Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference Overview JULIE A. CASWELL Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts The rapid expansion of international trade has brought to the fore issues of conflicting national regulations in the area of plant, animal, and human health. These problems include the concern that regulations designed to protect health can also be used for protection of domestic producers against international competition. At a time when progressive tariff reform has opened up markets and facilitated trade, in part responding to consumer demands for access to a wide choice of products and services at reasonable prices, closer scrutiny of regulatory measures has become increasingly important. At the same time, there are clear differences among countries and cultures as to the types of risk citizens are willing to accept. The activities of this conference were based on the premise that risk analyses (i.e., risk assessment, management, and communication) are not exclusively the domain of the biological and natural sciences; the social sciences play a prominent role in describing how people in different contexts perceive and respond to risks. Any effort to manage sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues in international trade must integrate all the sciences to develop practices for risk assessment, management, and communication that recognize international diversity in culture, experience, and institutions. Uniform international standards can help, but no such norms are likely to be acceptable to all countries. Political and administrative structures also differ, causing differences in approaches and outcomes even when basic aims are compatible. Clearly there is considerable room for confusion and mistrust. The
OCR for page 2
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference issue is how to balance the individual regulatory needs and approaches of countries with the goal of promoting freer trade. This issue arises not only for SPS standards but also in regard to regulations that affect other areas such as environmental quality, working conditions, and the exercise of intellectual property rights. This conference focused on these issues in the specific area of SPS measures. This area includes provisions to protect plant and animal health and life and, more generally, the environment, and regulations that protect humans from foodborne risks. The Society for Risk Analysis defines a risk as the potential for realization of unwanted, adverse consequences to human life, health, property, or the environment; estimation of risk is usually based on the expected value of the conditional probability of the event occurring times the consequence of the event given that it has occurred. SPS regulations that come under the purview of the World Trade Organization (WTO) SPS Agreement are those that (1) protect animal or plant life or health within a territory from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease-carrying organisms, or disease-causing organisms; (2) protect human or animal life or health within a territory from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs; (3) protect human life or health within a territory from risks arising from diseases carried by animals, plants, or products thereof, or from entry, establishment, or spread of pests; or (4) prevent or limit other damage within a territory from the entry, establishment, or spread of pests (see Appendix A for WTO SPS Agreement 1994, Annex A). The task of this conference and of this report was to elucidate the place of science, culture, politics, and economics in the design and implementation of SPS measures and in their international management. The goal was to explore the critical roles and the limitations of the biological and natural sciences and the social sciences, such as economics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and political science in the management of SPS issues and in judging whether particular SPS measures create unacceptable barriers to international trade. The conference's objective also was to consider the elements that would compose a multidisciplinary analytical framework for SPS decision making and needs for future research. CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION A two-and-a-half-day conference was held in Irvine, California, January 25–27, 1999, to examine the roles of the biological and natural sciences, economics, sociology, politics, and culture in the management of trade issues related to SPS standards in the post-Uruguay Round era. Speakers and participants were drawn from across several disciplinary backgrounds: biology and natural sciences, sociology, economics, political science, and philosophy. They represented government agencies, universities, consumer and environmental groups, and producer organizations. Geographically, they represented the United States, Mexico, and the European Union. The conference
OCR for page 3
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference program and questions for the breakout group discussions are presented in Appendix B. Program participants are presented in Appendix C, and conference participants are listed in Appendix D. The main themes discussed at the conference were defined through a background discussion (Chapter 1), the topics selected for six commissioned papers (Chapters 2–7), and three case studies (Chapters 8–10). During his after dinner presentation, G. Edward Schuh laid out historical and social science perspectives on protectionism, a perspective on risk assessment, and an emphasis on the importance of adjustment policies in the process of trade liberalization (Chapter 1). This presentation provided an intellectual context for discussions presented in the commissioned papers. Each commissioned paper discussed one or more dimensions of how current institutions for SPS management perform and explored challenges for future management of the SPS process. The first group of commissioned papers (Chapters 2–4) addressed how the current system is operating and the challenges in managing SPS issues in international trade. The presenters were an economist, a natural scientist, and a social scientist. They discussed the current institutions for SPS management from an economic perspective (Chapter 2), the scientific issues faced in conducting risk assessments (Chapter 3), and cultural and political approaches to risk and its management (Chapter 4). The second group of commissioned papers (Chapters 5–7) went into further depth on the biological, political, and economic questions that arise in SPS management. The presenters were a natural scientist, a political scientist, and an economist. They addressed the challenges in predicting the outcome and impacts of biological events (Chapter 5), the principles being developed by the world trading system to settle SPS-related disputes (Chapter 6), and how consumer concerns and the benefits and costs of regulation can be accounted for in SPS management (Chapter 7). Case studies offer insights into the degree to which the different sciences and disciplinary approaches have been and are being integrated in the management of SPS issues in international trade. SPS cases have been gaining in prominence in recent years, particularly in the context of the dispute resolution process set up under the WTO. SPS cases may be cross-classified by four major characteristics. The first is the type(s) of risk involved (e.g., to human, plant, animal, or environmental health). The second is by the trading partners involved in the case (e.g., developed-developed country trade or developed-developing country trade, trade within or between trading blocs). The third characteristic is the degree of current resolution of the case (e.g., settled versus on-going). Finally, cases are distinguished by the type of action trading partners have taken to manage the issues. These actions might include voluntary bilateral negotiation of equivalency; multilateral standard setting, for example through Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex); or disputes, for example at the WTO. Three cases that cut across the four major characteristics discussed above were selected as case studies for the conference. The first case study (Chapter 8) focused on the management of SPS issues related to international trade in meat products. Here countries are concerned with evaluating each other's process
OCR for page 4
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference standards for production, slaughtering, and processing operations and final product standards. International trade in meat products may pose human or animal health risks. To date, most SPS management conflicts and efforts at regulatory rapprochement in this area have been among developed countries but they also occur in developing-developed country trade. This is an on-going SPS case area where the main approach to management has been cooperative through international standard setting and bilateral negotiation. The second case study (Chapter 9) focused on plant and food product quarantines, with a specific discussion of changes in the U.S. quarantine policy for Hass avocados being imported from Mexico. Here the risk is phytosanitary and the trading partners involved are a developing and a developed country. The case was resolved through bilateral negotiation between the United States and Mexico in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The final case study (Chapter 10) discussed the international management of SPS issues related to the use of biotechnology, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in the agricultural, food, and fiber sector. The use of biotechnology may pose human, plant, animal, or environmental risks. Management of SPS issues related to biotechnology is a current focus of attention across the developed and developing countries. It is being negotiated between countries in bilateral and multilateral fora, and it is often speculated that GMO management could result in a WTO trade dispute between the United States and the European Union. A natural scientist was paired with a social scientist in presenting each of the three case studies. The scientists were asked to address the following questions: How and how well are the sciences used in managing (or disputing) SPS differences between countries? How do cultural values, beliefs, and politics influence the ways that different countries and regions approach issues of risk analysis for SPS issues? How might the various sciences be better integrated or be used in a more complementary fashion in risk analyses used for SPS decision making? The speakers' perspectives on these issues in their case study areas are presented in Chapters 8–10. CURRENT INSTITUTIONS FOR MANAGING SPS ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE Background The key principles for the management of SPS issues in international trade were negotiated in the writing of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), which was negotiated in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and is administered by the WTO. The SPS Agreement is intended to improve the climate for trade in agricultural and food products by specifying the mutual obligations of countries to avoid unnecessary trade impediments. The agreement rests on, and interacts with, a broad base of international standard-setting
OCR for page 5
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference activities and developments in national, bilateral, and multilateral regulatory programs. Early efforts at trade reform focused on reducing tariff barriers. In recent years, social regulation designed to protect people and the environment has been transformed dramatically in the United States and many other developed economies. Today, each developed country has an extensive system intended to protect its citizens and the environment, whereas countries in the developing world typically have less extensive systems. The result of these transformations in regulatory activities is a diverse array of policies across countries that address the same goals—protection of citizens and the environment. The SPS Agreement builds on a long history of international efforts to base domestic SPS regulatory programs on similar principles. However, the ongoing challenge is whether particular regulations that are acceptable and desirable to domestic stakeholders are likely to be compatible with an international regime designed to facilitate trade. The need for an SPS Agreement had been felt for some time prior to its implementation in 1995. Trade conflicts in this area were becoming increasingly difficult to resolve. Existing trade rules gave countries the freedom to control imports (e.g., through use of bans, inspection systems, or labeling requirements) to protect human, animal, and plant health, but also to choose the basis for imposing such trade controls. As a result, a number of conflicts had arisen over the years, which were not easily resolved by the existing institutions. One such conflict was the complaint by the United States and Canada about the European Union's rules, dating back to 1988, banning the importation of beef from cattle treated with growth-enhancing hormones. The SPS Agreement was aimed at just such disputes, which could not be effectively addressed under prior trade agreements because there was no binding process for the settlement of disputes. The prospect was for both a larger number and more extensive conflicts in the future. The beef hormone issue, although very prominent, involves a relatively small amount of trade. In contrast, the increasing use of genetically modified soybeans and corn in the United States implies that much of the supply of these products to the food processing industry will be from transgenic crops. If major overseas markets block the importation of foodstuffs incorporating the products of GMOs, then the resulting trade tensions will dramatically overshadow the beef hormone issue. Differences in attitudes toward the use of hormones in beef production and toward the use of GMOs in foodstuffs are striking examples of a more general issue. Can cultural differences among countries for evaluating threats to people and the environment be managed within an international trading system? Do differences in the characterization of the events at risk and subjective perceptions of the extent of the risk and whether it is worth taking call into question a single approach to risk management? Is a primary emphasis on science appropriate as a way of reducing conflicts? Or does it merely transfer the conflict to other stages of the decision-making process? And how should social science, political economy, and other considerations be incorporated into decisions? Politics obviously play a role in both the domestic regulations and the trade tensions. How does one allow politics to translate the desires of consumers
OCR for page 6
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference and producers through normal democratic processes without abandoning the trade system to control by special interests and distortion by those with other agendas? The conference participants sought to address these questions regarding the ways of regulating the global food industry to protect against the spread of disease, while at the same time maintaining the ability of countries to differ in tastes and cultural conventions. Provisions of the SPS Agreement The SPS Agreement is the strongest current international management tool for addressing SPS issues. It attempts to specify a framework within which individual countries should design their SPS measures (see Chapters 2 and 6). It is believed that if all countries adopt this framework, trade conflicts can be resolved in a more routine fashion. The framework embedded in the SPS Agreement has at its core the concept of risk analysis, although it does not fully adopt the three-part paradigm of risk analysis (risk assessment, management, and communication). The agreement focuses on the use of risk assessment as a necessary element in a country's choice of SPS measures that, consequently, have an impact on market access for imported products. Countries are free to choose their appropriate level of protection against imported pests and pathogens, but their regulations must be demonstrably based on an assessment of risk and clearly related to the control of the risk. Thus, the SPS Agreement seeks to harmonize analytical frameworks for addressing risk but not necessarily the level of protection required in each country. SPS decisions based on this model can then be regarded as ''safe" from challenge by trading partners. The basic logic that underlies the agreement is that the use of science and risk assessment will provide an adequate basis for managing SPS risks. SPS measures that are maintained without such evidence can be challenged (SPS Agreement, Article 2.2). Several other provisions of the SPS Agreement play a significant role in the design of domestic regulations in the plant, animal, and human health area. They require that SPS measures not discriminate in an arbitrary fashion among WTO members, or in a way that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade (Article 2.3). The use of international standards is strongly endorsed (Article 3.1), notably those of the Codex, the International Office of Epizootics (OIE), and the regional and international organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Using these standards relieves the country of the threat of challenge by other countries. Although countries can set standards that exceed the international norms, once again these must be based on scientific evidence (Article 3.3). In addition, countries are encouraged to accept as equivalent to their own the standards of exporting countries, which give the same level of protection, albeit by other means (Article 4.1). The concept of "pest-and disease-free" zones is recognized as a useful way of managing risks to plants, animals, or people while facilitating trade. These provisions rely on identifying areas that an exporting country can demonstrate to be free of a particular pest or disease (Article 6). Notification
