ec_biotech_05may05-b5d04eb6c15eba31.pdf

This briefing analyzes the legal arguments and international law frameworks relevant to the WTO dispute 'EC – Biotech', specifically focusing on the definition of risk assessments (RA) under the SPS Agreement and the potential influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

• WTO jurisprudence, specifically the EC – Hormones case, has established a broad scope for risk assessments (RA), determining that they are a "scientific process" and that matters not susceptible to quantitative analysis are not excluded. The Appellate Body stated that the risk evaluated must be the "risk in human societies as they actually exist".
• In the Australia – Salmon case, the Appellate Body confirmed that the core of a risk assessment is the "objective relationship between the science and the measure," rather than adherence to "burdensome procedural requirements."
• Under the SPS Agreement, countries may base their measures on "minority scientific opinions" without severing the reasonable relationship between the measure and the risk assessment.
• Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement allows for provisional measures when "relevant scientific information is insufficient" and they are adopted "on the basis of available pertinent information". However, the Japan – Apples case suggests that Article 5.7 is triggered by the "insufficiency of scientific evidence" rather than mere scientific uncertainty.
• The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which entered into force on September 11, 2003, may serve as a source of factual information and a reference for interpreting the SPS Agreement in the EC – Biotech case. It specifically addresses the "safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology".
• The Biosafety Protocol's precautionary principle states that a "lack of scientific certainty does not impede a party from making an appropriate decision" regarding the import of GMOs, which could provide guidance for interpreting the triggering conditions of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.

APA

Oliva, M. J. (n.d.). ec_biotech_05may05-b5d04eb6c15eba31.pdf. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EC_Biotech_05May05.pdf

Chicago

Oliva, Maria Julia. ec_biotech_05may05-b5d04eb6c15eba31.pdf. Center for International Environmental Law, n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EC_Biotech_05May05.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Oliva |first1=Maria Julia |title=ec_biotech_05may05-b5d04eb6c15eba31.pdf |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EC_Biotech_05May05.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{olivandecbiotech05may05b5d04eb6c15eba31pdf, author = {Oliva, Maria Julia}, title = {{ec\_biotech\_05may05-b5d04eb6c15eba31.pdf}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EC_Biotech_05May05.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }