Abstract
The advent of biotechnology products has triggered a spirited debate about how we should assess risks, who should undertake the task of defining what is acceptable, what rules we should draw upon and where we should vest the authority to decide. In recent decades there has been a strong move to normalize and institutionalize a ‘science-informed’ system in international science and international treaties. Recently there has been a substantive pushback against the privileged role scientists and science institutions play in decision-making, especially in the introduction and use of genetically modified (GM) crops. We assess the underlying information, valuation and selecting rules involved in the battle between ‘science-informed’ decision-making and rules incorporating socio-economic considerations . This chapter examines the underlying rules, processes, structures, efforts and outcomes to normalize innovative technologies in global agri-food trade.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
A, C, G and T represent the four nucleotide bases of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.
- 2.
With the exception of agriculture where export subsidies were capped (Hobbs and Kerr 2000).
References
Bhagwati, J. 1982. Directly unproductive, profit-seeking (DUP) activities. Journal of Political Economy 90, October: 988–1002.
Einsiedel, E., and D. Eastlick. 2000. Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication 21: 323–343.
European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels: European Commission Press.
European Commission. 2011. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council of December 2008.
Gray, R., S. Malla, and P.W.B. Phillips. 2006. Product innovation in the Canadian canola sector. Supply Chain Management 11 (1): 65–74.
Haas, P. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.
Hobbs, J.E. 2010. Public and private standards for food safety and quality: International trade implications. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 11 (1): 136–152.
Hobbs, A.L., and W.A. Kerr. 2000. First salvoes: A guide to the opening proposals at the WTO negotiations on agricultural trade. Agribusiness Paesaggio and Ambiente 4 (2): 97–108.
Isaac, G.E., and W.A. Kerr. 2003. International trade, intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge—The case of plant genetic resources. Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development 3 (2): 75–85.
James, C. 2015. 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the Global Commercialization of Biotech Crops and Biotech Crop Highlights in 2015. ISAAA Brief No. 51. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Kerr, W.A. 2000. A new world chaos?—International institutions in the information age. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 1 (1): 1–10.
Kerr, W.A. 2003. The efficacy of the TRIPS: Incentives, capacity and threats. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 4 (1): 1–14.
Kerr, W.A. 2010. What is new in protectionism?—Consumers, cranks and captives. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (1): 5–22.
Kerr, W.A. 2016. Disequilibrium, trade and the consequences of adjustment. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 17 (2): 59–75.
Kerr, W.A., and J.E. Hobbs. 2005. Consumers, cows and carousels: Why the dispute over beef hormones is far more important than its commercial value. In The WTO and the Regulation of International Trade, ed. N. Perdikis, and R. Read, 191–214. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Krebs, J.R. 2000. GM foods in the UK between 1996 and 1999: Comments on “Genetically modified crops: Risks and promise” by Gordon Conway. Conservation Ecology 4 (1): 11.
Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laband, D., and J. Sophocleus. 1988. The social cost of rent-seeking: First estimates. Public Choice 58 (3): 269–275.
Ludlow, K., S.J. Smyth, and J. Falck-Zepeda (eds.). 2014. Socio-economic considerations in biotechnology regulation. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
McGinnis, M.D. 2011. An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. The Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 169–183.
Mokyr, J. 2002. Innovation in an historical perspective: Tales of technology and evolution. In Technological innovation and economic performance, ed. B. Steil, G. Victor, and R. Nelson, 23–46. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1994. Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. An introduction to the biosafety consensus documents of OECD’s working group for harmonization in biotechnology, No. 32 in the Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in biotechnology. Paris: OECD.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Phillips, P.W.B. 2007. Governing transformative technological innovation: Who’s in charge?. Oxford: Edward Elgar.
Phillips, P.W.B., and H. McNeill. 2002. Labeling for GM foods: Theory and practice. In Market development for genetically modified foods, ed. V. Santaniello, R.E. Evenson, and D. Zilberman, 245–261. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Phillips, P.W.B., and S.J. Smyth. 2004. Managing the value of new-trait varieties in the canola supply chain in Canada. Supply Chain Management 9 (4): 313–322.
Phillips, P.W.B., D. Castle, and S.J. Smyth (eds.). 2015. Biotechnology, agriculture and development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Reinert, K.A., R.S. Rajan, A.J. Glass, and L.S. Davis (eds.). 2009. The Princeton encyclopaedia of the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Simon, H. 1955. A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99–188.
Spriggs, J., and G.E. Isaac. 2001. International competitiveness and food safety: The case of beef. Wallingford, UK: CAB International Publishing.
Wilsden, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: DEMOS, Green Alliance, RSA and Environment Agency.
World Trade Organization. 1994. Marrakesh Declaration of 15 April 1994, Geneva, World Trade Organization. Online at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/marrakesh_decl_e.htm.
World Trade Organisation. 1998. Appellate Decision, Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon—Complaint by Canada, AB-1998-5 (Appeal from WT/DS18). Online at: http://wto.org.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smyth, S.J., Kerr, W.A., Phillips, P.W.B. (2017). Multilateral Trade Negotiation Options. In: Biotechnology Regulation and Trade. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53295-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53295-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53293-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53295-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)