OCR for page 7
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference procedures are also established to increase the transparency of the regulations (Article 7). From the point of view of clarifying the use of science and the place of economics, culture, and politics in SPS management, the key provisions of the agreement are contained in Article 5. This article attempts to define the requirements for the "assessment of risk" and the determination of the "appropriate level of protection." Under the agreement, risk assessment typically involves the identification of the hazard, appraisal of the likelihood of the consequences of the hazardous situation, and specification of the way in which the SPS measure reduces those consequences. This framework structures the issues as if the whole process falls within the realm of science, although it is, of course, acknowledged that scientists may disagree over aspects of any particular risk assessment and that there may be significant gaps in knowledge. However, the provision that a country should establish an "appropriate level of protection" allows other factors to be considered in defining comparable levels of safety. Specifically, in the case of plant and animal health (although not human health), the SPS Agreement allows the country to take into account economic and biological factors (Article 5.3). The country is left to decide the appropriate level of protection, thus giving the opportunity for the expression of political and cultural differences. All SPS measures must still be based on the assessment of risk even if they take into account other considerations, and measures should be used consistently so that they do not provide arbitrarily higher or lower levels of protection in different cases (Article 5.5). SPS measures should also not be more trade restrictive than necessary (Article 5.6). Where scientific data are not yet available to determine the appropriate policy, interim measures may be adopted until the required information is available (Article 5.7). Other provisions of the WTO have implications for the management of SPS issues. Most important is the concept of national treatment, which requires a country to apply the same rules to domestic and imported products. In addition, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) sets criteria for technical regulations that affect trade. Although the TBT Agreement does not apply to SPS measures, it may come into play for a particular regulatory measure that does not have safety and health implications. For example, a measure such as a set of restrictions on the marketing of food products produced with the use of GMOs could be considered an SPS matter if the restrictions' goal is related to plant, animal, or human health, but a TBT issue if it is not. The SPS Agreement has been the basis for several disputes over the course of its operation. The panels, which adjudicated the disputes, and the appellate reports that reviewed the panels' findings, have added valuable case law that helps in understanding the likely consequences of the agreement. The most important of these cases has been that concerning the European Union's ban on the import of beef treated with hormones (the hormone case). In its ruling, the WTO Appellate Body emphasized the central importance of the obligation to base public health measures in the food sector on an objective assessment of risks. The European Union was found (inter alia) not to have based its import ban on such a risk assessment. The panel also recognized that science cannot in
OCR for page 8
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference itself dictate the SPS measures taken. But the measure had to have a "rational relationship" with the objective risk assessment. As important as these dispute settlement results have been, probably more important have been the efforts that national governments have taken to review their SPS measures and alter them to establish greater conformity with the SPS Agreement. They have done so to avoid possible challenge, but also more broadly to demonstrate good faith compliance with the agreement and encourage others to comply. Such changes give hope that the elaboration of the rules for SPS measures in the agreement will contribute significantly to a reduction in trade conflicts and greater transparency in global food and agricultural markets. At this point it is also useful to highlight what the SPS Agreement does not do or is not designed to do. The SPS Agreement does not formally use the full language of risk analysis currently employed in international regulatory circles. That language breaks the risk analysis process into three steps: risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. As Donna Roberts noted in Chapter 2, the SPS Agreement does not use the term risk management, but instead refers to a country's choice of an "appropriate level of protection." The language describing risk assessment in the SPS Agreement presupposes integration of the elements of both conventional risk assessment and management as they have been used in the rule-making case law for domestic regulation of risks. Early cases have focused on the adequacy of the risk assessment providing the basis for an SPS measure. It is also important to acknowledge that the agreement requires that the SPS measure adopted be the least trade restrictive. Unfortunately the provisions of the agreement do not provide clear criteria for judging regulations based on this criterion. The agreement also includes some discussion of dimensions of an economic analysis that could underlie evaluation of SPS restrictions, but does not endorse or require the use of cost-benefit analysis as a component of a country's SPS decision making. As part of WTO, the SPS Agreement has a primary focus on trade facilitation, while protecting the rights of countries to provide a level of protection that they deem to be appropriate. The agreement, disputes settled under it, and the ongoing and future trade negotiations all contribute to the development of precedents analogous to domestic rule making and judicial processes for regulation. These activities serve as fora for countries to define common principles for the management of SPS issues in international trade. In themselves, however, the SPS Agreement and the WTO process are not the primary international vehicles for such goals as improving SPS safety levels. The extent of protection is the venue of the international standard-setting bodies and bilateral and multilateral negotiations. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO SPS MANAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE The SPS arena is distinguished by the broad array of risks addressed within it. These risks range from control of the incidental importation of Asian long-
OCR for page 9
