Policy Discussion Paper
No.0005
University of Adelaide ? Adelaide ? SA 5005 ? Australia
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOOD SAFETY ISSUES FOLLOWING THE SPS AGREEMENT: LESSONS FROM THE HORMONES DISPUTE
Sallie James
February 2000
CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC STUDIES
The Centre was established in 1989 by the Economics Department of the University of Adelaide to strengthen teaching and research in the field of international economics and closely related disciplines. Its specific objectives are:
?to promote individual and group research by scholars within and outside the University of Adelaide
?to strengthen undergraduate and post-graduate education in this field
?to provide shorter training programs in Australia and elsewhere
?to conduct seminars, workshops and conferences for academics and for the wider community
?to publish and promote research results
?to provide specialised consulting services
?to improve public understanding of international economic issues, especially among policy makers and shapers
Both theoretical and empirical, policy-oriented studies are emphasised, with a particular focus on developments within, or of relevance to, the Asia-Pacific region. The Centre’s Director is Professor Kym Anderson (Email kym.anderson@https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,.au) and Deputy Director, Dr Randy Stringer (Email randy.stringer@https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,.au)
Further details and a list of publications are available from:
Executive Assistant
Centre for International Economic Studies
University of Adelaide
Adelaide SA 5005 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: (08) 8303 5672
Facsimile: (08) 8223 1460
[International prefix: (+61 8)]
Email: cies@https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,.au
Most publications can be downloaded from our Home page:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,.au/cies
CIES POLICY DISCUSSION PAPER 0005
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOOD SAFETY ISSUES FOLLOWING THE SPS AGREEMENT:
LESSONS FROM THE HORMONES DISPUTE
Sallie James
Agricultural and Resource Economics Group
University of Western Australia
Nedlands WA 6907
AUSTRALIA
ph: +61 8 9380 2514
fax: + 61 8 9380 1098
email: sjames@https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,.au
February 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 23-25 January 2000
Without implicating them, the author wishes to thank Kym Anderson, University of Adelaide; Michael Burton, University of Western Australia; Thomas Cottier, University of Berne; Lyall Howard, National Farmers Federation; Joost Pauwelyn, World Trade Organization; Donna Roberts, US Trade Representative’s Mission to the WTO and USDA; and Carolyn Tanner, University of Sydney for their helpful comments.
This paper was partly written while at the School of Economics and Centre for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide.
ABSTRACT
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOOD SAFETY ISSUES FOLLOWING THE SPS AGREEMENT:
LESSONS FROM THE HORMONES DISPUTE
Sallie James
The long-running feud between the US and the EU over trade in hormone-treated beef was the first case under the Uruguay Round's SPS Agreement to be disputed formally at the WTO. It provides a classic example of how cultural differences with respect to food attributes have the potential to hamper trade and to challenge WTO agreements designed to limit trade disruptions, especially when scientific evidence is limited or spurious. After outlining the legal arguments used by the parties to the Hormones dispute, simple economic models are used to represent the EU beef market and examine the effects of the hormone-treated beef ban and its removal. The implications for the practical implementation of the SPS Agreement are then explored.
Keywords: Agriculture, WTO, multilateral trade negotiations, agricultural policy reform, new trade issues
Contact author:
Sallie James
Agricultural and Resource Economics Group
University of Western Australia
Nedlands WA 6907
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 9380 2514
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOOD SAFETY ISSUES FOLLOWING THE SPS AGREEMENT:
LESSONS FROM THE HORMONES DISPUTE
Sallie James
The signing of the Uruguay Round Agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the ever-increasing products and people movements between countries will put governments under increasing pressure to maintain effective and scientifically justified quarantine and food safety policies to protect their citizens, animals, plants and natural environments from the importation of pests and disease. But those policies can be abused, with governments at times adopting excessive restrictions so as also to offer domestic industries economic protection from import competition.
The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) was designed to prevent human, animal and plant health policies from becoming disguised restrictions on international agricultural trade. The Agreement provides clear guidelines as to acceptable bases for SPS restrictions. In general, it is admissible under the terms of the SPS Agreement for a Member to restrict imports to protect human, animal and/or plant life or health, so long as those restrictions are transparent, consistent and based on international standards (where they exist) or a scientific assessment of risks. Through legal and economic analysis of specific cases we can, to some extent, measure the Agreement’s success.
The long-running feud between the US and the EU about the use of hormonal growth-promotants in beef (the Hormones dispute) was the first to be disputed formally at the WTO. It provides a classic example of how cultural differences with respect to food attributes have the potential to hamper trade and to challenge WTO agreements designed to limit the disruptions, especially when scientific evidence is limited or spurious.
