The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been the target of social justice activists since its inception in 1994, with many seeking to reshape or rescind the WTO agreements. This article instead explores possible interventions into WTO adjudication by compelling the reinterpretation of existing WTO documents. Such an approach can take several forms: mobilizing professional expertise, engaging technical standards, and constructing companion regimes. Using the recent United States/European Community genetically modified organisms (GMO) case as a reference point, this article explores opportunities for implementing the last two strategies. The Codex Alimentarius, an international food standards regime, seems to provide a particularly promising location for reconstructing WTO risk and governance procedures. The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, an international environmental regime, deeply challenges narrow readings of WTO texts but may not have enough legal force in the WTO. These alternative locations for intervention hold promise and risks for activists seeking international justice in environment, food, and trade.
Barry, A.2001. Political machines: Governing a technological society . London: Athlone.
2.
Barrett, K., and C. Raffensperger1999. Precautionary science. In Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, eds., C. Raffensperger, and J. Tickner, 106-22. Washington, DC : Island Press.
3.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
4.
Bohanes, J.2002. Risk regulation in WTO law: A procedure-based approach to the precautionary principle. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law40 (2):323-89.
5.
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (CBP).1999. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity . New York: United Nations.
6.
Codex Alimentarius Commission.1999. Guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of organically produced foods. CAC/GL 32-1999. Geneva : Codex Alimentarius Commission.
7.
---. 2003. Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44-2003. Geneva: Codex Alimentarius Commission.
---. 2005b. Guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements. CAC/GL 55-2005. Geneva: Codex Alimentarius Commission.
10.
---. 2006. Codex Website. www.codexalimentarius.net (accessed August 3, 2006).
11.
Dickson, D.1984. The new politics of science. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
12.
Gottweis, H.1998. Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Gupta, A.2000. Creating a global biosafety regime. International Journal of Biotechnology2 (1/2/3):205-30.
14.
Hajer, M.A.1993. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis, eds., F. Fischer, and J. Forester, 43-75. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
15.
Halfon, S.2006a. The disunity of consensus: International population policy coordination as socio-technical practice. Social Studies of Science36 (5):783-807.
16.
---. 2006b. Harmonizing international trade and environmental policy: The WTO, Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, and risk-based precaution.’’ . In Actas de seminário internacional: ‘‘Scientific proofs and international justice,’’ eds., E. Rodrigues, and H. Machado, 23-49. Minho, Portugal: Sociology Studies Unit, University of Minho .
17.
Health Canada.1998. Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association expert panel on rbST. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/rbst/animals/index.htm (accessed December 15, 2008).
18.
Howse, R.2002a. The sardine panel and AB rulings: Some preliminary reactions . Legal Issues of Economic Integration29 (3):247-54.
19.
---. 2002b. Symposium: The boundaries of the WTO. From politics to technocracy-and back again: The fate of the multilateral trading regime. American Journal of International Law96 (1):94.
20.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
---. 1995. Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In Resistance to new technology , ed., M. Bauer, 311-31. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
22.
---. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Keck, M.E., and K. Sikkink1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
Levidow, L., and S. Carr2000. Unsound science? Transatlantic regulatory disputes over GM crops. International Journal of Biotechnology2 (1/2/3):257-73.
25.
Levidow, L., J. Murphy, and S. Carr2007. Recasting ‘‘substantial equivalence’’: Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology, & Human Values32 (1):26-64.
26.
Miller, H.I.1999. Commentary-Substantial equivalence: Its uses and abuses . Nature Biotechnology17 (11):1042-3.
27.
Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer1999. Commentary: Beyond ‘‘substantial equivalence .’’ Nature401 (7):525-6.
28.
Pauwelyn, J.2001. The role of public international law in the WTO: How far can we go?American Journal of International Law95 (3):535.
29.
Poli, S.2004. The European Community and the adoption of international food standards within the Codex Alimentarius Commission. European Law Journal10 (5):613-30.
30.
Porter, T.M.1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Safrin, S.2002. Treaties in collision? The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization agreements. American journal of international law96(3):606.
Schwarz, M., and M. Thompson1990. Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
34.
Stabinsky, D.2000. Bringing social analysis into a multilateral environmental agreement: Social impact assessment and the Biosafety Protocol. Journal of environment and development9(3):260-283.
35.
Swinbank, A.1999. The role of the WTO and the international agencies in SPS standard setting. Agribusiness15 (3):323.
36.
Thornton, J.2000. Pandora’s poison: Chlorine, health, and a new environmental strategy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
38.
U.S. Government, Executive Branch.1994. Use of bovine somatotropin (BST) in the United States: Its potential effects . Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. Available at www.rbstfacts.org/fileadmin/user_upload/The_Use_of_BST_in_the_US__Potential_Effects.pdf(accessed, May 8, 2009).
39.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).2003 . FDA warns milk producers to remove ‘‘hormone free’’ claims from the labeling of dairy products. In USFDA Press Release. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00943.html . (accessed, May 8, 2009). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00943.html. (accessed, May 8, 2009).
40.
Veggeland, F., and S.O. Borgen2005. Negotiating international food standards: The World Trade Organization’s impact on the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions18 (4):675-708.
41.
Wallach, L., and M. Sforza1999. Whose trade organization? Corporate gloablization and the erosion of democracy. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.
42.
Winickoff, D., S. Jasanoff, L. Busch, R. Grove-White, and B. Wynne.2005. Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law. The Yale Journal of International Law30(1):81-123.
43.
World Trade Organization (WTO).1998. EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones). WTO Appellate Panel. WT/DS26/AB/R.
44.
---. 2003a. European communities-measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States. WTO Dispute Resolution Panel. WT/DS291/23.
45.
---. 2003b. Japan-measures affecting the importation of apples. WTO Appellate Body. WT/DS245/AB/R.
46.
---. 2006. European communities-measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: Reports of the panel. WTO Dispute Resolution Panel. WT/DS291/R.
47.
Wynne, B.2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10 (4):445-81.
