Suchergebnisse

International audience ; This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis en place une réglementation qui établit que la limite maximale de résidus (LMR) pour n'importe quel pesticide ne doit pas excéder 0.01 mg/kg dans les aliments pour bébé. A ce niveau, la réglementation européenne est très différente de celle de la plupart de ses partenaires commerciaux qui ne différencient pas les réglementations en fonction de l'âge. L'objectif de cet article est de comparer la réglementation de l'UE sur les LMR de pesticides par rapport à celle de ses partenaires commerciaux grâce à un indicateur de sévérité et de quantifier l'impact de de cette réglementation européenne spécifique sur le commerce des produits pour bébé. Les résultats montrent que la réglementation de l'UE représente une barrière à l'entrée sur ses marchés, mais qu'elle a aussi un effet positif sur le volume du commerce.

International audience ; This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis ...

This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis en place une réglementation qui établit que la limite maximale de résidus (LMR) pour n'importe quel pesticide ne doit pas excéder 0.01 mg/kg dans les aliments pour bébé. A ce niveau, la réglementation européenne est très différente de celle de la plupart de ses partenaires commerciaux qui ne différencient pas les réglementations en fonction de l'âge. L'objectif de cet article est de comparer la réglementation de l'UE sur les LMR de pesticides par rapport à celle de ses partenaires commerciaux grâce à un indicateur de sévérité et de quantifier l'impact de de cette réglementation européenne spécifique sur le commerce des produits pour bébé. Les résultats montrent que la réglementation de l'UE représente une barrière à l'entrée sur ses marchés, mais qu'elle a aussi un effet positif sur le volume du commerce.

International audience ; This article explores the effect of EU regulation on baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as start eating solid, they eat a limited number of food items among which fruits and vegetables hold an important position. This increased children's exposure to substances which they are less capable of metabolizing than adults (Muhlendahl et al. 1996; Koletzko et al. 1999). In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the European Union (EU)'s regulation establishes that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. It creates a difference in regulations between the EU and most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the population age. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the impact of the specific European regulation on MRL of pesticides on trade of baby food products and compare the EU regulation to the regulations of its major trading partners through a severity index. We introduce this index in an econometric model to assess the trade implications of the standard levels in this emerging sector. The results show that the EU regulation may constrain trade.

International audience ; This article explores the effect of EU regulation on baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as start eating solid, they eat a limited number of food items among which fruits and vegetables hold an important position. This increased children's exposure to substances which they are less capable of metabolizing than adults (Muhlendahl et al. 1996; Koletzko et al. 1999). In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the European Union (EU)'s regulation establishes that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. It creates a difference in regulations between the EU and most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the population age. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the impact of the specific European regulation on MRL of pesticides on trade of baby food products and compare the EU regulation to the regulations of its major trading partners through a severity index. We introduce this index in an econometric model to assess the trade implications of the standard levels in this emerging sector. The results show that the EU regulation may constrain trade.

This article explores the effect of EU regulation on baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as start eating solid, they eat a limited number of food items among which fruits and vegetables hold an important position. This increased children's exposure to substances which they are less capable of metabolizing than adults (Muhlendahl et al. 1996; Koletzko et al. 1999). In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the European Union (EU)'s regulation establishes that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. It creates a difference in regulations between the EU and most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the population age. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the impact of the specific European regulation on MRL of pesticides on trade of baby food products and compare the EU regulation to the regulations of its major trading partners through a severity index. We introduce this index in an econometric model to assess the trade implications of the standard levels in this emerging sector. The results show that the EU regulation may constrain trade.

International audience ; Nowadays, complying with technical, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations and standards is becoming more and more demanding due to their proliferation and increasing complexity. Consequently, increasing requirements in plant health protection and food safety can lead to a loss of competitiveness in countries that are major exporters of fresh products, causing a redistribution of the market shares in certain sectors. Exporters complying with regulatory standards benefit from better market access and avoid boarder rejection or product downgrading but incur additional costs due to additional procedures and paperwork. This is the case for French apples producers which are losing competitiveness compared to the Chilean ones on foreign markets. This situation can be partially explained by the difficulties of French exporters to comply with international SPS requirements. The aim of this article is first to make a compilation of phytosanitary requirements facing French and Chilean exporters of fresh apples, then to propose a score (hereafter phytosanitary score) which allows to assess the degree of complexity of these SPS requirements. This score is interesting as it synthesizes qualitative information in a metric which can be easily used in quantitative analysis. The results show that even if France and Chile are rather close in terms of SPS requirements, Chilean apples exporters are more capable to comply with foreign SPS requisites than the French ones.

