Approaches to Set Rules for Trade in the Products of Agricultural Biotechnology. Is Harmonization under Trans-Pacific Partnership Possible?
-
Crina Viju
,
William A Kerr
Abstract
Given the absence of progress toward a multilateral agreement on trade liberalization in the WTO’s Doha Round, countries are attempting to gain the perceived gains from trade through the negotiation of preferential trade agreements. One of the most ambitious attempts to negotiate a preferential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which encompasses 12 countries across the Pacific including both the US and Japan. The TPP members account for approximately 40 % of global GDP. One of the most difficult issues in current international trade policy is the regulation of trade in the products of modern agricultural biotechnology. This question was on the negotiating agenda of the TPP. The objective of this paper is to lay out the major issues in the trade of products of modern agricultural biotechnology and examines the regulatory regimes for biotechnology in the 12 TPP countries. It finds that there is a significant divergence in the approaches to regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) across the TPP countries. As a result, the development of a harmonized regulatory regime to govern trade in GMOs was impossible directly in the TPP. A forum where the development of a harmonized system could potentially be undertaken was, however, agreed in the TPP.
Post-scriptum: Since the writing of this paper, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has withdrawn the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while the Japanese Parliament has voted to ratify the agreement.
APPENDIX
TPP Countries’ Regulation of GMOs.
| Laws/Institutions | SPS | BSP | Cultivation Ban | Import Ban | Labelling | Co-existence | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Gene Technology Act – June 21, 2001 Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) – regulation of GMOs, not GM products Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) – regulates GM products for human consumption Therapeutic Goods Veterinary Medicines Authority – regulates GM products used a human therapeutics Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority – regulates GM products used as veterinary therapeutics Department of Agriculture – regulates importation of GMOs and GM products | Yes (1995) Endorsement of Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, Particularly Plant Biotechnologies[5] | No Member of the UN Convention on the Biological Diversity (1993) | Cotton, canola and carnations – GM crops approved for commercialization No national ban but at state level as decisions are under states’ jurisdiction | No Regulated by OGTR – authorization to import GM material FSANZ – approval of importation of food products Department of Agriculture – inspects animal feeds for pests and diseases | Yes Mandatory labelling since December 2001 following Standard 1.5.2 and Food Standards Code | Common law – courts, not legislation deals with coexistence issues Major ruling against organic claim but still in appeal process | |
| Brunei | National Authority on Genetic Modification (NAGM) formed in 1999, not approved yet – biosafety aspects | Yes (1995) | No Member of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (2008) | Yes (no regulations yet developed) | Yes (no regulations yet developed) | Not applicable | Not applicable due to cultivation ban | Reg. being developed |
| Canada | Food and Drugs Act (1985) Health Canada (HC) – in charge with provisions related to public health, food safety and nutrition Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) – in charge of variety registration, environmental release, use in livestock feed and importation of GMOs and GM products. Environment Canada – in charge of running environmental risk assessments Fisheries and Oceans Canada – in charge of developing regulations for biotech aquatic organisms | Yes (1995) Endorsement of Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, Particularly Plant Biotechnologies | No Member of the UN Convention on the Biological Diversity (1993) | No One of the top promoters of biotech and fifth country in the world in terms of hectares of land cultivated with biotech crops Main crops: canola, corn, soybean and sugar beets | No | No Voluntary labelling allowed | Common law – courts, not legislation deals with coexistence issues | |
| Chile | Exempt Resolution 1927 (1993) Ministry of Agriculture’s Animal and Livestock Service (SAG) – in charge of authorizing GMOs Ministry of Health – in charge of health risks related to consumption of GMOs Ministry of Environment – in charge of environmental release | Yes (1995) | No Member of the UN Convention on the Biological Diversity (1994) Signed, but never ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety | Yes For domestic consumption Cultivation allowed under strict field control solely for exports of seeds | No Main GM imports: corn and soy for animal feed | No | Seed production only Official tolerances under development Currently industry self-regulation | January 2000: Ministry of Health: regulationGMOs reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis Reg. being developed |
| Japan | Three national laws and an international treaty: Food safety Basic Act (FSBA); Food Sanitation Act (FSA); Animal Feed Sanitation (AFSA); Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety | Yes (1995) | Yes (2003) Signed Nagoya Protocol (2011) Signed Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (2012) | No Local regulations do not allow commercial production Local regulations in place for non-scientific reasons (consumers’ concerns) | No One of the world’s largest importer of GM food and feed | Yes Mandatory labelling since 2001 – Law on Standardization and Proper Labeling of Agricultural and Forestry Products replaced by Food Labeling Law (2015) 3 types of labels: “genetically modified” (mandatory), “genetically modified organisms not-segregated” (mandatory), “not genetically modified” (optional). | Tolerance set at 5 % - commercially achievable | |
