● András Sebők y otros, “Industry Guidelines for developing products with health claims”. Pathway27 (2017) 107 págs.

Consultar: https://app.box.com/s/syt43v2rm3cnl1jx1v5x5x4roj1hvpqu

● Martín Molinuevo, “Brexit: Trade Governance and Legal Implications for Third Countries”. World Bank Group (2017) 19 pp.

Abstract

While precise impact of Brexit on the EU/UK trade and investment agreements with third countries will depend primarily on the terms of the withdrawal agreement to be concluded between them, most scenarios suggest an extensive process of amendment of the text and/or commitments in multilateral and bilateral agreements. At the multilateral level, the UK will remain a WTO Member, but will no longer be represented by the EU. The separation of the UK obligations from the current EU lists of concessions and schedules of commitments will require amendments that, particularly regarding subsidies and quotas, may lead to a broader renegotiation process requiring consensus of all interested WTO members. At the bilateral level, the status of current EU PTAs with regard to the UK and its trading partners remains uncertain: Some elements suggest that these PTAs may no longer be valid for the UK, or that, even if legally valid, they will no longer cover the relationship between the UK and the third country. Further, EU agreements focusing on goods only will no longer apply to the UK. For these agreements to continue to apply, the UK and the third country will need to amend some aspects of the text of the agreement as well as of the lists of commitments. Investment treaties concluded by the UK with third countries will remain valid, and no amendment is in principle necessary. Parties could require amendments to the text of the treaty, due to a fundamental change in circumstances. LDCs and developing countries who benefit from the EU GSP will continue under this regime for the remaining EU member, but that GSP framework will no longer be applicable to the UK. 

[...]

See more at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/26351/WPS8010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

● Robert Burdock y Peter Ampt, “Food Sovereignty: The Case and the Space for Community Led Agricultural Autonomy within the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition”

Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 9 nº 5 (2017) doi:10.5539/jas.v9n5p1.

Publicado como avance on line el 15 de abril de 2017

Abstract

Much has been written about food security, nutrition security and the ability of people to access their food needs. Food sovereignty and the associated ability of people to participate in the production, distribution and consumption decisions of their food have been at the fringe of this discussion. Linked with this is the debate on the question of pursuing policies of food self-sufficiency or policies of self-reliance where food imports are considered a natural extension of food security. Examining the elements of food security through the food system participation framework of food sovereignty is an opportunity worthy of further exploration. This paper seeks to add a dimension to the understanding of food security by considering the value that a food sovereignty perspective has on the right to access food that is nutritious and safe for consumption. Current themes are cited and reviewed, and the implications of both food security and food sovereignty perspectives for the food system are argued. Agricultural trade liberalisation has benefited some societies and harmed others. To this end, the Global Strategic Framework (the Framework) on Food Security and Nutrition has recently incorporated the philosophy of the food sovereignty movement into its guidelines. The Framework provides an opportunity to view food security through a lens of food sovereignty providing guidance for all societies on how to safeguard their food security.

Keywords: food sovereignty, food security, agriculture, political economy

Consultar: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/viewFile/64140/36664

Donald Trump's election as US President has brought about an important policy shift with regard to Mexico, all the more so because the new US Administration seems determined to complete the promised wall along the US-Mexico border and deport undocumented immigrants. It also intends to renegotiate NAFTA, stating that it does not adequately protect US interests.

Consultar: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4977487/4977487-6256437850758213634