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
RAYMOND A. JUSSAUME, JR., Washington State University, Pullman
PETER KAREIVA, University of Washington, Seattle
D. WARNER NORTH, NorthWorks, Inc., Belmont, California
V. KERRY SMITH, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
DAVID VOGEL, University of California, Berkeley
The Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources would like to recognize the efforts of Mary Jane Letaw, Project Officer, during the early stages of this project. We also wish to thank Karen L. Imhof, Project Assistant, for her tireless assistance throughout this project, Stephanie Padgham, Project Assistant, for her work in the early stages of report preparation, Elaine MacGarraugh for editing the manuscript, and Laura Boschini, Project Assistant, for her efforts in preparing the final report for publication. Special thanks are due to Lucyna K. Kurtyka, Project Officer, for her dedication and continuing efforts in seeing this project through to completion.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Lawrence Busch, Michigan State University, East Lansing; Ricardo Godoy, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts; Neal Hooker, Colorado State University, Fort Collins; D. Gale Johnson, University of Chicago, Illinois; G. Edward Schuh, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Daniel Simberloff, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Mitchell Small, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Daniel Sumner, University of California, Davis.
While the individuals listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authors and the National Research Council.
CONTENTS
Accounting For Consumers' Preferences in International Trade Rules |
||||
What are the Solutions for Reconciling Consumer Concerns and International Trade Rules? |
||||
|
||||
The Danish Approach to Food Safety Issues Related to Pork Products |
||||
International Harmonization under the SPS Agreement |
||||
Role of Science in Solving Pest Quarantine Problems: Hass Avocado Case Study |
||||
The Hass Avocado Case: A Political Science Perspective |
||||
An Overview of Risk Assessment Procedures Applied to Genetically Engineered Crops |
||||
Approaches to Risk and Risk Assessment |
||||
|
||||
TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES
Tables
Table 3-1 |
Acute LD50 Values of Selected Common Chemicals |
|||
Table 3-2 |
Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Commodities, 1997 |
|||
Table 5-1 |
Counts of Plant Species Native to the United States That Have a Known Economic Importance |
|||
Table 6-1 |
Acceptances of the Codex Alimentarius Commodity Standards |
|||
Table 8-1 |
Monitoring Results of the Salmonella Reduction Program |
|||
Table 8-2 |
Special Slaughter Fees per Finisher |
|||
Table 9-1 |
Statistical Analysis of Hass Avocado Fruit Fly Infestation Levels in Relation to Percentage of Dry Matter |
|||
Table 9-2 |
Susceptibility of Hass Avocado to A. ludens, A. serpentina, and A. striata—Forced Infestations in Fruits Attached to the Tree and in Fruits at Different Time Intervals after Harvest (Uruapan, Michoacan, 1993–1994) |
Figures
Figure 2-1 |
A Partial Equilibrium Model of the Welfare Effects of Alternative Import Protocols |
|||
Figure 3-1 |
Dose-Response Relationship |
|||
Figure 5-1 |
Frequency Histogram of the log Response Ratio (lnRR) for Ant Impacts |
|||
Figure 5-2 |
Worldwide Distribution of Gambusia affinis |
|||
Figure 5-3 |
Mean Effect Sizes of Insect Invaders on Resident Confamilial Species Versus More Distantly Related Species |
|||
Figure 6-1 |
Elaboration of Food Safety Standards and Other Guidelines by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its Subsidiary Bodies |
|||
Figure 9-1 |
Case Study: Hass Avocado Background Chart |
|||
Figure 9-2 |
A. ludens, A. serpentina, and A. striata—Forced Laboratory Infestation of Hass Avocados (Uruapan, Michoacan, 1993–1994) |
|||
Figure 9-3 |
Seasonal Fluctuation of Anastrepha ludens Populations and Minimum and Maximum Temperatures in the Hass Avocado Production Region of Michoacan, 1993–1994 |
|||
Figure 9-4 |
Seasonal Fluctuations of Anastrepha ludens Populations and Hass Avocado Harvest Period in Michoacan, 1993–1994 |
|||
Figure 9-5 |
Role of Science in Solving Quarantine Pest Problems |