In the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US approach to science-based risks and trade restrictions prevailed over that of the European Union (EU). The EU, dissatisfied with the margin of action available when “relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”, largely kept intact its internal practice on marketing and importing genetically modified (GM) crops and GM-containing products. The goal of this article is to ascertain whether these regulatory preferences of the US and the EU translate into their post-Biotech external trade efforts. US and EU preferential trade agreements are scanned for rules on trade in biotechnology goods or the use of precautionary elements in regulation. It transpires that neither bloc systematically tries (or manages) to bend trade agreements to accommodate its defensive or offensive trade interests in this field. Among the possible reasons for this apparent inertia are the US confidence in the WTO baseline and the EU preference for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to its trade-restrictive policy in this area.

中文翻译：

---

不言而喻的 SPS-Plus 和 SPS-Minus 愿望：欧盟和美国贸易协定中的生物技术

在世界贸易组织 (WTO) 中，美国处理基于科学的风险和贸易限制的方法优于欧盟 (EU)。欧盟对“相关科学证据不足”时的行动余地感到不满，在很大程度上保持了其在营销和进口转基因（GM）作物和含转基因产品方面的内部做法。本文的目的是确定美国和欧盟的这些监管偏好是否会转化为他们的后生物技术对外贸易努力。对美国和欧盟的优惠贸易协定进行审查，以了解有关生物技术产品贸易的规则或监管中预防措施的使用。事实证明，这两个集团都没有系统地尝试（或设法）改变贸易协定以适应其在该领域的防御性或进攻性贸易利益。