Skip to main content

Trade Distortions in a Free-trade Zone: The Case of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Restrictions

  • Chapter
Agricultural Globalization Trade and the Environment

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 20))

  • 176 Accesses

Abstract

The intent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to create a customs union, or free-trade zone, among the countries of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in which goods and services can be freely traded. The European Union (E.U.) is even more ambitious in that it not only allows tariff-free trade but has also created a common currency. The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) is a free-trade zone that encompasses Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and is similar in scope to the zone designated in NAFTA.

Thomas H. Spreen, John J. VanSickle and Charlene Brewster are professor, professor and postdoctoral research associate, respectively, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of Suzanne Thornsbury, University of Florida, Indian River Research and Education Centre, Fort Pierce, FL; Richard Kinney of the Florida Fresh Fruit Shippers Association; Charles Moss of the University of Florida; and the editorial assistance of H. Carole Schmitz, Jason Snart, and Kim Box.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • FASS (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service). Various issues. Citrus Summary. Orlando, FL: FASS.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Various issues. Citrus Statistics. Rome, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, C. and D. Zilberman. 1992. “Pesticides and Worker Safety.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, R. and D. Hueth. 1979. “Welfare Measures in a Multimarket Framework.” American Economic Review 69: 947–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, E. and D. Zilberman. 1990. “Efficient Regulation of Human Health and Safety Under Uncertainty: California Water Quality Case Studies,” in D. Zilberman and J. Siebert, eds., Economic Perspectives on Pesticide Use in California. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muraro, R.P., J.W. Hebb, and E.W. Stover. 1998. “Budgeting Costs and Returns for Indian River Citrus Production, 1997–98.” Economic Information Report 98–5, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (August).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyamusika, N., T. Spreen, O. Rae, and C.B. Moss. 1994. “A Bioeconomic Analysis of Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex.” Review of Agricultural Economics 16: 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orden, D. and E. Romano. 1996. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Invited paper presented at the NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? symposium, San Antonio, Texas (November).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg, P.L. and P.C. Abbott. 1986. “Oligopolistic Behavior by Public Agencies in International Trade: The World Wheat Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(5): 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D., T.E. Josling, and D. Orden. 1999. “Technical Barriers to Trade: An Analytical Framework.” Technical Bulletin No. 1876, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. and R. Howitt. 1993. “Aggregate Evaluation Concepts and Models,” in G. Carlson, D. Zilberman, and J. Miranowski, eds., Agricultural and Environmental Resource Economics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (World Trade Organization). 1999. “Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures.” Internet website: http://www.wto.org/wto/goods/spsund.htm (April).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Charles B. Moss Gordon C. Rausser Andrew Schmitz Timothy G. Taylor David Zilberman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spreen, T.H., VanSickle, J.J., Brewster, C.M. (2002). Trade Distortions in a Free-trade Zone: The Case of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Restrictions. In: Moss, C.B., Rausser, G.C., Schmitz, A., Taylor, T.G., Zilberman, D. (eds) Agricultural Globalization Trade and the Environment. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 20. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1543-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1543-2_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5606-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1543-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics