eosinophilic ascites, a very rare disorder in children, should be considered in the differential diagnosis of even very young children presenting with ascites.

This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.

No abstract

Biotechnology produces a broad range of biotech products, the most discussed of which are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Biotech products are more resistant to pesticides and more resilient to global warming than traditional crops. These and other capacities of GMOs enhance their potential to address climate change and to reduce world hunger. Furthermore, the cultivation and commercialisation of biotech products may enhance national economies of importer and exporter states. Accordingly, international trade concerning biotechnology is arguably a means of increasing global economic growth.However, there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty regarding whether biotechnology may create serious, and sometimes irreversible, risks to human health and the environment. On the one hand, biotechnology can compromise biosafety. Lack of certain evidence on the impacts posed by biotechnology to biosafety can incentivise a precautionary approach towards the international trade of potentially harmful products. On the other hand, under international economic law, governments cannot impose unjustified limitations to the protection of trade. Hence, how to balance those incompatible international legal requirements on states?Furthermore, the nature of the modifications to genetically modified crops (and other forms of agrobiotechnology) allows for the applicability of patenting law, which enables the legal "enclosure" of the crops' genetic make-up. This gives rise to contrasting ethical and moral views on the patentability of (vegetable and animals) lives that, in turn, are raising thorny discussions on the essential content of the "Ordre Public and morality clauses" in the field of biotechnology patents.

This article explores how technological risks and uncertainty carried by the international trade of biotechnology are regulated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and have been governed by the WTO's judicial bodies. The article shows that the judicial evaluation of biotechnology risks is mostly justified in scientific terms and is still anchored to a quantitative approach. This, in turn, prevents WTO decisionmakers from performing a broader analysis of the societal purposes and impacts of technological innovations and, accordingly, their potential contributions to or disadvantages for the public interest. Given that, the present article investigates whether reliability can be claimed for WTO biotechnology decisions. In approaching this task, it elucidates the complex interplay between law, risks and science, and offers suggestions to enhance the reliability of biotechnology legal decisions and address the uncertainty surrounding the international trade of biotechnology.