| Malaysia | Biosafety Act (2007) Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) - receiving applications for approval National Biosafety Board (NBB) – scientific decision | Yes (1995) | Yes (2003) | No No commercial production and no approvals of crops for domestic planting | No Only approved varieties imported Not allowing seeds’ imports for domestic planting | Under development Proposed legislation in 2013, not yet enforced | Not specifically dealt with | Reg. being developed |
| Mexico | Mexico’s Biosafety law (2005) Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishery and Food (SAGARPA); Secretariat of Environment and Natural resources (SEMARNAT) – assess risks Secretary of Health (SALUD) – food safety Inter-Secretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM) – coordination biotech policies | Yes (1995) | Yes (2003) Ratified Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (2014) Signed Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2012) | No Three testing phases: experimental, pilot and commercial 2013- ban on experimental and commercial planting of GM maize | No | No For GM foods and feeds equivalent with conventional foods and feeds Mandatory labelling for GM seeds | Some protected geographically defined areas. Rules under development | |
| New Zealand | Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) (1996) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – approval process Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) – developing food standards Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry of Science and Innovation | Yes (1995) | Yes (2005) | Yes | No Only products approved by FSANZ allowed | Yes The same as Australia | Not applicable due to production ban | |
| Peru | Ministry of Environment coordinate policy with Technical Group on Biotechnology, which includes National Agricultural Research Service (INIA), Sanitary and Phytosanitary Authority (SENASA), Ministry of Agriculture and Health SENASA – in charge of random sampling and enforcing the 0 % GM content in imported seeds Environmental Oversight and Enforcement Office (OEFA) – in charge of enforcing the moratorium | Yes (1995) | Yes (2004) Ratified Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (2014) Signed Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2011) | Yes (until 2022) Law 29.811 | Yes (until 2022) for cultivation or breeding Allows imports of GM crops used in animal feeds, human consumption and as ingredients in processed foods | n.a. | Not applicable due to production ban | |
| Singapore | Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) – advisory committee providing scientific information on GM-related issues Guidelines on the Release of Agriculture-Related GMOs (1999) Biosafety Guidelines for Research on GMOs (2006, revised in 2008 and 2013) | Yes (1995) | No Member of the UN Convention on the Biological Diversity (1996) | Not applicable No cultivation, production or export of GM crops and products | No (no regulations yet developed) Imports significant quantities of processed food containing GM ingredients | No (no regulations yet developed) | Not applicable due to absence of agricultural production | Reg. being developed |
| United States | Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (1996) No federal legislation specific to GMOs and GM products Regulated based on health, safety and environmental legislation US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) – plant GMOs under Plant Protection Act Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – GMOs in foods, drugs, biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Public Health Service Act Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – GMO pesticides and microorganism under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Toxic Substances Control Act | Yes (1995) Endorsement of Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, Particularly Plant Biotechnologies | No | No World leading producer of GMOs | No | No State level labelling laws (not yet implemented): Alaska, Connecticut and Maine | Common law - courts, not legislation deals with coexistence issues | |
| Vietnam | Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) | Yes (2007) | Yes (2004) Signed Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (2014) | No 3 GM corn varieties approved in 2015 | No | Under development | Not yet officially recognized as an issue | Reg. being developed |
Source: compiled by authors based on information from: Bhumiratana (2002), Clark, Ryan, and Kerr (2014), Council on Hemispheric Affairs (2011), Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Australian Government (2015a), Ebata, Punt, and Wesseler (2013), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2013), Health Canada (2012), Katovich (2012), Library of Congress (2015), and USDA (2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015 f., 2015 g, 2015h, 2015i)
References
Belcher, K., A.L. Hobbs, and W.A. Kerr. 2003 (September) 15. “The WTO and Environmental Sustainability: Is There a Conflict?” International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 2 (1): 2–18. AccessedSeptember152014. DOI:10.1504/IJESD.2003.002360.Suche in Google Scholar