The paper begins by outlining the legal arguments used by the parties to the Hormones dispute, and a simple analysis of the outcome. The Panel and the Appellate Body, which heard the dispute, found that the EC violated its obligations under the SPS
Agreement. Beneath the surface of broad agreement, however, lie some differences in interpretation of WTO rules that could potentially weaken the ability of the SPS Agreement to achieve the objectives for which it was designed.
A simple economic model is used in section 3 to represent the EU beef market and effects of the hormone-treated beef ban and its removal under certain conditions. The model demonstrates that lifting the current prohibition of hormone-treated beef cannot reduce the net economic welfare of the EU. Qualifications, such as how the analysis would change if the market for beef were to segment after the ban was lifted, are discussed in section 4. The implications for the practical implementation of the SPS Agreement, with particular reference to how it might be improved in light of the outcome of the Hormones case and the analysis of its economic effects, are then explored in sections 6 and 7.
The paper concludes by suggesting that, legal issues notwithstanding, using economic analysis can shed light on the efficiency of SPS policies, and promote the balance between achieving gains from trade reform and protecting human, animal and plant health and the environment.
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOOD SAFETY ISSUES
FOLLOWING THE SPS AGREEMENT:
LESSONS FROM THE HORMONES DISPUTE
Sallie James
1. Introduction
The beef hormones dispute is a classic example of how cultural differences with respect to the value of food attributes have the potential to hamper trade and challenge World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements designed to limit the disruptions, especially when scientific evidence is limited or spurious. The dispute between the United States (and Canada) and the EC over the use of growth-promoting hormones in beef provides researchers with a clear case study of how the SPS Agreement works in practice. As the first SPS measure to be formally disputed at the WTO, the legal and economic arguments used by the disputing parties and the dispute settlement bodies in the Hormones case provide regulatory agencies in Member countries with an idea of how their own SPS policies would fare under WTO scrutiny. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement)1 was originally designed to provide clear and specific guidelines about human, animal and plant health protection measures relative to what had been the case under the TBT Agreement. Legal and economic analysis of specific cases is one way of measuring its success.
Before the SPS and TBT2 Agreements, the role of science in settling trade disputes was limited. The effects of a tariff or a quota have no scientific aspect and hence trade disputes were relatively transparent and easy to resolve under the applicable articles of the GATT. But environmental and food safety issues – such as the case study presented here – deal inherently with scientific risk and uncertainty. These scientific aspects of measures affecting trade, and how they should be balanced against economic aspects
1 GATT (1994a). For an extended discussion on the SPS Agreement and its relation to other WTO Agreements, the interested reader is directed to Bureau et al. (1998), Roberts (1998) and the appendix of this paper.
more familiar to the WTO, are bound to present challenges to the WTO framework and Members wishing to ensure their trading partners abide by its rules. The emergence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production will present further challenges to national governments and the WTO to find a compromise between promoting and securing free and fair trade while honouring legitimate consumer demands for safe food and an undisturbed environment.
This paper first outlines the beef hormones dispute and the legal arguments employed by the parties involved. An economic model is used to analyse the international trade effects of the EC3 ban on hormone-treated meat and meat products and its removal on WTO instruction. Qualifications, such as how the analysis would change if the market for beef were to segment after the ban was lifted, are discussed in section 4. The implications for the practical implementation of the SPS Agreement, with particular reference to how it might be improved in light of the outcomes of the Hormones case and the analysis of its economic effects, are then explored in sections 6 and 7.
2. The Hormones Dispute
The European Commission, after a series of beef-related health scares in the 1970’s and 1980’s (see Roberts (1998)) enacted a series of directives banning the use of synthetic and natural hormones for growth promoting purposes in the production of beef. The prohibition (last adopted in Directive 96/22/EC) applies to both imported and domestically produced beef and so is prima facie GATT-legal since it abides by the national treatment and MFN principles. The EC allows the use of hormonal substances only for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes under veterinary supervision (Hurst, 1998; Roberts, 1998).
2 GATT (1994b), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, hereinafter the TBT Agreement.
3 In the following legal analysis, the European Communities (EC) is the official party to the dispute, since the ban on hormone-treated beef predates the formation of the European Union (EU). Similarly, the EC is the contracting party to the GATT (and a member of the WTO). The EU is used in the economic analysis of section 3.4, however, to denote the aggregation of economic interests in the common market in Europe (ie.
Following the adoption of the WTO Agreement including the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the Dispute Settlement Understanding), the United States, later joined by Canada, requested a dispute settlement panel to review the ban under the new rules (Roberts, 1998). The US questioned the scientific basis to the ban on the use of hormones in beef production, and the timing of the ban given the large surplus of beef in the European Union. According to Roberts (1998), the US opinion was that “...the ban represented a crisis management decision which subsequently evolved into an expedient non-tariff barrier that lacked scientific foundation” (p 386). The main points of contention between the US/Canada and the EC, as outlined by Roberts (1998) were: the legitimacy and limitations of scientific evidence on the safety of hormone-treated beef, the level of protection afforded to EU producers by the measures, and the motives for the ban.