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference horn beetles on wooden pallets and the levels of pathogens in packaged meat products to the possible plant, animal, and human risks of GMOs. The choice by governments of measures to address these risks and the international management of the trade consequences of those choices necessarily require analytical approaches from a range of disciplines. In the first years of experience under the SPS Agreement, risk assessment based on the biological and natural sciences has been the most prominent discipline in this process. However, cultural, political, and economic concerns have also shaped the experience. Some critics argue that the current approach may overemphasize scientific risk assessment at the expense of other important considerations. Risk assessment, particularly if too narrowly conceived, may be an inadequate basis for managing SPS issues and international relations. For example, a conference participant commented on an apparent contradiction in some current approaches to managing SPS issues, noting that as the social and life sciences are recognizing that they need to be more holistic and integrative, trade agreements can be subject to a reductionist perspective by putting complex, multidimensional issues in separate boxes. The management of SPS issues in international trade requires an integrated framework. This involves broadening the risk assessment approach taken in the SPS Agreement to include explicitly the three elements of risk analysis: risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. This may involve explicit consideration of differences in what constitutes an appropriate risk analysis for different types of SPS issues (e.g., threats to plant, animal, human, or environmental health). It may also include greater emphasis on comparative risk evaluations where the events and process associated with risks can be compared. And it may be coordinated with cost—benefit analysis to measure the full welfare implications of SPS measures and gauge their economic importance in relation to the net benefits from liberalizing international trade. A discussion of these points follows. Broadening Cultural Perspectives for Systematic Risk Analysis Culture was a major underlying theme in many of the presentations at the SPS conference. Social scientists have long recognized that an appreciation of the role of culture is crucial in any comprehensive risk analysis. As Sheila Jasanoff noted in her paper, "Divergent responses to risk, in particular, point to the ability of social norms and formations—in short, culture—to influence deeply the ways in which people come to grips with the uncertainties and dangers of the natural world" (Chapter 4). Jasanoff described several ways in which these coping strategies can manifest themselves. First, framing is used to put boundaries on a problem that in principle can be solved. However, it is also important to acknowledge that, depending on the frame selected, different nations may vary in their response to the same threat. For example, she noted that Western scientists often attribute climate change to global emissions of greenhouse gases, whereas activists in developing nations tend to blame centuries of unsustainable practices by
OCR for page 10
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference industrialized nations as the root cause of the problem. Second, Jasanoff argued that nations vary in style of regulation, which is often exhibited in processes used to provide interaction and communication between the bureaucracy and the population being impacted by policy. The United States, in particular, has a regulatory process that is more formal in terms of soliciting and processing input. At the same time, many disputes are more adversarial and require litigation for resolution. In other nations, affected parties may be expected to react directly to a perceived risk. Differences in the framing and style of regulation also accompany divergences in the types of evidence that governments and the public consider suitable for use in decision making. A striking contrast between nations is the emphasis on quantitative risk assessment in the United States to estimate the risks and uncertainties of cancer versus the use of more qualitative, weight-of-evidence approaches in Europe. With increased globalization and participation of disparate cultures in international trade, Jasanoff predicted that risk debates will become more numerous. Even among nations that appear to be closely similar in economic, social, and political aspirations, divergences in conceptualization and management of risk may preclude convergence in regulatory policies. Despite the recognition by science of the importance of cultural differences in risk evaluation, the SPS Agreement provides no guidance and offers little scope for incorporating cultural analysis into SPS trade issues. The chapter by Jean-Christophe Bureau and Stephan Marette identified a series of questions about how culture affects risk assessment that are very difficult to resolve (see Chapter 7). They noted that it seems straightforward to acknowledge the cultural right of Islamic nations to erect trade barriers to pork imports. However, the U.S. beef exporters have been less willing to accept the fact that a large percentage of European consumers may have a "cultural aversion" to eating beef produced with growth-enhancing hormones or antibiotic drugs. Similarly, producers of French specialty cheeses made under traditional systems that have been codified under French law, and which utilize unpasteurized milk, take exception to U.S. policies that prohibit the importation of those cheeses on the grounds that they are not perceived to be safe. A related theme that emerged from the conference, and one that was not addressed by the framers of the SPS and related agreements, is that culture also influences the "best scientific" risk assessments. Scientists are embedded within their own cultures, and their own cultural background influences their work. One example of this is whether "risk control" or "risk elimination" is selected as an appropriate scientific strategy for responding to a particular food safety problem. For example, in 1997 a number of people became seriously ill in the state of Washington as a result of exposure to Salmonella typhimurium DT-104. This exposure was traced to the eating of traditional-style queso fresco cheeses made from unpasteurized milk. The response chosen by consulted university scientists was to eliminate the risk by developing a new queso fresco recipe that could utilize pasteurized milk. This approach was successful, but an approach that was designed to control risk by developing a system similar to Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points for testing of nonpasteurized milk was not selected. One would guess that French food scientists would not suggest a
OCR for page 11
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference program to develop new recipes for traditional French cheeses that would permit the use of pasteurized milk. Culture can also influence the implementation of "best science" by affecting the way a scientist frames a research problem. This issue was discussed in John Stark's presentation on assessing risks to the environment associated with the introduction of exotic plants or insects to a particular ecosystem (see Chapter 3). He noted that there are many types of risk that can be evaluated as part of a risk assessment, such as hormesis (benefits of a small dose of a toxin), individual-versus population-level effects, effects on population structure, variation in life stage susceptibility, and the selection of specific measurement endpoints. There are also many ways that they can be evaluated. As a consequence, it is inevitable that professional judgment becomes part of the risk assessment process. The cultural superstructure in which a scientist lives undoubtedly influences his or her perception of what questions to ask and which risks to evaluate. Incorporating culture into risk analyses adds a level of complexity to the process that many policymakers may prefer to avoid. However, citizen/consumer perceptions are an integral part of many SPS trade issues, and given that scientists must exercise personal judgments in conducting complex risk assessments, the issue of culture must be confronted. This suggests that risk assessments of important SPS trade issues will need to be both transdisciplinary and transnational if they are to be effective in contributing to the resolution of these issues. A participant at the conference posed the question, "For what purpose are we looking at cultural differences in SPS management? Are we looking to sustain them or to eliminate them?" Sheila Jasanoff responded that she was concerned that positions on risk analysis issues are justified as being purely rational, even though they contain unquestioned cultural elements. Cultural differences should persist at least long enough for people in different countries to understand analytical approaches to SPS management and evaluate whether they reflect their own underlying value commitments. At the same time, Jasanoff would not advocate a totally relativist position. There are analytical approaches that are better, but fostering those positions requires understanding of cultural differences and recognizes the importance of persuasion. Science: The Challenges of Risk Assessment The scientific and conceptual challenges involved in risk assessment for SPS issues were a second underlying theme of the conference. A particular emphasis was on these challenges in relation to ecological risk assessments. Risk analyses of all kinds typically struggle with data gaps, large uncertainties, the need to extrapolate, and the difficulty of quantifying risks associated with extremely unlikely events of large magnitude. Ecological risk analyses are, however, hampered by a unique set of additional exacerbating challenges. There are few "model systems" in ecology (such as laboratory mice or bacterial cultures) that can be used for extrapolation. There is no widely accepted quantitative theory (such as the exponential decay of radioactivity) for making even the simplest of calculations. Ecology is often viewed as a science of
OCR for page 12
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference "special cases," in which the details of history and contingencies override any possibility for generality. The case studies and presentations on ecological risk assessment illustrated the complexity of the underlying processes that create these impressions. The Mexican Hass avocado was initially excluded from the United States on the premise that its importation could also lead to the importation of insects that were thought to feed on avocados in Mexico. Once these products were allowed in, it was assumed that the pests would attack California avocados. To address these risks, feeding trials were performed with the Hass avocado and the pests—a specific species of fruit flies (no other avocado or fruit fly species would have sufficed as "model systems" because plant—insect associations are highly specialized). As Walther Enkerlin Hoeflich suggested, observations needed to be done exactly at the locations in which the Hass avocados were grown (see Chapter 9). Thus, a risk analysis had to be conducted with Hass avocados and no other avocado, and the analysis had to be conducted in the state of Michoacan that is the primary export source for these avocados. Models and extrapolations played no role in this risk assessment. Instead, the matter was resolved by direct experimentation using the avocado variety of interest and the pests that were hypothesized to be likely culprits. Even with such an empirical approach, there remained some ambiguity. In particular, one of the fruit fly species that was of concern thrived on the Hass avocado if the fruit was detached from the tree and the flies confined inside cages. However, under natural field conditions this species of fruit fly was never found to have attacked avocados (favoring alternative hosts). Hence, the risk was assumed to be negligible because avocados exported from the relevant region of Mexico were never infested and, thus, were unlikely to be a source of infestation to California. This is an interesting case study, because if one relied solely on the caged experiments using detached avocados (which might be thought of as a "model system") then one would conclude that there was substantive risk associated with importing this crop. Only when the cage experiments were combined with detailed natural history observations in the field was the risk found to be minimal. The discussion of the ecological impacts associated with biological invasions presented by Karen Goodell, Ingrid Parker, and Gregory Gilbert dealt with planned and unplanned introductions of species (see Chapter 5). Although only agricultural risks were considered when deciding whether to allow importation of Hass avocados, recent research has indicated the importance of considering a wide range of ecological risks that might arise when a non-native species is introduced into a country. The diverse array of examples presented by Goodell et al. reveal a familiar theme: Few model systems can be identified, each biological invasion seems to have a unique story, and there is little theoretical or modeling guidance on how one might anticipate risks without detailed empirical work. They concluded, "As of yet, we are unable to predict which successful invasions may have the biggest impacts." Conference participants discussed the use of experimental versus "natural world" science in the case of phytosanitary issues. For example, one commentator argued that ecologists are less willing to extrapolate calculations because part of the
OCR for page 13
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference business of ecologists is to emphasize variability and unpredictability in the natural world. One of the problems of predicting the biological impacts of invaders is that the organisms themselves are often not well known. Indeed, as Goodell et al. pointed out, the basic taxonomy—simply identifying what species is present—is commonly a limiting factor. But even organisms that seem "well known" have their surprises. For example, if one is performing a risk analysis on a well-studied crop plant that has been carefully engineered using recombinant DNA technology, it might be expected that the risk assessment would be a simple matter. Moreover, as a prelude to actually commercializing a transgenic plant (a crop with DNA from another species inserted using recombinant DNA technology), hundreds of greenhouse and field trials are typically performed. However, as Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier pointed out in their review of different international approaches to transgenic crop regulations, surprises occur with these well-studied plants and the uncertainties of ecology and evolution confound evaluations of even the most domesticated organisms (Chapter 10). The sophistication of scientific approaches to GMOs has increased enormously in the past few years. Initially, "safety" was naively assumed to be potentially ensured by strategies for containment, and intrinsic risk was thought to be characterized simply by listing the traits of the crop plant being modified, without any primary data. Currently, a wide variety of national policies regarding GMOs in agriculture have converged on some common approaches: (1) it is the phenotype of the modified plant that is key, not where the DNA came from; (2) familiarity offers some safety assurance; and (3) if the traits are likely to confer some ecological advantage to a recipient plant, then data regarding their transfer to wild relatives and the likely impact in a wild population are desirable. However, there are again no "model systems" for making risk assessments or any well-accepted models or theories that might lead to quantitative estimates of risks, or even "bounds on risk." In GMOs, there is increasing emphasis placed on monitoring as a device for catching any mistakes, including any cases where an unsafe transgenic plant is allowed to be commercially produced. John Stark's review of ecotoxicology opened an entirely different window on ecological risk analysis, but with familiar results (Chapter 3). Human toxicology uses well-established laboratory animals for toxicity studies and has well-defined standards. Ecotoxicology initially adopted a similar approach, producing dose-response curves for standard organisms such as honeybees and Daphnia. As ecologists have become more involved in the field of ecotoxicology, they have criticized this simple model system approach and have sought more ecologically meaningful measures of risk. Stark pointed out that it is not obvious which species should be used when assaying chemical toxicity, and because we obviously cannot test all species, some decision must be made. Beyond the difficulties of selecting a species, Stark also pointed out that traditional mortality studies miss the important fact that toxicity strongly depends on population structure (e.g., relative numbers of juveniles versus adult individuals). Thus, as ecotoxicology becomes more realistically "ecological," its
OCR for page 14
