Import Rules for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Contaminated Beef

  • Philip L. Paarlberg
  • John G. Lee
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 20)


To satisfy the Uruguay Round agreement, the United States proposed a region-based system of sanitary import rules for meat and livestock, whereby, as the risk of importing a disease rises, increasingly strict monitoring, certification, and quarantine rules are triggered. Paarlberg and Lee (1998) present an alternative policy in which the level of a trade barrier is linked directly to the health risk associated with imports. To illustrate how the risk of importing products containing Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) affects the welfare-optimizing tariff, we use a simple model of trade in beef. The level of a welfare-maximizing tariff imposed by the United States is affected both by the risk taken with beef that contains FMD as it moves from one country to another and by the expected loss in U.S. national beef output. Greater risks of importing beef that contains FMD result in larger tariffs against the exporter of contaminated beef. Also, increased expected U.S. output losses cause increased tariffs. When the risk of importing FMD is low and the expected output loss is slight, the discriminatory tariff due to FMD is negligible. When the risk of importing FMD is high and the expected output loss is great, then the discriminatory tariff is prohibitive.


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Uruguay Round Custom Official Total Barrier Uruguay Round Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aulaqi, N.A. and W.B. Sundquist. 1979. “A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Spread and Control in the United States,” in E.H. McCauley et al. eds., pp. 71–102, A Study of the Potential Economic Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States. Staff paper TB-1597. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  2. Ingco, M.D. 1994. “How Much Agricultural Liberalization Was Achieved in the Uruguay Round?” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, Washington, DC (15–16 December).Google Scholar
  3. Krutilla, J.D. 1991. “Environmental Regulation in an Open Economy.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20: 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Paarlberg, P.L. and J.G. Lee. 1998. “Import Restriction in the Presence of a Health Risk: An Illustration Using FMD.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sullivan, J., J. Wainio, and V. Roningen. 1989. A Database for Trade Liberalization Studies. Economic Research Service Staff Report No. AGES89-12. Washington, DC: ERS/USDA.Google Scholar
  6. USDA/APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 1996. “Importation of Animal and Animal Products: Proposed Rule.” Docket No. 94-106-1. Federal Register 61(76): 16977–17027 (18 April).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip L. Paarlberg
    • 1
  • John G. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations