Search

US and European Union (EU) approaches to the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are often explained using the ideas of 'sound science' and the 'precautionary principle'. These stereotypes, however, can be misleading. They can conceal conflicts within jurisdictions and important interactions between them. This paper avoids these ideas and instead analyses conflicts and interactions associated with the regulation of GMOs in the USA and the EU, using the example of Bt maize - a genetically modified crop. It focuses on risk assessment as a standard-setting process, and explains changes in regulatory standards. In this case, public protest and trade conflict created an opportunity for a transatlantic network of critical scientists to challenge regulatory standards and for non-governmental organizations to press for higher ones. The paper links two analytical perspectives to account for how this happened. 'Regulatory science' helps to explain what happens when the 'private' government-industry-academia network associated with risk regulation is opened up to greater public scrutiny. It also helps to explain how the context and content of regulatory science mutually shape each other. 'Trading up' helps to explain opportunities and pressures to raise regulatory standards associated with US-EU trade liberalization and trade conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the policies or measures taken by the U.S. and the European Union (EU) to induce market actors to rethink their exposure to the Chinese economy in such a way that supply chains become less reliant on China. Topics include ways in which such policies encourage firms to decouple from China, the impact of the trade regime on consolidation of strategic competition with China, and arguments on U.S. and EU's increasing number of measures of geoeconomic orientation.