Bhumiratana, S. Report on Biosafety Policy Options and Capacity Building Related to Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food Processing Industry of ASEAN. 2002. AccessedJuly252015. https://www.google.ca/search?q=Department+of+Agriculture+and+University+of+Brunei++Darussalam¡utf-8œutf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=s4_TVcXIE4r7yASD_ITwAQ#q=REPORT+ON+BIOSAFETY+POLICY+OPTIONS+AND+CAPACITY+BUILDING+RELATED+TO+GENETICALLY+MODIFIED+ORGANISMS+IN+THE+FOOD+PROCESSING+INDUSTRY+OF+ASEAN+BY+DR.+SAKARINDR+BHUMIRATANA.Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, L.F., C.D. Ryan, and W.A. Kerr. 2014 (February) 10. “Direct Democracy, State Governments, and the Re-Energized GMO Debate: Implications of California’s Proposition 37.” AgBioForum 16 (3): 177–186. AccessedFebruary102015. http://agbioforum.org/v16n3/v16n3a01-clark.htm.Suche in Google Scholar
Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Gmos and Peru: The Debate Comes to a Head. 2011. AccessedJuly302015. http://www.coha.org/gmos-and-peru-the-debate-comes-to-a-head/#_edn7.Suche in Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Australian Government. Regulatory Framework in Australia. 2015a. AccessedJuly252015. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/biotechnology/framework.Suche in Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Australian Government. Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, Particularly Plant Biotechnologies. 2015b. AccessedJuly252015. http://agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/biotechnology/ag-production-technologies.Suche in Google Scholar
Ebata, A., M. Punt, and J. Wesseler. 2013 (September) 15. “For the Approval Process of Gmos: The Japanese Case.” AgBioForum 16 (2): 140–160. AccessedSeptember152014. http://agbioforum.org/v16n2/v16n2a05-ebata.htm.Suche in Google Scholar
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. GM Food Labelling. 2013. AccessedJuly252015. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/labelling/pages/default.aspx.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaisford, J.D., J.E. Hobbs, W.A. Kerr, N. Perdikis, and M.D. Plunkett. 2001. The Economics of Biotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781035351312Suche in Google Scholar
Gaisford, J.D., and W.A. Kerr. 2001. Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaisford, J.D., W.A. Kerr, and N. Perdikis. 2003. Economic Analysis for EU Accession Negotiations – Agri-Food Issues in the EU’s Eastward Expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press.10.4337/9781781957578Suche in Google Scholar
Health Canada. Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Foods. 2012. AccessedJuly302015. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/fs-if/faq_1-eng.php.Suche in Google Scholar
Hobbs, A.L., J.E. Hobbs, and W.A. Kerr. 2005 (September) 15. “The Biosafety Protocol: Multilateral Agreement on Protecting the Environment or Protectionist Club?” Journal of World Trade 39 (2): 281–300. AccessedSeptember152014. http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=TRAD2005024.10.54648/TRAD2005024Suche in Google Scholar
Hobbs, J.E. 2007. “Technical Barriers to Trade.” In Handbook on International Trade Policy., edited by W.A. Kerr, and J.D. Gaisford, 394–403. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781847205469.00048Suche in Google Scholar
Holtby, K.L., W.A. Kerr, and J.E. Hobbs. 2007. International Environmental Liability and Barriers to Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781035335763Suche in Google Scholar
Isaac, G.E. 2007. “Sanitary and Phyosanitary Issues.” In Handbook on International Trade., edited by W.A. Kerr, and J.D. Gaisford, 383–393. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781847205469.00047Suche in Google Scholar
Isaac, G.E., M. Phillipson, and W.A. Kerr. International Regulation of Trade in the Products of Biotechnology. Estey Centre Research Papers No. 2 Saskatoon: Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, 2002. AccessedJuly252015. http://law.usask.ca/documents/estey-journal/Isaac-Phillipson-Kerr%20-%20Biotechnology%20Regulation%20-%20Estey%20Study%202%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
James, S., and K. Anderson. 2005. “On the Need for More Economic Assessment of Quarantine Policies.” In The WTO and Agriculture,Vol. II., edited by K. Anderson, and T. Josling, 197–216. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Suche in Google Scholar
Katovich, E. Undergraduate Honours Thesis, University of Minnesota, 2012. AccessedJuly302015. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms in Latin America: Policy Implications for Trade, Biosafety, and Development. http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/140920/Katovich.pdf?sequence=1.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2006 (September) 15. “International Harmonization and the Gains from Trade.” Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 7 (2): 116–125. AccessedSeptember152014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23773422.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2010a. Conflict, Chaos and Confusion – the Crisis in the International Trading System. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781849808187Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2010b (September) 15. “What Is New in Protectionism? Consumers, Cranks and Captives.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (1): 5–22. AccessedSeptember152014. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01178.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2013 (February) 15. “Negotiation in Disequilibrium: Can a Trans-Pacific Partnership Be Achieved as Potential Partners Proliferate?” Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 14 (1): 39–50. AccessedFebruary152015. http://law.usask.ca/documents/estey-journal/kerr14-2.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2014. “The Trade System and Biotechnology.” In Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development., edited by S.J. Smyth, P.W.B. Phillips, and D. Castle, 217–229. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9780857938350.00021Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A. 2015 (June) 1. “Governance of International Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: Is Future Global Food Security at Risk?” Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 16 (2): 60–77. AccessedJune12016. http://law.usask.ca/research/estey-journal/index.php.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A., and S.L. Hall. 2004 (September) 15. “Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Agriculture: Commitments, Cooperation and Conflicts.” Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues 5: 39–52. AccessedSeptember152014. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/45737/2/kerr5-1%5b1%5d.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerr, W.A., S.J. Smyth, P.W.B. Phillips, and M. Phillipson. 2014 (February) 17. “Conflicting Rules for the International Trade in GM Products: Does International Law Provide a Solution?” AgBioForum 17 (2): 105–122. AccessedFebruary172015. http://www.agbioforum.org/v17n2/v17n2a02-kerr.htm.Suche in Google Scholar
Library of Congress. Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. 2015. AccessedAugust102015. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php.Suche in Google Scholar
Phillips, P.W.B., S.J. Smyth, and W.A. Kerr. 2006. Governing Risk in the 21st Century. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Sawyer, E.N. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 2004. Economic Impacts of Harmonizing Organic Standards Internationally.Suche in Google Scholar
Smyth, S.J., W.A. Kerr, and P.W.B. Phillips. 2011 (May) 25. “Recent Trends in the Scientific Basis of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Rules and Their Potential Impact on Investment.” Journal of World Investment and Trade 12 (1): 5–26. AccessedMay252016. doi:10.1163/221190011X00094.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Australia: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2014. AccessedJuly252015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Canberra_Australia_9-30-2014.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Canada: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015a. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Ottawa_Canada_7-13-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Chile: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015b. AccessedJuly302015. http://www.fas.usda.gov/data/chile-agricultural-biotechnology-annual.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Japan: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015c. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Tokyo_Japan_7-13-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Malaysia: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015d. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Kuala%20Lumpur_Malaysia_7-10-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Mexico: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015e. AccessedJuly302015. http://www.fas.usda.gov/data/mexico-agricultural-biotechnology-annual.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. New Zealand: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015 f. AccessedJuly302015. http://www.fas.usda.gov/data/new-zealand-agricultural-biotechnology-annual.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Peru: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015 g. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Lima_Peru_6-18-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Singapore: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015h. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Singapore_Singapore_7-10-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
USDA. Vietnam: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. 2015i. AccessedJuly302015. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Hanoi_Vietnam_7-8-2015.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Viju, C., and W.A. Kerr. 2011 (September) 15. “Agriculture in the Canada-EU Economic and Trade Agreement.” International Journal 66 (3): 677–694. AccessedSeptember152014. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002070201106600310.10.1177/002070201106600310Suche in Google Scholar
Viju, C., M.T. Yeung, and W.A. Kerr. 2014 (February) 17. “Zero Tolerance for GM Flax and the Rules of Trade.” World Economy 37 (1): 137–150. AccessedFebruary172015. DOI:10.1111/twec.12077.Suche in Google Scholar
Yeung, M.T., N. Perdikis, and W.A. Kerr. 1999. Regional Trading Blocs in the Global Economy: The EU and ASEAN. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781782543749Suche in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Implications of TTIP and TPP for GM/non-GM Coexistence
- Labeling Demands, Coexistence and the Challenges for Trade
- Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs
- Approaches to Set Rules for Trade in the Products of Agricultural Biotechnology. Is Harmonization under Trans-Pacific Partnership Possible?
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan’s Agricultural Trade
- The Effects of T-TIP Market Access Reform on EU Beef Import Demand
- The Economics of GM Labeling and Implications for Trade
- The Product Line Strategy of a Company Selling Seed with a Licensed GM Trait
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Implications of TTIP and TPP for GM/non-GM Coexistence
- Labeling Demands, Coexistence and the Challenges for Trade
- Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs
- Approaches to Set Rules for Trade in the Products of Agricultural Biotechnology. Is Harmonization under Trans-Pacific Partnership Possible?
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan’s Agricultural Trade
- The Effects of T-TIP Market Access Reform on EU Beef Import Demand
- The Economics of GM Labeling and Implications for Trade
- The Product Line Strategy of a Company Selling Seed with a Licensed GM Trait
