English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The World Trade Organization (WTO) recently ruled on the case brought by the US, Canada and Argentina against the moratorium imposed by the European Union (EU) on imports of genetically-modified (GM) food and crops. Although the WTO's ruling has been greeted by the complainant countries as a victory, it found in their favor on only one narrow technical procedural issue, and it rejected more substantive challenges to the EU moratorium. In this article, we analyze the WTO report and explain the issues at stake, focusing particularly on the question of why the USA chose the WTO as the forum for its challenge to the EU moratorium, and whether it was wise to do so. Has the USA achieved its aims through the trade-specific WTO, or should it have taken its challenge to the more hostile, but environment-specific forum of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety? Alternatively, should the USA have refrained from mounting an official international challenge at all? (c) 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The World Trade Organization's Report on the EU's Moratorium on Biotech Products: The Wisdom of the US Challenge to the EU in the WTO