¹ See, for example, Vogel, David and Kagan, Robert A., eds., Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How Globalization Affects NationalRegulatory Policies (Berkeley: University of California Press/University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection, 2002), vol. 1Google Scholar.

² An exception is Sebastiaan Princen, B. M., ”The California Effect in the Transatlantic Relationship” (Ph.D. diss., University of Utrecht, 2002Google Scholar).

³ A number of adjectives are used to describe organisms that have had genes inserted from another organism using recombinant DNA technology. I use the common term “genetically modified.”

⁴ Hocking, Brian, ”Inroduction: Trade Politics: Environments, Agendas and Processes,” in Hocking, Brian and McGuire, Stephen, eds., Trade Politics: International, Domestic, and Regional Perspectives (London: Routledge, 1999Google Scholar); Vogel, David, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995Google Scholar).

⁵ The use of stricter standards here does not imply that stricter standards are objectively better. Stricter standards imply costs that may not be justified by the risks addressed. Likewise stricter standards may address some risks while heightening others.

⁶ David Vogel and Robert A. Kagan, “National Regulations in a Global Economy,” in Vogel and Kagan (fn. 1), 10.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Vogel (fn. 4), 261.

⁹ Ibid., 22.

¹⁰ Milner, Helen V. and Yoffie, David B., ”Between Free Trade and Protectionism: Strategic Trade Policy and a Theory of Corporate Trade Demands,” International Organization 43 (Spring 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

¹¹ Park, Young Duk and Umbricht, Georg C., ”WTO Dispute Settlement, 1995–2000: A Statistical Analysis,” Journal of International Economic Law 4 (January 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Young, Alasdair R., ”Trade Wars and the ‘War on Terrorism’: Transatlantic Economic Relations since September 11, 2001”Google Scholar (Paper presented at the European Union Studies Association Eighth Biennial International Conference, Nashville, March 27–29, 2003).

¹² United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Statistics 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000).

¹³ United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Fact Book 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Agriculture, 2000).

¹⁴ Hall, Peter A., Governing the Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986Google Scholar); Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven, ”Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Com parative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992Google Scholar).

¹⁵ Echols, Marsha A., ”Food Safety Regulation in the European Union and the United States: Different Cultures, Different Laws,” Columbia Journal of European Law 4 (Fall 1998Google Scholar); Vogel, David, ”Ships Passing in the Night: The Changing Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States,”Google Scholar RSC Working Paper 01/16 (San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, 2001).

¹⁶ Vbgel and Kagan (fn. 6).

¹⁷ According to studies summarized by the European Commission, GM crops do not as yet provide a strong competitive advantage over conventional varieties; Commission, “Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-food Sector: A First Review,” Working Document, Rev. 2 (Directorate General for Agriculture, September 5, 2000). While GM crops provide savings in labor and pesticide use, seed prices are higher and yields tend to be lower. Further, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, as it stands, insulated European producers from price competition by foreign farmers both directly in the EU market and indirectly through export subsidies in third-country markets. Nonetheless, the long-term impact of nonapproval of GM crops on the competitiveness of European farmers and biotechnology industry is a concern; Commission, “Life Sciences and Biotechnology: A Strategy for Europe,” COM (2002) 27 final; House of Lords, “Select Committee of the European Communities—Second Report,” Session 1998–99 (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1998), par. 171.

¹⁸ House of Lords (fn. 17), par. 44.

¹⁹ Sid Shapiro, Comments to the U.S.-European Biotechnology Initiative Workshop 2: The Policy and Regulatory Context, San Domenico di Fiesole, December 3–5, 2000; David Vogel, “EU Consumer and Environmental Politics and Policies in Comparative Perspective” (Paper presented at the Robert Schuman Centre Luncheon Seminar, European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole, December 12, 2000).

²⁰ United States Government, “The United States,” in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Compendium of National Food Safety Systems and Activities, SG/ADHOC/FS(2000)5/ANN/FINAL (Paris: OECD, 2000).

²¹ Jasanoff, Sheila, ”Cultural Aspects of Risk Assessment in Britain and the United States,” in Johnson, B. B. and Covello, V. T., eds., The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, 1987Google Scholar).

²² Andersen, Janet L., ”Testimony before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate,” October 7, 1999Google Scholar; Vogel (fn. 19).

²³ See, for example, Andersen (fn. 22); White House, “Clinton Administration Agencies Announce Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives: Strengthening Science-Based Regulation and Consumer Access to Information,” May 3, 2000 (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/whbio53.html, accessed October 20, 2000).

²⁴ U.S. Government (fn. 20).

²⁵ Sally L. McCammon, Statement before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, October 7, 1999.

²⁶ Joseph A. Levitt, “FDA's Policy on Genetically Modified Food” (Presentation at the millennium conference of the Association for Food and Drug Officials, Burlington, Vt., June 19, 2000).

²⁷ James H. Maryanski, Statement on Biotechnology Issues before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, October 7, 1999.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Levitt (fn. 26); Maryanski (fn. 27).

³⁰ As of May 2004 the EU will have twenty-five members, assuming that all ten applicant states ratify their accession treaties.

³¹ Patterson, Lee Ann, ”Biotechnology Policy,” in Wallace, Helen and Wallace, William, eds., Policy Making in the European Union, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000Google Scholar).

³² Vogel (fn. 15); Stephen Woolcock, “The Precautionary Principle in the European Union and Its Impact on International Trade Relations” (Paper presented at the final international forum of the Collaboration Projects, Environmental Study Group, organized by the Economic and Social Research Institute [ESRl], Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Tokyo, February 18–21, 2002).

³³ Performance and Innovation Union, Rights of Exchange: Social, Health, Environmental and Trade Objectives on the Global State (London: Cabinet Office, 2000Google Scholar).

³⁴ European Parliament and Council Regulation 178/2002, recital 19.

³⁵ European Parliament and Council Regulation 258/97/EC.

³⁶ Commission Regulation 50/2000/EC.

³⁷ Commission Regulation 49/2000/EC. In March 2003 the Council of Ministers agreed to a common position that set a threshold of 0.9 percent; Council of Ministers, Document 15798/1/02, Rev 1, Brussels, March 17, 2003.

³⁸ Two varieties of genetically modified carnations were approved in October 1998. The most recent GM food/feed crops approvals were in April 1998.

³⁹ Council of Ministers, 2194th Council Meeting – Environment – Luxembourg, June 24–25 1999, Press 203 – Nr 9406/99.

⁴⁰ Tony Van der Haegen, in the transcript, “Are U.S. and Europe Heading for a Fight over Genetically Modified Food?” (October 24, 2001; http://pewagbiotech.org/events/1024, accessed May 23, 2002).

⁴¹ Commission, “Questions and Answers on the Regulation of GMOs in the EU” (Memo/02/160, October 15, 2002).

⁴² Scientific Committee on Food, “Opinion Concerning a Submission from the Italian Authorities Raising Concerns for the Safety of Certain Products Approved under the Nofitication Procedure of Regulation (EC) 258/97,” CS/NF/11 ADD 4 REV 2 Final (September 7, 2000).

⁴³ United States Trade Representative, 1998 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (Washington, D.C.: USTR, 1998Google Scholar).

⁴⁴ See http://ww.ncga.com/llbiotechnology./know_where/statement.htm.

⁴⁵ American Soybean Association, “Approval Status of Biotechnology-Derived U.S. Soybeans” (www.amsoy.org/biotech/approvalbkgd.htm, December 14, 2000, accessed February 28, 2001).

⁴⁶ Author interview with a former representative of the Corn Refiners Association, Washington, D.C.January 8, 2001.

⁴⁷ Commission, “Facts on GMOs in the EU,” Memo/00/43 (July 13, 2000).

⁴⁸ Author interview with a USDA official, Washington, D.C., January 11, 2001.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Author interview (fn. 46).

⁵¹ American Soybean Association (fn. 45).

⁵² U.S. Wheat Associates, “Biotechnology Position Statement” (ww.uswheat.org, February 5, 2001, accessed May 18, 2001).

⁵³ American Bakers Association, 'American Bakers Association Biotechnology Position Statement” (September 2001).

⁵⁴ See http://www.nega.com/llbiotechnology/know_where/statement.htm.

⁵⁵ American Soybean Association (fn. 45).

⁵⁶ National Corn Growers Association, “NCGA Position: Biotechnology” (Position Number I-A-1, www.ncga.com/biotechnology/main/position.htm, February 2001, accessed May 30, 2001).

⁵⁷ Illinois Wheat Association, “Biotechnology Position” (September 26, 2001); Nebraska Wheat Board, “Biotechnology Position” (December 7, 2001); both available at www.uswheat.org.

⁵⁸ Pollack, Mark A. and Shaffer, Gregory C., ”The Challenge of Reconciling Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and Genetically Modified Organisms in the Transatlantic Relationship,” in Pollack, and Shaffer, , eds., Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar,

⁵⁹ Kilman, Scott, ”Refiners Shun Bioengineered Sugar Beets, Frustrating Plans for Monsanto, Aven-tis,” Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2001Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002Google Scholar).

⁶⁹ Food and Drug Administration, ”Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods,” Federal Register, 66/12 (January 18, 2001Google Scholar).

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ Jacobson, M. F., ”Common Sense on Biotechnology,” Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2001Google Scholar.

⁷² Food and Drug Administration, “Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering: Draft Guidance” (http://vm.cfsan .fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html, January 2001, accessed January 22, 2001).

⁷³ Food and Drug Administration, “U.S. District Court Dismisses Genetically Engineered Food Law Suit against FDA” (FDA Talk Paper, T00–50, October 6, 2000; www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS01043.html).

⁷⁴ International Dairy Foods v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d cir. 1996).

⁷⁵ See, for example, Thomas O. McGarity and Patricia I. Hansen, “Breeding Distrust: An Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Regulation of Plant Derived Genetically Modified Foods” (Report prepared for the Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of America, January 11, 2001).

⁷⁶ White House (fn. 23).

⁷⁷ Environmental Protection Agency, “Biotechnology: Plant-Pesticide/Plant-Incorporated Protec-tants (PIPs) Final Rule Summary” (www.epa.gov/scipoly/summary.pdf, 2001).

⁷⁸ Document 02–19746, Federal Register (August 2, 2002), 50578–80.

⁷⁹ State Legislative Activity in 2001 Related to Agricultural Biotechnology, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Factsheet (http://pewagbiotech.orgresources/factsheets/bills/factshhet.php3, accessed January 29, 2003).

⁸⁰ Joseph A. Levitt, “Testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on 'The Future of Food: Biotechnology and Consumer Confidence,”' September 26, 2000; author interview with a USDA official, Washington, D.C., January 12, 2001.

⁸¹ Author interview with a commission official, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2001.

⁸² Author interview with representatives of the European-American Business Council, Washington, D.C., January 8, 2001, and of the National Food Processors Association, Washington, D.C., January 9, 2001.

⁸³ Carol Tucker Foreman, “Statement before the Food and Drug Administration Public Meeting on Bioengineered Plants” (Washington, D.C.: Consumer Federation of America, November 30, 1999); author interviews with representatives of the Centre for Food Safety, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2001, and with representatives of the (U.K.) Consumers' Association, Florence, April 2, 2001.

⁸⁴ See also Pollack and Shaffer (fn. 58).

⁸⁵ Based on a search of the Consumer Union's website (http://www.consumerunion.org/news/news.html, accessed May 22, 2001).

⁸⁶ Based on a search of the Consumer Choice Council's website (http://www.consumerscouncil.org/ccc/gmo/gmo.htm, accessed May 22, 2000).

⁸⁷ Based on a search of the Consumer Federation of America's website (http://www.consumerfed.org/releases.html, accessed May 25, 2001).

⁸⁸ Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs),” DOC no. Food-5–99, April 1999.

⁸⁹ Author interviews with a commission official, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2001, and with a representative of the (U.K.) Consumers' Association, Florence, April 2, 2001.