International audience ; The purpose of this article is to analyse the relation between public health and the regulations of Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of pesticides. Many authors underline the role of trade protectionism in fixing these limits whereas these regulations should be intended for public health protection. We first establish the link between the MRL for a given chemical in plant products and its level of toxicity. In order to perform this analysis we cross the FAS USDA MRL database and the classification of the long term toxicological effects (LTE) for active substances provided by SAgE pesticide. We then compute a synthetic and polyvalent tool namely "Health Score" which provides a first overview of the link between LTE and MRL by country. Then this score is regressed in a logit model in order to identify the relationship between the countries' Health Score and the socio-economic and political characteristics of such areas. Results highlight the importance of public health expenditures in determining the settings of MRL towards stricter levels.

International audience ; Nowadays, complying with technical, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations and standards is becoming more and more demanding due to their proliferation and increasing complexity. Consequently, increasing requirements in plant health protection and food safety can lead to a loss of competitiveness in countries that are major exporters of fresh products, causing a redistribution of the market shares in certain sectors. Exporters complying with regulatory standards benefit from better market access and avoid boarder rejection or product downgrading but incur additional costs due to additional procedures and paperwork. This is the case for French apples producers which are losing competitiveness compared to the Chilean ones on foreign markets. This situation can be partially explained by the difficulties of French exporters to comply with international SPS requirements. The aim of this article is first to make a compilation of phytosanitary requirements facing French and Chilean exporters of fresh apples, then to propose a score (hereafter phytosanitary score) which allows to assess the degree of complexity of these SPS requirements. This score is interesting as it synthesizes qualitative information in a metric which can be easily used in quantitative analysis. The results show that even if France and Chile are rather close in terms of SPS requirements, Chilean apples exporters are more capable to comply with foreign SPS requisites than the French ones.

International audience ; The purpose of this article is to analyse the relation between public health and the regulations of Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of pesticides. Many authors underline the role of trade protectionism in fixing these limits whereas these regulations should be intended for public health protection. We first establish the link between the MRL for a given chemical in plant products and its level of toxicity. In order to perform this analysis we cross the FAS USDA MRL database and the classification of the long term toxicological effects (LTE) for active substances provided by SAgE pesticide. We then compute a synthetic and polyvalent tool namely "Health Score" which provides a first overview of the link between LTE and MRL by country. Then this score is regressed in a logit model in order to identify the relationship between the countries' Health Score and the socio-economic and political characteristics of such areas. Results highlight the importance of public health expenditures in determining the settings of MRL towards stricter levels.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the relation between public health and the regulations of Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of pesticides. Many authors underline the role of trade protectionism in fixing these limits whereas these regulations should be intended for public health protection. We first establish the link between the MRL for a given chemical in plant products and its level of toxicity. In order to perform this analysis we cross the FAS USDA MRL database and the classification of the long term toxicological effects (LTE) for active substances provided by SAgE pesticide. We then compute a synthetic and polyvalent tool namely "Health Score" which provides a first overview of the link between LTE and MRL by country. Then this score is regressed in a logit model in order to identify the relationship between the countries' Health Score and the socio-economic and political characteristics of such areas. Results highlight the importance of public health expenditures in determining the settings of MRL towards stricter levels.

Egalement disponible en anglais ; Most countries tax their imports. At the global level, those taxes (or customs duties or tariffs) are ruled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. These tariffs are fixed according to the most favoured nation (MFN) clause which states that any commercial advantage granted by a country to another country must automatically be extended to all. However, there are many exceptions to this clause. Many countries or regions of the world sign preferential commercial agreements where they unilaterally or bilaterally commit themselves to reducing their tariffs to below the MFN level. This is the case of the European Union which offers unilateral trade preferences to developing countries within the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) to promote trade from those countries. Since their implementation, a debate has been ongoing about the efficacy of these preferences because of administrative obstacles or restrictive rules of attribution which limit their impact. However, the EU states that the new GSP, in force since 1 January 2006, is both simpler and more generous than the previous ones. In this study which examines whether these claims are justified and confirmed by facts, we concentrate on agrifood trade as most of the changes concern tariffs on this type of products. Whereas the review by the European Union of its scheme of preferences has improved access to its agrifood markets for some of the developing countries, their impact remains limited. ; La plupart des pays taxent leurs importations. Au niveau mondial, ces taxes (ou droits de douane ou encore tarifs) sont réglementées par des accords de commerce régis par l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Ces tarifs sont fixés selon la clause de la nation la plus favorisée (NPF) qui stipule que tout avantage commercial accordé par un pays à un autre doit être automatiquement étendu à tous. Toutefois, il existe de nombreuses exceptions à cette clause. Beaucoup de pays ou de régions du monde signent des accords commerciaux préférentiels où ils s'engagent de manière unilatérale ou bilatérale à réduire leurs tarifs par rapport au niveau NPF. C'est le cas de l'Union européenne (UE) qui offre de manière unilatérale des préférences commerciales aux pays en développement dans le cadre du système généralisé des préférences (SGP) pour notamment promouvoir le commerce de ces pays. Depuis leur mise en place, il y a débat sur l'efficacité de ces préférences du fait d'obstacles administratifs ou de règles d'attribution restrictives qui en limitent la portée. L'UE déclare cependant que le nouveau SGP, entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2006, est à la fois plus simple et plus généreux que les précédents. Dans cette étude qui examine si ces revendications sont justifiées et si elles se vérifient dans les faits, on se concentre sur les échanges agroalimentaires dans la mesure où la plupart des changements intervenus concernent des droits de douane grevant ce type de produits. Si les révisions opérées par l'Union Européenne dans son régime de préférence ont permis d'améliorer l'accès de ses marchés agroalimentaires à certains pays en développement, leur impact reste cependant limité

