1 / 36

Non-Nuclear WMD: Risk and Perception in the Cold War and Post-9/11 Era

Non-Nuclear WMD: Risk and Perception in the Cold War and Post-9/11 Era. Food Safety, Risk Analysis, International Trade and related multidisciplinary research Justin Kastner (PhD, 2003, University of Guelph) Assistant Professor, food safety & security

clea
Download Presentation

Non-Nuclear WMD: Risk and Perception in the Cold War and Post-9/11 Era

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Non-Nuclear WMD: Risk and Perception in the Cold War and Post-9/11 Era Food Safety, Risk Analysis, International Trade and related multidisciplinary research Justin Kastner (PhD, 2003, University of Guelph) Assistant Professor, food safety & security Dept. of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA 16 June 2005 | Guest lecture

  2. The International Food Trade • World trade in agricultural products: $547 billion1 • Developing countries produce 45% of traded crops, livestock, and livestock products2 1 2004 Statistics for 2001, from World Trade Organization. (2004). Agriculture Negotiations: Backgrounder. Retrieved 2 February, 2004, from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd90_stats_e.htm 2 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2004). Agriculture. Retrieved 2 February, 2004, from http://www.fao.org/trade/agri.asp

  3. Food Trade and Barriers • Traditional trade barriers: subsidies, quotas, and tariffs • 1986-1994 Uruguay Round: • Tariffication | Conversion of many food trade barriers into tariffs • Transparency| ta‘rīf: “to make known” • Tariff-reductions| in Agreement on Agriculture

  4. “…as border barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, fall, other obstacles to market access [emerge].” - de Jonquières andDunne, Financial Times, 8 March 1999, italics added

  5. The Problem “While often legitimately employed to protect public health, health protection measures can also simply be disguised barriers to trade.” - Moy, G.G. (1999)

  6. The SPS Agreement • Uruguay Round | Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(SPS Agreement) • Sanitary measures | human and animal health • Phytosanitary measures | plant protection

  7. The SPS Agreement • Recognizes national rights to protect health • Ensures that sanitary and phytosanitary measures are not: • Arbitrary, • Discriminatory, or • Scientifically unjustifiable

  8. The SPS Agreement and the World Trade Organization WTO “enforcement” WTO treaty agreement: wronged countries may suspend tariff concessions (that is, apply tariffs) to violating countries.

  9. The SPS Agreement & Risk Analysis • Risk Analysis | Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication • The SPS Agreement specifically mentions risk assessment

  10. The SPS Agreement & Risk Analysis • The SPS Agreement also recognizes three scientific standard-setting bodies that embrace risk analysis: • Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) | food safety • Office International des Epizooties (OIE) | animal health • International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) | plant health • Article 3.1: Recognition of international (Codex, OIE, and IPPC) standards

  11. The SPS Agreement & Risk Analysis • Article 5.1: Measures must be based on risk assessment • Measures must also be consistently applied If international standards do not exist or A country decides to adopt a higher “Appropriate Level of Health Protection” (ALOP),

  12. The SPS Agreement & Risk Analysis • WTO Cases involving risk analysis • N. America and European Union | hormone-treated beef • Canada and Australia | salmon

  13. Hormone-treated beef • Economic factors and risk-perception motivating the EU ban • Risk assessment (Article 5) the principal basis for the ruling against the EU. • Comprehensive risk analysis, including risk management, recognized in the appellate ruling

  14. Salmon • Economic factors, specifically in Tasmania, influential • Consistency of Appropriate Levels of Health Protection (ALOPs) a key for the ruling against Australia

  15. Other Risk Analysis issues • Article 4: Equivalence • Non-Risk Analysis Factors in Disputes • The need to feed a population (e.g., 19th-century Britain, modern-day Russia and China) • New approaches to regionalization • New approaches to capacity building in developing countries

  16. Other Risk Analysis issues • The SPS Agreement... • ...requires the notification of new SPS regulations

  17. The SPS Agreement’s requirement for notification To promote transparency and the pre-emption of trade disputes, WTO member countries notify one another of new or anticipated SPS regulations that will have an impact on trade

  18. The SPS Agreement’s requirement for notification • Key trade-policy questions: • How does developing countries' participation in the notification process compare with developed countries? • What types of SPS concerns (food safety, animal disease, or plant disease) are most frequently invoked?

  19. The SPS Notifications Tool • Notifications from WTO member countries summarized • Sample period: Jan 2003 – June 2004 • Web-based research tool that uses Macromedia FLASH technology Kastner, J., Cash, J., Anders, B., Timmons, S., and Helou, E. “SPS Notifications Tool” (online multimedia research tool that maps and summarizes World Trade Organization member countries’ trade-related food safety, animal health, and plant health regulations). http://fss.k-state.edu/research/tools/wtosps.html, October 2004.

  20. Why cross... ...disciplinary frontiers? • By blending insights from multiple disciplines, scholars can paint truer pictures of today’s food safety and security problems. • - Commentary of 9 March 2005, “Food Safety & Security: more discipline(s) required,” by C. Kastner, J. Sargeant, & J. Kastner(http://fss.k-state.edu)

  21. Academic discipline(s) needed • Academic discipline... • ...involves making sense of the world within a community & tradition of reason • peer-reviewed journals • peer-attended conferences • et cetera

  22. Academic discipline(s) needed • Academic traditions of reason... • ...adhere to the community’s “speech” • ...feature certain assumptions & practices Because of linguistic limitations and prevailing assumptions, single-discipline studies may fail to capture the multiple dimensions of food safety & security

  23. Subtle benefits of crossing disciplinary frontiers • As scholars cross disciplinary frontiers they... • ...must translate discipline-specific language • ...must interpret and explain discipline-specific assumptions Crossing disciplines presents the opportunity to cross media frontiers!

  24. Why cross... ...media frontiers? To promote “public scholarship” (e.g., in commentaries, opinion-editorial pieces, video, radio, etc.) To cater to a multimedia-attracted culture

  25. Which is more convincing? “Ian Curtis Kastner is so much fun!” or...

  26. Multidisciplinary & Multimedia Research multiple media formats

More Related