National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: A: SPS Agreement
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×

Appendix B
Conference Program

INCORPORATING SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICS IN SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY STANDARDS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

January 25–27, 1999

National Academy of Sciences and Engineering

Beckman Center, Irvine, California

January 25, 1999

7:15–8:00 p.m.

Keynote Address Historical and Social Science Perspectives on the Role of Risk Assessment and Science in Protecting the Domestic Economy: Some Background

G. Edward Schuh, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
January 26, 1999

8:20–8:30 a.m.

Introduction

V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics

Session I:

Agricultural Trade, Risk Assessment, and the Role of Culture in Risk Management

Moderators: Raymond A. Jussaume, Jr., Department of Rural Sociology, Washington State University

Peter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University of Washington

8:30–9:00

Overview of SPS and Agricultural Trade

Donna Roberts, Economic Research Service, USDA

9:00–9:15

Discussion

9:15–9:45

An Overview of Risk Assessment

John D. Stark, Department of Entomology, Washington State University

9:45–10:00

Discussion

10:00–10:30

BREAK

10:30–11:00

Technological Risk and Cultures of Rationality

Sheila Jasanoff, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

11:00–11:15

Discussion

Session II

General Case Studies

Moderator: Julie Caswell, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts

CASE STUDY 1: MEAT SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING PRACTICES (INCLUDES VETERINARY EQUIVALENCE AND HAACP)

11:15–11:45

Bent Nielsen, Veterinary and Food Advisory Services, Copenhagen, Denmark

11:45–12:15

Bruce A. Silverglade, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C.

12:15–1:30

BREAK

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
CASE STUDY 2: PLANT QUARANTINES AND HASS AVOCADOS

1:30–2:00

Walther Enkerlin Hoeflich, Mexican Stone Fruit Inspection Program, Clovis, California

2:00–2:30

David Vogel, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

Case Study 3— Genetically Modified Organisms

2:30–3:00

Peter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University of Washington

3:00–3:30

Paul B. Thompson, Department of Philosophy, Purdue University

3:35–4:00

BREAK

Session III

Case Study Discussions

4:00–5:30

Breakout group discussions

5:30

ADJOURN

January 27, 1999

8:20–8:30 a.m.

Announcements

V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics

8:30–9:30

Individuals reports from breakout groups

Session IV

Political And Ecological Economy

Moderators: V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics

David Vogel, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

9:30–10:00

Ecological Impacts

Karen Goodell, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stoney Brook

Peter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University of Washington

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×

10:00–10:45

Discussion

10:45–11:15

The Political Economy

David G. Victor, Council on Foreign Relations, New York

11:15–11:30

Discussion

11:30–12:00

Accounting for Consumer Preferences in International Trade

Jean-Christophe Bureau, Station d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, Institute for Agricultural Research, Grignon, France

12:00–12:15

Discussion

12:15–1:30

BREAK

Session V

Resolving Current SPS Trade Disputes and Establishing a Basis for Defusing Future Conflicts (see questions below)

Moderators: Timothy Josling, Institute of International Studies, Stanford University

D. Warner North, NorthWorks, Inc., Belmont, Calif.

1:30–3:00

Panels and General Discussion

Linda Horton, International Policy, Food and Drug Administration

Dan Sumner, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis

James H. McDonald, Division of Behavioral and Cultural Studies, University of Texas at San Antonio

Julie Caswell, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts

3:00–3:15

Closing Comments

V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics

3:15

ADJOURN

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Session III: Case Study Discussions

Risk analyses incorporate scientific information to measure and describe impacts on health and the environment from exposure to contaminants. They require information of the substances, sources, exposure median and patterns, events at risk, affected populations and response options. Using the conference case studies as a basis for discussion, please provide your input to the following questions:

  1. Who (e.g., nations, organizations) performed a risk assessment? Why? What was the outcome?

  2. How was the risk assessment process managed? What sciences were involved and what was lacking in the analysis? How well were the natural and social sciences used? How did cultural values and beliefs influence the way that various countries/regions assessed the soundness of science in the process?

  3. What was the source of the problem or solution that led to that outcome (e.g., regulatory structure)?

  4. What sciences should be included and how can these sciences be integrated in risk analyses used for SPS decisionmaking?

Session V: Resolving Current SPS Trade Disputes and Establishing a Basis for Defusing Future Conflicts
  1. What is the current role of natural and social sciences in SPS decisionmaking?

  2. What is missing from the decision-making process?

  3. What is the role of private sector standards and voluntary labeling systems? How far can the public authorities rely on the industry to regulate itself? Would such self-regulation work in global markets? Should one try to harmonize such liability laws across countries?

  4. What public educational needs are there in this area? Should governments coordinate their educational efforts? Is there a role for international organizations in addressing consumer concerns directly? What research needs have been identified in the area? What institutional support might be warranted for this research?

  5. What changes in the procedures of national regulatory agencies would assist with the prevention of trade conflicts? Should these agencies coordinate more, or is the responsibility for control of domestic market? Are these agencies independent of domestic vested interests, such as producer groups?

  6. What more can be done to promote the use of international standards? Has the experience with Codex, IPPC, and the OIE been satisfactory in resolving or reducing trade frictions? What are the effective limits to the use of

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×

harmonized standards? Is there a role for international agencies which would have the responsibility of setting standards rather than just suggesting them? What is the role of regional and bilateral SPS agreements? Is mutual recognition of national standards a viable option?

  1. What is a reasonable conceptual and empirical framework for incorporating cultural and scientific factors in SPS decisionmaking?

Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"B: Conference Program." National Research Council. 2000. Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9868.
×
Page 268
Next: C: Program Participants »
Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $70.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

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 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.

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.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!