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference risk assessments lose the false security of simple models systems and straightforward quantitative tools, such as dose-response curves. If one were to try to reduce the above four case studies and presentations of ecological systems and their risk analysis issues to one message, one might be tempted to conclude that ecological risk analysis is anecdotal and haunted by "special cases" as opposed to general principles: There are no standard calculations and no model systems or even reference systems. These judgments partially reflect the fact that ecology is profoundly influenced by the details of species' associations and historical events. The processes also include many nonlinear indirect effects. In this context an indirect effect can be as simple as the observation that if a pesticide kills pest insects and their predators at equal rates, the net result will be higher prey populations. This "indirect effect" arises because mortality on predators does more than remove predators; it removes a negative feedback on pest population growth. Indirect effects can get much more complicated. For example, it would have been almost impossible to predict that gypsy moths enhance the prevalence of Lyme disease, as reported by Goodell et al. (Chapter 5). Scientists have called for greater investment in databases for ecotoxicology, non-indigenous species, pests, and GMOs. In the absence of good models, the best route may be an encyclopedia of examples that can be consulted for statistical generality. In general, this approach is likely to become a "principle" of ecological risk assessment—generalities will have to be empirically rather than theoretically based. To some extent, this view is consistent with the use of meta-analysis to combine diverse empirical evidence from experimental and nonexperimental sources and recover insights into the underlying processes. The purpose of statistical analyses can be used to detect all influential factors, including small and subtle effects that could become net large impacts with widespread introductions. However, the very acceptance of such an empirical and statistical "model" carries with it the implicit assumption that mistakes may be made. It is no accident that there is also a trend within ecological risk assessment toward the requirement of large monitoring programs. What this means with respect to phytosanitary standards is a foundation that is largely statistical and empirical and that includes a commitment to funding for the support of databases and monitoring programs. Although the above discussion focuses on challenges in ecological risk assessment, risk assessment also faces significant challenges in other areas of SPS management. For example, the case study presentation by Bent Nielsen illustrates the level of analytical and monitoring resources necessary to track sources of Salmonella in pig production and pork processing (Chapter 8). In all areas, the international standard-setting bodies such as Codex, OIE, and IPPC, as well as bilateral and multilateral cooperation, play an important role in developing protocols necessary for sound risk assessment. An outstanding question is the relationship between sound risk assessment protocols for different SPS risk sources. This is particularly important because the SPS Agreement includes consistency of treatment across risk sources as a criterion for evaluating SPS measures.
OCR for page 15
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference The discussion identified additional points regarding risk assessment. Governments recognize that the risk assessments they present in support of their SPS measures have the potential for establishing precedents regarding what is required for a sound risk assessment. Therefore, there is a strategic element in the risk assessment process that influences the factors considered and the quantity and quality of evidence provided. Paul Thompson's case study discussion of GMOs pointed out that the risk assessment community is often quite sophisticated in their deliberations of what is important and how to measure it, whereas citizens/consumers are at an earlier and more basic stage (Chapter 10). The latter may be just beginning to consider whether a risk should be allowed or eliminated and who should be accountable for it. Thus, risk assessment has to involve risk communication from the analysts to citizens/consumers and vice versa. Thompson noted that it would be irrational to deliberate over everything. Too much information creates congestion. We need some sorting mechanism to ensure that important issues are identified and that there is sufficient discussion of the risk management issues they pose. Several participants rejected the notion that if scientists are left to get on with their work, they will be able to deliver objective risk assessments that in turn could be effectively handled by risk managers and communicators as a technocratic process. According to many participants, this is folly. There is a clear need for an iterative risk assessment, management, and communication process. Economics: Measuring the Costs and Benefits of SPS Management Strategies A third theme of the conference was the role economic analysis plays in the design of SPS measures and in their international management. In their paper (Chapter 7), Jean-Christophe Bureau and Stephan Marette argued that "The idea of objective science serving to guide trade practice, which prevails in the SPS Agreement, is debatable. In practice, economic and political considerations are very much intermingled." Most fundamentally, economic considerations influence the risks that are judged as important for assessment. Risk assessment and management require resources. As a consequence, there is an allocation task among competing alternatives and between risk and non-risk-related activities. There will never be sufficient resources to consider all. Thus, only those risks that are important enough are addressed. The economic costs of risks, and the potential benefits of controlling or reducing them, are key factors determining which risks get attention. Risk management focuses on the ways risk may be reduced to an acceptable level, which includes economic considerations. Finally, economics plays a role in determining which disagreements over SPS measures merit the bureaucratic resources required for consultations between countries and, ultimately, WTO disputes. Economic analysis was seen as contributing to the management of SPS issues in several ways. Preliminary benefit or cost analyses can identify the priority SPS issues to be addressed. Cost-benefit analysis also provides an economic measure of the impact of particular SPS regulations. This allows risk
OCR for page 16
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference managers to identify the most effective strategies and also to gauge whether a proposed measure meets the criterion of the SPS Agreement that it be ''least trade restrictive." Although international agreements do not oblige countries to adopt only those regulations whose benefits exceed their costs, analysis of this type may help to avoid SPS measures that clearly decrease welfare and in recognizing the distribution of their benefits and costs within and between countries. In the United States, cost—benefit analysis is institutionalized as a part of regulatory decision making by the requirement that such an analysis accompany major regulations. Furthermore, economics provides analysis of the "market" for SPS protection and of the incentives for governments, companies, and consumers to provide such protection. More generally, economic approaches address the welfare outcomes of SPS and other regulatory measures. Bureau and Marette argued that cost-benefit analysis should take a more prominent place in analyzing trade policy in the SPS area, especially for food-related issues where consumers are interested in a broad range of food attributes beyond safety, including process attributes and ethical and cultural considerations. Estimates of consumers' willingness to pay for particular food characteristics may help to clarify their level of concern about those characteristics. Dispute settlements to date have put risk assessment ahead of other types of analysis. If economic methods were used more systematically, the welfare gains resulting from specific SPS measures could be compared with the welfare gains resulting from freer trade. For example, if a WTO-consistent SPS regulation results in the import of products that do not satisfy consumers' safety, ethical, environmental, or cultural concerns, consumers may avoid those and similar products. The resulting market disruption could lead to a substantial welfare loss. Bureau and Marette noted that it would be paradoxical if trade liberalization, accompanied by international rules designed to settle SPS disputes, were to result in more trade but less welfare. However, several conference participants cautioned against relying too heavily on economic approaches to measuring what is important. One participant said that cost—benefit analyses of trade barriers have the effect of marginalizing the concerns of many people. David Victor made a point related to Bureau and Marette's paper regarding trade and welfare impacts in his discussion of the three disputes on SPS measures that have been decided by the WTO Appellate Body (Chapter 6). Although the decisions made extensive use of risk assessments, they also set a standard that the SPS measures adopted have a "rational relationship" to the assessed risks. This in part requires an analysis of how the measures affect trade. He concluded that, as a growing number of national measures come under scrutiny for their consistency with the SPS Agreement, a requirement for "trade impact assessment" will probably become commonplace.
