Search

The gross value of Australia's agriculture industry in 2001/2002 was A$38.4 billion with 65% allocated to exports. The major exports markets are South East Asia, Japan, USA, and the EU. Products include wool, beef, wheat, cotton, sugar, and wine. For Australia there have been significant changes over time in markets and production arrangements in the international arena. This is also true of the domestic market especially in the area of meat products. Australians, once dominant red meat eaters, have now ‘gone chicken.’ The total yearly consumption of meats averages around 110 kg per person. Beef up until recent years has always been the dominant player. However, in the last 30 years chicken consumption has risen from being a marginal food item to being a product that is expected to eclipse beef consumption in the very near future. This paper explores the trends and examines the changes as they are reflected by the behaviour of consumers and market chain drivers. The paper provides suggestions that could he gainfully employed at the consumer behaviour levels for other meat producers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The thesis of this paper is that governments of some otherwise enlightened states are increasingly fearful of acknowledging the restraints imposed on them by existing international law. They are also reluctant to enter into new commitments by way of international conventions that would expand the reach of international law. The paper asks whether these fears are based on a true understanding of international law or on some distorted view of it. It will draw comparisons and some contrasts between Australia and the United States in their reactions to a number of recent events as well as to some enduring situations of contemporary relevance. Had time (and the limits of my research) permitted, one might also have examined public attitudes toward international law in China, Japan, and Russia in this context, where similar fears appear to be entertained. France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, also enlightened states, appear by contrast to belong to a group more dedicated to international law. As Robert Kagan has recently remarked, the experience of two world wars at close quarters, and the formation of the European Union, have made the European countries more dedicated to process, where the United States is more interested in results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents new evidence on availability, use, and prices of biopharmaceuticals in five major European Union (EU) markets, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Mexico, relative to the United States. Our data set from IMS Health includes all product sales in 2005. Per capita spending on biopharmaceuticals was at least twice as high in the United States as in the other countries. This difference reflects primarily greater availability and use of new, relatively high-price molecules and formulations. Prices for identical formulations are not higher on average in the United States. The broader price indexes, which do not control formulation, are also not higher in the United States, after adjusting for income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On June 1, 2006, the trade associations representing the personal care industry of the European Union, the U.S., Japan and South Africa agreed on an International Sunscreen Protection Method. What will this mean? Sunscreens are regulated throughout the world either as cosmetics, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs which do not require a governmental pre-approval or OTC drugs that require a pre-approval before they are placed on the market. Regardless of how they are regulated, all of these product regulations are very similar concerning sunscreens! Each country has a pre-approved list of permitted UV filters, an accepted method of running efficacy by SPF determination, and regulated labels. Some countries have approved methods for UVA claims and water-resistance testing. The latest changes are in Australia, where some sunscreens will be regulated as cosmetics based on SPF and claims, and Canada, where some sunscreens will be regulated as Natural Health Products depending on their actives! And now here comes a new variable, the harmonized SPF method. What confusion! This paper will cover the different SPF test methods (Harmonized, Australia, and US-FDA) along with the formulations of reference standards, currently approved UVA methods, water-resistant testing, some labeling requirements and finally a brief review of cGMPs and other requirements for the U.S. It will have an update of the recent changes in regulations and cover the approved UV filters permitted in the U.S., EU, Japan, Canada and Australia as well as their maximum use level and correct ingredient designation. There is also a master cross reference list by INCI designation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]