US–Poultry (China) was the first Panel decision dealing with an origin-specific SPS measure, or with what the United States referred to as an ‘equivalence regime’. More specifically, it was the first instance in which the basis for the challenged measure was the claimed inability of the complainant country to enforce its own food-safety rules. Unfortunately, as the litigation developed, the very interesting novel issues raised by such a measure were not discussed. This essay discusses those novel issues – in particular, what sort of scientific justification or risk assessment should be required for a measure like this, and what SPS Article 4 says about equivalence regimes. The essay also criticizes the Panel's analysis of some of the issues the Panel does discuss, such as the meaning of the ‘appropriate level of protection’ in SPS 5.5 and 5.6, and the relationship between the SPS and GATT XX(b).

This paper quantifies the effect of GMO regulation on bilateral trade flows of agricultural products. We develop a composite index of GMO regulations and using a gravity model we show that bilateral differences in GMO regulation negatively affect trade flows. This effect is especially driven by labeling, approval process, and traceability. Our results are robust to the endogeneity of GMO standards to trade flows.

By disentangling productivity- from quality-sorting in horticultural exports, this paper investigates the impact of food safety standards and consumers’ preference for quality on developing countries’ capacity to export high care and differentiated agricultural products (HCAs). Using a unique database on US import refusals, the empirical analysis shows that a shock to reputation has a downgrading effect, reducing the capacity to participate and benefit from trade in HCAs. The occurrence of at least one refusal in the current year reduces HS 6-digit average unit export price by over 8% and the long-run propensity suggests a 25% cut.

Professor Regan's paper on the US–Poultry (China) case provides highly interesting insight both into the facts of the case and the Panel's reasoning, as well as the broader systemic issues lurking behind them. The author has identified a number of thought-provoking aspects in a case that, at first glance, appears to be a relatively bland SPS dispute.

The multilateral trading system has continuously evolved to take account of the changing nature of non-tariff barriers (NTBs). This paper contrasts GATT terminology with the definitions frequently found in the literature and describes the multilateral tools that were used in the past to identify NTBs. The latter includes an overview of inventories based on ‘reverse’ notifications and, more recently, the ‘specific trade concerns’ raised in WTO Committees. The paper also looks at the provisions cited by complainants in more than 60 years of multilateral disputes as a proxy for identifying the most relevant NTBs affecting trade in goods, as well as the manner in which they have evolved over time. It concludes that agricultural and non-agricultural products face very different NTBs, and observes that while disputes involving agricultural products are increasingly about ‘behind-the-border’ NTBs, those involving non-agricultural or mixed products are not. Finally, the paper proposes the establishment of a new multilateral instrument to collect and classify information on NTBs based on specific trade concerns raised in the context of the ordinary WTO bodies.

Private standards have increasingly become a contentious issue in the multilateral trading system. The ever increasing number of sector-specific standards developed by businesses, in particular in the food market, may have significant implications for developing countries in terms of market access. Some countries see private food standards as a particular form of non-tariff barriers. The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with non-tariff barriers in the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and in the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). This paper examines to what extent these agreements cover private standards, as they were originally intended to regulate standard-setting by public authorities. We find that there is an important difference between the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement in that the drafters of the latter realized the importance of the private sector in standard-setting. Finally, we discuss whether a ‘Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards’, similar to that under the TBT Agreement, could be adopted under the SPS Agreement.

This paper investigates whether the Pesticides Initiative Program has significantly affected the export performance of Senegal's horticulture industry. We apply two main microeconometric techniques, difference-in-differences and matching difference-in-differences, to identify the effect of the Pesticides Initiative Program on exports of fresh fruits and vegetables. We use a unique firm-level dataset containing data on sales, employment, and exports by product and destination markets, as well as firm enrolment year, over 2000–2008. The results suggest that while the program had no significant effect on exports pooled over all products and destinations, it had a positive effect when considering fresh fruits and vegetables exports to the European Union.