The search for rules for non tariff barriers : fire blight of apples

Abstract

An appropriate objective for trade policy ought to be to maximise imports. Unfortunately, trade policy negotiators get very caught up in the facilitation of this objective by necessarily arguing about access for exports, Krugman (1997). In this context, a very long list of issues have developed over the last 75 years which are being used as barriers to trade. These technical barriers to trade, as Hillman (1991) called them, have become very prominent in recent years in part because processes are now in place to deal with tariffs and quotas and that has exposed a myriad of restrictions below the surface of traditional trade policy. One of these issues concerns bio-security: our attempts to manage the risks associated with pests and diseases in national and international eco-systems. As in all topical political areas, bio-security is difficult to deal with because a mythology surrounds the issues creating significant divergence between the expectations of the polity and reality. Consider the area of risk perceptions and the use of growth promotant hormones in beef cattle as an example. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has employed international scientific panels to show that the naturally based growth promotant hormones are very unlikely to be harmful to humans. The hormones occur naturally and cannot be detected where they are artificially injected into cattle. Furthermore, the hormones are probably being used in the European Union (EU) in any event. Nevertheless, the EU continues to resist the importation of American (US) beef which might contain these substances. The disease, fire blight has a number of parallels with the growth promotant hormone case. This paper examines the fire blight case with a view to attempting to devise principles that might be used to ensure that foreign suppliers are accorded national treatment in the spirit and letter of international trade law.