OCR for page 17
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference Political Science: Establishing International Discipline While Preserving National Sovereignty A fourth theme expressed throughout the conference was the tension between establishing an international discipline on SPS measures as they affect trade and the preservation of countries' abilities to deliver the level of SPS protection that they and their citizens desire. We are seeing an international legal system in the making, with early cooperative efforts among countries, activities of the international standard-setting bodies, and WTO disputes shaping perceptions about how well the system is working. David Victor discussed the experience to date with the SPS Agreement, particularly in the context of the three cases that have gone through to the WTO Appellate Body level of the dispute settlement process. Although the SPS Agreement gives more prominence to international standard-setting bodies, in the early period their role was not crucial because decisions rested on the quality of the risk assessment rather than on whether it was in conformity with an international standard. In fact, Victor argued that standardization of approaches to and the use of risk assessment, rather than of SPS standards themselves, is the most likely outcome under the SPS Agreement. It is even possible that the agreement could result in more diversity of standards as better risk assessments are done and more information is utilized, or as countries bring less stringent standards into line with stricter ones. Victor argued that the fact that the cases found the challenged SPS measures to be illegitimate does not indicate that the agreement is biased against strict SPS regulation. Rather, they involved measures that were readily established as not based on sound risk assessment. Moreover, they did not set clear standards for judging whether an adopted SPS measure is "least trade restrictive." As a result of the SPS Agreement, countries are becoming more disciplined and internally consistent in risk assessment and management. This evolution in discipline is part of the procedural standardization discussed in Victor's paper (Chapter 6). It will likely promote transparency and facilitate determinations of equivalency between different countries' standards. The SPS Agreement will likely always have "teeth" due to the requirement of a risk assessment. International standards and risk assessment protocols may facilitate SPS management but are not crucial to the successful operation of the SPS Agreement. Victor viewed the SPS Agreement as being more accommodating to other than strictly scientific concerns than it is sometimes portrayed. He said that the appellate decisions in the three cases have actually given more latitude to countries than the writers of the SPS Agreement envisioned, but that is probably politically wise. In discussing the Hass avocado case study, David Vogel argued that NAFTA, like the SPS Agreement, places a desirable discipline on political choices within a country (see Chapter 9). Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. government responded with a full quarantine to the potential risk of fruit fly infestation as a result of avocado imports from Mexico. After NAFTA came into effect, a new risk assessment was conducted, and the United States adopted a policy allowing imports under certain conditions and with specific controls. The new policy
OCR for page 18
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference facilitates trade, but still allows the United States to achieve its desired level of protection. Vogel noted that this policy choice was not politically feasible without the outside discipline of NAFTA. Trade agreements can formalize and enforce reciprocal arrangements that are beneficial to trading partners, while limiting the ability of specific interest groups to influence policy in their own favor. However, the Hass avocado case was relatively straightforward because it did not involve issues of human safety. The ability of science alone, based on risk assessment, to work out a solution was greater in this situation. A continuing theme in the conference discussions was the issue of power in SPS decision making. Questions focused on who participates in international deliberations and how much power large companies or nongovernmental organizations have in these discussions. Who is not represented in the discussions? Who are the primary beneficiaries of the current system and who ends up paying the cost of mistakes? A related issue discussed was representation and participation of different countries in the international decision-making process. There was recognition among several participants that the countries most active in developing international SPS institutions represented the interests of well-to-do citizens in wealthy countries. Much conference discussion focused on how different countries and citizens/consumers view the evolving balance between international discipline and national sovereignty. One important determinant of this view is whether the new international institutions are perceived to be resulting in an increase or decrease in domestic levels of SPS protection. David Vogel asked whether the new institutions will create incentives for countries with lower standards to move into line with those with higher standards (leveling or harmonization up) or vice versa (leveling or harmonization down). In the area of meat slaughtering and processing standards, Bruce Silverglade saw evidence of a leveling down effect (see Chapter 8). He saw the United States—European Union beef hormone dispute as an example in which the United States, supported by the WTO, is attempting to limit the European Union's choice of a zero-risk standard. He viewed the acceptance of company employees conducting food safety inspections for meat products to be exported to the United States as another example of leveling down. David Victor saw little evidence of a race to the bottom in the three SPS disputes decided to date. But he did see a political risk that, in transferring attention to the international system of law in this area, there could be a backlash, especially if the system is not flexible enough. Mandatory compliance to ill-accepted international norms may result in citizen/consumer rejection of freer trade, which already has a poor standing in public opinion in many countries. Bureau and Marette argued that food, especially, is a sensitive topic, and few things are more likely to call trade liberalization into question than to have it associated with foisting mediocre, undesirable, or even potentially unsafe products on consumers. The prospect for this type of response is increasing, especially in Europe and parts of Asia, as consumers place increased emphasis on the cultural, ethical, and environmental attributes of agricultural and food products. These attributes may not fit the constructs of the SPS Agreement, or they may fall between the cracks of the SPS and TBT agreements.
