Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel
- 657 Downloads
In May 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina launched a World Trade Organization (WTO) case against the European Union concerning its authorization regime for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The complainants challenged three types of measures: (i) an alleged general moratorium on the approval of GMOs; (ii) delays in the processing of product-specific applications; (iii) national safeguard measures adopted by certain Member States banning the marketing of certain genetically modified products. In November 2006, the WTO condemned the European regime. Using the most recent advances in gravity equation, we estimate the reduction in exports of potentially affected products from the complainants to the European Union. Export losses are calculated by product, complainant country and measure at stake. Our results tend to confirm the foundations of the dispute: the European moratorium and product-specific measures have a negative effect on trade, as do safeguard measures adopted by Germany, Italy and Greece.
KeywordsInternational trade WTO panel Genetically modified organisms Gravity
JEL ClassificationF13 Q17
We especially appreciate the suggestions of Harmen Lehment and an anonymous referee. We thank participants at EEA 2008 and EAAE 2008 for helpful suggestions.
- Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. (NBER working paper 12516). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2006). GM Crops: The first ten years–global socio-economic and environmental impacts. (ISAAA Brief 36). Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.Google Scholar
- Gruère, G. P. (2006). An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries. (IFPRI Discussion Paper 147). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Hufbauer, G. C., Elliott, K. A., Cyrus, T., & Winston, E. (1997). US economics sanctions: Their impact on trade, jobs, and wages. (Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper SPECIAL). Washington, DC: Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
- James, C. (2008). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008. (ISAAA Brief 39). Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.Google Scholar
- Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review, 70(5), 950–959.Google Scholar
- Martin, W., & Pham, C. S. (2008). Estimating the gravity equation when zero trade flows are frequent. Manuscript, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9453/.
- Ramsey, J. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B31, 350–371.Google Scholar
- Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2009). Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. (University of Essex Discussion Paper 666). University of Essex, Colchester: Department of Economics.Google Scholar
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2000). Biotechnology: Implications for U.S. corn & soybean trade. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
- World Trade Organization. (1994). Agreement establishing the world trade organization–Annex 2 understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
- World Trade Organization. (2006). European communities–measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products–reports of the panel. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar