Introduction

The WTO is facing increasing criticism. This was highlighted during the third ministerial meeting in Seattle, where massive street protests disrupted the conduct of the conference. Apart from demonstrations, a series of groups used the Seattle ministerial meeting to articulate a range of views on the future of the trading system, in most cases far more subtle than a blanket or dogmatic rejection of globalisation or even the WTO. Non-governmental organisations and public policy-makers from all over the world met to analyse WTO policies and their potential impacts. Amongst the most common criticisms was the WTO's alleged role in impeding national governments from granting adequate protection to the environment, or addressing consumer interests and national health and safety concerns.

Different understandings concerning the extent to which WTO rules constrain domestic regulatory autonomy have manifested themselves in recent high-profile trade controversies. In the famous Beef Hormones case, the USA successfully challenged the EC's ban on beef injected with natural and synthetic growth hormones. The regulatory measure in question had been adopted in a response to European consumers' concerns about potential health effects of such hormones being present in foodstuffs. Similarly, in the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), European consumers' reluctance towards genetically modified foods triggered the European institutions to adopt detailed regulations regarding risk assessment, release authorisation, subsequent monitoring and labelling of GMOs. The WTO consistency of this regulatory framework was repeatedly the subject of controversy in the TBT Committee.