Abstract
The 2012 Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international food standard setting body, saw the adoption of Maximum Residues Level (MRL) of veterinary drug called Ractopamine by slim voting, a rare occasion for Codex which emphasizes consensus based decision-making. The paper shows that although there was indeed scientific debate on the safety of Ractopamine, the underlying reason for this controversy is the recurrent “factors other than science” (or “the other legitimate factors”).Though science plays preeminent role in Codex decision making, only some factors other than science are explicitly recognized (i.e.; economic consideration and feasibility etc.) and such factors as consumer concerns and preference, which some countries emphasize, are not documented. The paper demonstrates that these underlying factors, although not explicitly, influenced the debate of MRL indirectly and made the prospect of consensus difficult. It presents several policy options in face of such issue and explores merits and demerits of each option. Based on that analysis, it suggests that adoption of standards by making efforts for seeking ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) that allows some flexibility for compromise rather than resorting to zero-sum resolution would prove to have less negative side-effect on the role of international standard in the long run.