OCR for page 19
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference The emphasis of the SPS Agreement on "science" may conflict with the application of the precautionary principle and recognition of other legitimate factors in SPS decision making. Both concepts are under development as applied to SPS issues. The precautionary principle addresses how to proceed (i.e., how much precaution to exercise) when information for risk analysis is inadequate. A statement of the precautionary principle widely used in international discussions is offered by Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Approaches to implementing the precautionary principle in the SPS arena are being discussed. Other legitimate factors refer to additional considerations (e.g., economic development, preservation of traditional production practices) that governments may wish to incorporate in their decision-making. These two concepts are increasingly referenced by governments and public interest groups as desirable additional bases for SPS decisions. At the same time, it was clearly recognized in the conference discussion that safety and other concerns give trade protectionists an opportunity to cheat on market access; cultural and ethical arguments can be used to cover a potentially unlimited number of exceptions to free trade. The discussion focused on the need for an evolving approach to the management of SPS issues in international trade that balances the need for discipline in market access with some safety valves that recognize countries' own desires and, in some cases, their needs for transition time. There was concern that the SPS Agreement's safety valves (recognition of countries' rights to choose the appropriate level of protection, the ability under the agreement for countries to compensate those who are damaged by their disputed standards rather than change the standards, and the ability to adopt interim standards where scientific evidence is not yet available) may prove inadequate. If they do not meet the needs for flexibility, then support for market access and freer trade will diminish. SUMMARY The conference presentations and discussions focused on recent experience with the management of SPS issues in international trade. This discussion necessarily paid great attention to the provisions of the SPS Agreement of the WTO. Nonetheless, it was recognized that this agreement is part of a much more extensive international effort to balance market access and free trade with countries' abilities to provide SPS protection within their boundaries. The discussion among conference participants can be summarized in the following points associated with the roles for science, culture, politics, and economics in the design of SPS regulations (measures) and their international implementation: The SPS Agreement, negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round of GATT, is the central current framework for SPS management in international trade. It uses risk assessment as a "scientific" response to the need to assess existing SPS
OCR for page 20
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference and related technical measures as barriers to trade. It also incorporates other criteria, for example, through the provision that SPS measures should be the least trade restrictive possible. Domestic and international experience suggests that a comprehensive approach to risk issues is important. In recent years such an approach has been followed within the framework called risk analysis, which includes risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. This experience also suggests that risk analysis must consider the multidimensional nature of the framing of risk issues. Risk analysis requires the input of many of the sciences, including the biological and natural sciences, as well as social and behavioral sciences and the law, although each may be more prominent in different phases of the risk analysis. Development of consistent protocols, within and across countries, for using risk analysis and resolving SPS issues is an evolving process. The SPS Agreement itself does not explicitly use the full framework of risk analysis but contains elements of it. The initial emphasis in disputes has been on risk assessment, but decisions in those cases, as well as experience in bilateral and multilateral negotiations on equivalence, indicate that risk management and communication issues are also central to addressing SPS issues. Resolution of differences in approaches to risk, including risk assessments, may lead to greater use of comparative risk evaluations. For example, a country's risk standard for one SPS threat may be evaluated relative to how it tolerates and manages risk for another SPS threat. Comparative risk evaluation is also key to determining equivalence in countries' SPS measures and may contribute to harmonization of regulatory approaches. Management of SPS risks requires specific guidelines for risk analysis with input from the biological and natural sciences, economics, sociology, political science, and other disciplines. These guidelines may outline the various phases of risk analysis and indicate where these different approaches make their most direct contributions. They could also provide a clear discipline on SPS measures that function primarily as barriers to trade. There may be merit in exploring a role for biological, natural, and social scientists in providing input to the WTO on developing criteria documents on oversight of risk analysis practices, development of approaches to comparative risks, and coordination of risk analysis with cost-benefit analysis. As trading partners seek to establish a discipline on SPS measures and coordinate their policies, it is important to build some safety valves into the process in order to recognize marked differences in regulations due to differences across countries in the evaluation of risk sources and events at risk. Researchers and policymakers could consider the characteristics of safety valves, including compensation, that when built into the system may smooth establishment of reasonable SPS discipline, maintain support for freer international trade, and reasonably protect countries' abilities to manage SPS risks.
OCR for page 21
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference Prospects for the Future It is important to recognize that a great deal of progress has been made in the management of SPS issues in international trade. The new trade agreements and bilateral and multilateral efforts have brought a desirable discipline to national decision making on SPS measures. All the sciences have contributed to this progress. The social sciences, for example, have contributed through institutional design. The biological and natural sciences have contributed through the development of protocols for risk assessment. It is important to recognize that the prominent trade disputes before the WTO are only a small part of the process, with multilateral and bilateral cooperation writing the larger story. However, the disputes are important beyond the trade and SPS issues affected because they form perceptions about the costs and benefits of the new trade discipline. As we move forward, development of a systematic framework addressing all the important factors that influence SPS decision making and its impact on international trade may be desirable to improve market access and address the backlog of SPS concerns. We have such a framework in the form of the risk analysis paradigm. This framework highlights the roles that the different sciences can play in the management of SPS issues in international trade. Politics, sociology, culture, and economics play a role in determining which risks will be subjected to a risk analysis. In effect, there has to be something striking about a particular risk before resources are expended to understand and analyze it. The risk assessment phase of risk analysis relies heavily on the biological and natural sciences. This is what the SPS Agreement primarily refers to when it discusses "science." But the social sciences and philosophy also play a role here because risk assessment in part rests on predictions of how humans will act. Politics, economics, and culture play prominent roles in risk management in the choice of measures to address important problems identified in risk assessments. The SPS Agreement requires that the measures adopted be the "least trade restrictive." Economics can play a strong role in measuring costs and benefits of SPS measures and evaluating their level of trade restrictiveness. The natural sciences can play an important role in risk management as well, particularly in identifying effective risk management strategies and approaches. Finally, the social sciences are prominently featured in risk communication. A key consideration for future progress in the management of SPS issues in international trade is the recognition that risk analysis is an iterative process. Risk assessment is not followed in lock step by risk management and then risk communication. Managers move back and forth between the parts of the risk analysis using the different sciences, the cultural frameworks of the respective countries, and domestic and international political and economic considerations in making their decisions. Future progress can be made in the management of international SPS issues through recognition of the competencies and contributions of the different sciences and their systematic and integrated use in risk analysis. Ultimately for our international systems to work effectively, they have to be viewed as working effectively by citizens/consumers, governments, and businesses in countries around the world. Clearer integration of a broad
OCR for page 22
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference range of sciences and recognition of different viewpoints may be key elements in meeting this test over time.
Representative terms from entire chapter: