Alberto Alemanno has an interesting post on the relationship of Codex setting food safety standards and WTO law:
Although few Europeans outside of the livestock industry have heard about this veterinary drug, the establishment of MRLs of ractopamine by the Codex Alimentarius Commission is set to become not only the trigger of another endless transatlantic trade dispute, but also a test case for the emerging, yet fragmented, multilateral food safety governance system
Although few Europeans outside of the livestock industry have heard about this veterinary drug, ractopamine is set to become not only the source of public concern but also the trigger of another endless transatlantic trade dispute.
After years of scientific and political deadlock, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) narrowly voted (69-67), on July 5, 2012 to adopt the first-ever maximum residue levels (MRLs) for ractopamine hydrochloride, a controversial veterinary drug used in animal feed that boosts growth and promotes leanness in pigs and cattles, and, to a limited extent, heavy turkeys.
This decisions is a big win for the United States', Brazil's and Canada's trade interest and a lost combat for the 100 countries that have banned – on human and animal health grounds – the use of this substance in recent years. Among the latter countries, there are the EU and China, who together account for 70% of the world’s pig production. While this decision has been welcomed by the countries who use the drug in livestock production as a victory for ‘science-based’ standard-setting within Codex, the conditions surroundings its adoption signal the limits faced by the actual food global governance system for food safety epitomized by the institutional collaboration established between the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius.
In particular, the high polarization on the political acceptability of the substance as well as the politicization of its underlying science that have accompanied the discussions within Codex are likely to weaken the legitimacy and overall effectiveness of the adopted standard on the multilateral global food safety governance. In particular – as it has been widely observed – this decision, by making it easier for the U.S. and others to challenge countries like China, the European Union and Taiwan for having zero tolerance policies for ractopamine residues in meat products, is likely to lead the World Trade Organization to judge against those countries that ban the use of ractopamine. Yet this likely outcome begs the question of whether the weight of an international standard adopted with a one vote difference could realistically be considered tantamount to one adopted under consensus. While there is no doubt that legally speaking these standards are equal (see EC-Sardines), one may wonder – along the lines of the European Commission’s press release published in the aftermath of the adoption of the Codex standard – whether “for standards to be universally applicable, they (should) also need to be universally accepted”. Moreover, what makes the ractopamine case even more complex than previous similar disputes, such as EC-Hormones, is the range of public concerns invoked to sustain the legality of the restrictive measures. Not only it is claimed that ractopamine raises human health risks but also animal health and welfare considerations are invoked.
In the meantime, in the aftermath of the Codex Alimentarius’ vote on minimum amount of ractopamine,Taiwan has declared to be ready to relax its ban of beef containing ractopamine residues, while Russia is ready to ban them for the first time.
In these circumstances, ractopamine is set to become the source of another endless transatlantic trade dispute and a test case for the embryonic and fragmented global food governance system.