La plupart des pays taxent leurs importations. Au niveau mondial, ces taxes (ou droits de douane ou encore tarifs) sont réglementées par des accords de commerce régis par l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Ces tarifs sont fixés selon la clause de la nation la plus favorisée (NPF) qui stipule que tout avantage commercial accordé par un pays à un autre doit être automatiquement étendu à tous. Toutefois, il existe de nombreuses exceptions à cette clause. Beaucoup de pays ou de régions du monde signent des accords commerciaux préférentiels où ils s'engagent de manière unilatérale ou bilatérale à réduire leurs tarifs par rapport au niveau NPF. C'est le cas de l'Union européenne (UE) qui offre de manière unilatérale des préférences commerciales aux pays en développement dans le cadre du système généralisé des préférences (SGP) pour notamment promouvoir le commerce de ces pays. Depuis leur mise en place, il y a débat sur l'efficacité de ces préférences du fait d'obstacles administratifs ou de règles d'attribution restrictives qui en limitent la portée. L'UE déclare cependant que le nouveau SGP, entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2006, est à la fois plus simple et plus généreux que les précédents. Dans cette étude qui examine si ces revendications sont justifiées et si elles se vérifient dans les faits, on se concentre sur les échanges agroalimentaires dans la mesure où la plupart des changements intervenus concernent des droits de douane grevant ce type de produits. Si les révisions opérées par l'Union Européenne dans son régime de préférence ont permis d'améliorer l'accès de ses marchés agroalimentaires à certains pays en développement, leur impact reste cependant limité ; Most countries tax their imports. At the global level, those taxes (or customs duties or tariffs) are ruled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. These tariffs are fixed according to the most favoured nation (MFN) clause which states that any commercial advantage granted by a country to another country must automatically be extended to all. However, there are many exceptions to this clause. Many countries or regions of the world sign preferential commercial agreements where they unilaterally or bilaterally commit themselves to reducing their tariffs to below the MFN level. This is the case of the European Union which offers unilateral trade preferences to developing countries within the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) to promote trade from those countries. Since their implementation, a debate has been ongoing about the efficacy of these preferences because of administrative obstacles or restrictive rules of attribution which limit their impact. However, the EU states that the new GSP, in force since 1 January 2006, is both simpler and more generous than the previous ones. In this study which examines whether these claims are justified and confirmed by facts, we concentrate on agrifood trade as most of the changes concern tariffs on this type of products. Whereas the review by the European Union of its scheme of preferences has improved access to its agrifood markets for some of the developing countries, their impact remains limited.

Egalement disponible en anglais ; Most countries tax their imports. At the global level, those taxes (or customs duties or tariffs) are ruled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. These tariffs are fixed according to the most favoured nation (MFN) clause which states that any commercial advantage granted by a country to another country must automatically be extended to all. However, there are many exceptions to this clause. Many countries or regions of the world sign preferential commercial agreements where they unilaterally or bilaterally commit themselves to reducing their tariffs to below the MFN level. This is the case of the European Union which offers unilateral trade preferences to developing countries within the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) to promote trade from those countries. Since their implementation, a debate has been ongoing about the efficacy of these preferences because of administrative obstacles or restrictive rules of attribution which limit their impact. However, the EU states that the new GSP, in force since 1 January 2006, is both simpler and more generous than the previous ones. In this study which examines whether these claims are justified and confirmed by facts, we concentrate on agrifood trade as most of the changes concern tariffs on this type of products. Whereas the review by the European Union of its scheme of preferences has improved access to its agrifood markets for some of the developing countries, their impact remains limited. ; La plupart des pays taxent leurs importations. Au niveau mondial, ces taxes (ou droits de douane ou encore tarifs) sont réglementées par des accords de commerce régis par l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Ces tarifs sont fixés selon la clause de la nation la plus favorisée (NPF) qui stipule que tout avantage commercial accordé par un pays à un autre doit être automatiquement étendu à tous. Toutefois, il existe de nombreuses exceptions à cette clause. Beaucoup de pays ou de régions du monde signent des accords ...