⁹⁰ Public Broadcasting Service, “Harvest of Fear: A Frontline/Nova Special Presentation,” originally aired April 23, 2001; transcript available at www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/etc/script.html. Author interview with a representative of the Center for Food Safety, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2001, corroborated by searches of the organizations' web pages. The earliest document on GM food on the Greenpeace website (http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge/gereleasestext.htm) is December 1999; on the USPIRG site http://www.pirg.org/ge/press) is mid-2000; on the Sierra Club website (http://www.sierraclub .org/biotech) is August 1999; and on the Friends of the Earth website (http://www.foe.org/safefood) is June 1999.

⁹¹ Friends of the Earth, “A Letter to Major Food Corporations” (www.foe.org/safefood/companyletter.html, August 6, 1999, accessed May 22, 2001).

⁹² Wall StreetJournal, October 12, 1999.

⁹³ National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2000Google Scholar).

⁹⁴ Enriquez, Juan and Goldberg, Ray A., ”Transforming Life, Transforming Business: The Life-Science Revolution,” Harvard Business Review 78 (March-April 2000Google Scholar); Moore, Julia A., in the transcript ”Are the U.S. and Europe Heading for a Fight over Genetically Modified Food?” October 24, 2001Google Scholar (http://pewagbiotech.org/events/1024, accessed May 23, 2002).

⁹⁵ Vogel (fn. 4), 22.

⁹⁶ Illinois Farm Bureau, “Policies for 2001,” February 19, 2001 (www.ilfb.org/, accessed May 17, 2001).

⁹⁷ ”Corn Growers React to Consumer Concerns about Biotech,” June 15, 2001 (http://www.useu.be/Categories/Agriculture/AgricCornGrowersBiotechl5June01.html, accessed May 16, 2002).

⁹⁸ American Soybean Association, “ASA Supports Biotechnology at Food and Drug Administration Public Hearing,” 1999 (www.amsoy.org/documents/fdabiotech.htm).

⁹⁹ Compare Andrew Whisenhunt, “Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Regarding the Agenda for the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference,” September 3, 1999; and American Farm Bureau, “The Issue: Labeling Bioengineered Foods” (www.fb.org/issues/backgrd/bioengineered.html, September 2000, accessed February 28, 2001).

¹⁰⁰ Author interview with a Biotechnology Industry Organization representative, Washington, D.C.January 9, 2001.

¹⁰¹ Compare Kushner (fn. 66) and Grocery Manufacturers of America, “Public Policy Update: FDA Proposal for Biotech Labeling A Victory for Consumers'” (www.gmabrands.com/pubpolicy/buzz/pp_update/2001/013001.htm, 2001, accessed February 28, 2001).

¹⁰² New York Times, August 2, 2002.

¹⁰³ Biotechnology Industry Organization, “BIO Supports New Food Safety Policy,” August 1, 2002 (www.bio.org/newsroom/newsitem.asp?id-2002_080101, accessed August 21, 2002).

¹⁰⁴ Food and Drug Administration, “Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes inTransgenic Plants: Draft Guidance,” September 4, 1998 (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-armg .html, accessed January 23, 2001).

¹⁰⁵ Food and Drug Administration (fn. 69).

¹⁰⁶ Public Broadcasting Service (fn. 90).

¹⁰⁷ NFPA Journal 2 (December 2000).

¹⁰⁸ Leonard J. Schoppa, “Two-Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes: Why Gaiatsu Succeeds in Japan in Some Cases but Not Others,” International Organization 47 (Summer 1993).

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ Enriquez and Goldberg (fn. 94); Moore (fn. 94).

¹¹¹ David G. Victor, “WTO Efforts to Manage Differences in National Sanitary and Phytosanitary Policies,” in Vbgel and Kagan (fn. 1).

¹¹² Princen (fn. 2).

¹¹³ Joyce Gelb, “Feminism, NGO's, and the Impact of the New Transnationalisms,” in Vogel and Kagan (fn. 1).

¹¹⁴ Grant Isaac, Shondeep Banerji, and Steve Woolcock, “International Trade Policy and Food Safety,” Consumer Policy Review 10 (November-December 2000); Vogel (fn. 16).