5 Comments

Hi Sam - insightful and entertaining (still not sure now you do this) as always. I can perhaps simplify the MRL issue somewhat. The legal question is not how something is made. It is where the undesired harm would be caused. States are by default able to protect themselves, hence normal MRL regulation restricting imports containing residues that can cause harm to their people or environment. States are by default *not* able to protect people or the environment in other countries. There are exceptions, eg when this is agreed or otherwise results from international law (eg human rights, some public morals, environmental treaties, etc). But you need to find those exceptions, and in the absence of a neonicotids treaty or obligation it is just not there - unless you can argue that bees are a global concern, and hence of doemstic interest as well (an argument that can sometimes be made). So what does how something is made have to do with this? Well, sometimes it involves harms in the importing county (eg residues of chemicals dangerous at point of consumption). Sometimes it does not (residues of chemicals whose use is dangerous at the point of production but not consumption). And there can be overlap (chemicals harm the environment at point of production and consumption). The focus on how something is made can be a handy rule of thumb, but it is often misleading (it originates in the concept of a 'process and production method', a term which dates from 1970s negotiations on the Tokyo Round Technical Barriers to Trade Code, and which has taken on an unfortunate life of its own). Lorand

Expand full comment

Another correction I'm afraid, India has official overtaken China to be the world's most populous country again. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-300-years-india-will-be-worlds-largest-country-again/articleshow/92875032.cms

Expand full comment