Microbeads are tiny plastic particles, and the beads are considered a threat to animals’ growth. In addition, some studies suggest that the beads will contaminate the food chain. Consequently, Australian government is considering amending import regulations towards a phase-out of microbeads. Firstly, it requires stricter labelling of imported products to include information that enables officials to determine whether products contain microbeads. Secondly, it requires that the exporter or importer of cosmetic products certify that the product does not contain microbeads. Lastly, there is a ban on products containing microbeads or where a customs official is not satisfied that a product contains microbeads. This essay will discuss whether the
…show more content…
Cosmetics and toiletries must have clear and accurate labelling in order to comply with safety laws. the ingredients label usually show ‘polyethylene’ as plastic, and many companies clearly list the term ‘microbeads’ on the front of the label. Therefore, option one is rational and supported by laws. In addition, Australia could argue the measure is a non-fiscal internal regulation under Art. III (4) which measures affecting sale, offer for sale, transport, distribution, purchase must not treat imported products less favourably than domestic like products. That is discrimination between domestic and imported products is not allowed. According to the option one, Australia imports microbeads products which the labels include the relevant information, but the information on labels may affect the microbeads sales compare to Australian non-microbeads products in …show more content…
Australia could try to fit its measure into more than one exception. All three options’ measures could apply to Art. XX (a) necessary to protect public morals, and Art. XX (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. Toxic or unsafe products would bring chaos to the whole society, and option one could be seen as to increase awareness of the microbeats threat and protect human and animal life and health, but there should be other better ways to achieve the same objective with less trade impact. Therefore, option one measure is not
Cosmetics and toiletries must have clear and accurate labelling in order to comply with safety laws. the ingredients label usually show ‘polyethylene’ as plastic, and many companies clearly list the term ‘microbeads’ on the front of the label. Therefore, option one is rational and supported by laws. In addition, Australia could argue the measure is a non-fiscal internal regulation under Art. III (4) which measures affecting sale, offer for sale, transport, distribution, purchase must not treat imported products less favourably than domestic like products. That is discrimination between domestic and imported products is not allowed. According to the option one, Australia imports microbeads products which the labels include the relevant information, but the information on labels may affect the microbeads sales compare to Australian non-microbeads products in …show more content…
Australia could try to fit its measure into more than one exception. All three options’ measures could apply to Art. XX (a) necessary to protect public morals, and Art. XX (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. Toxic or unsafe products would bring chaos to the whole society, and option one could be seen as to increase awareness of the microbeats threat and protect human and animal life and health, but there should be other better ways to achieve the same objective with less trade impact. Therefore, option one measure is not