Outlined in the US and Canada Panel reports4, and cited in Hurst (1998) and Roberts (1998), the complainants’ main objections to the EC measure relating to the use of hormones in the production of meat and meat products were as follows:
Firstly, that the ban was implemented and maintained without sufficient scientific evidence to suggest such a measure was necessary to protect humans from consumption-related health risks, in direct violation of Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. According to the complainants, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JEFCA) and some EC experts, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the six hormones at issue pose risks to human health when used according to good animal husbandry practices. A JEFCA report published in 1988 found that residue levels in hormone treated meat were low relative to hormone levels occurring naturally in humans, and in other –non-banned – foods, and that residue levels in hormone-treated beef fell within the normal range of hormone residue levels occurring in non-treated beef (Hurst 1998). In
“EU producers” “EU consumers”, “EU market” etc). Thanks to a reviewer for alerting the author to the potential for confusion.
4 WTO (1997a) hereinafter U.S. Panel Report and WTO (1997b), hereinafter Canada Panel Report.
any case, hormones administered exogenously (for growth promotion purposes or otherwise) are largely indistinguishable from those occurring endogenously.5
Secondly, the measure was not based on international standards as required by Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. For all of the considered hormones except one, relevant standards do exist. None of those standards or the evidence they imply, in the view of the co-complainants, justified the ban.
Thirdly, the US and Canada noted that the EC measure was not based on a scientific assessment of the risks of importing hormone-treated beef. Rather, it provided a level of protection that was arbitrary and unjustified, and constituted a disguised restriction on international trade, and thus violated Articles 3.3, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.6 The ban on hormone-treated beef was further seen by the complaining parties as being “a response to perceived, rather than actual, risks” (Roberts 1998, p 392).
As evidence of the arbitrary nature of the ban, the complainants noted that the EC allows the use of carbadox as a feed additive in pork production, despite its proved carcinogenicity, and attributed the inconsistency to the relative competitiveness of the EU beef and pork sectors. The US and Canada estimate the value of their combined trade loss from the ban to be US$250 million per year (ICTSD 1999a) and cite their loss of export sales since the bans inception as evidence of the EC’s protectionist motive.
The EC rejected these claims, and specifically disputed each one. The scientific evidence on the long-term health effects from ingesting hormone-treated beef is, it was argued, insufficient or non-existent (Hurst, 1998). Given the current state of scientific knowledge, the EC asserted it was well within its rights under the terms of the SPS Agreement to exercise the precautionary principle (Roberts, 1998). With regards to the claims about the
5 This may be an argument to support the EC ban: if it is not possible to detect which hormones are endogenous and which are not, a ban may be the only way of avoiding, with any certainty, additional risks from hormones used for growth-promoting purposes in imported beef.
6 Since none of the disputing parties made claims or counter-claims in relation to its allowances, and the EC considered its ban to be permanent, Article 5.
7 was found to be inapplicable (US Panel Report, para.
8.249).
measure itself, the EC deferred once again to the precautionary principle, arguing that its general level of acceptance in international law justified the conservative approach taken (Hurst, 1998; Sampson, 1999).7
The complainants’ accusation that the level of protection chosen by the EC in relation to hormone-treated beef was arbitrary and unjustified was rejected by the EC on grounds of national sovereignty. It is each country’s sovereign right under Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement to choose a level of protection which is acceptable to society – an argument not refuted by the complaining parties. There are, however, qualifying restrictions on how this right can be exercised under the terms of the SPS Agreement (specifically outlined in Articles 3.3 and 5.1). The reviewing bodies’ decisions on the validity of the EC’s sovereignty claim is discussed below.
Notwithstanding the EC’s right to choose an appropriate level of protection, the justifications given for the ban related to the practicalities of achieving it using less extreme measures. The EC maintained that a ban was the only economically and practically feasible option given the “substantial economic incentives” (Roberts, 1998, p. 390) for producers to abuse hormonal growth promotants. Furthermore, the practical difficulties of testing and compliance monitoring would render regulated use of hormones expensive, and largely ineffectual (Roberts, 1998).
The EC denied the charge that its measure was a disguised restriction on international trade and that it was unduly trade restrictive in pursuit of its chosen appropriate level of protection. Total import levels of beef, according to the EC, had remained fairly constant before and after the introduction of the de facto ban against US and Canadian beef and therefore it cannot be considered a non-tariff barrier (Roberts, 1998).8
7 The complaining parties claim that the EC measure was not based on existing international standards was not refuted by the EC on appeal (Hurst 1998).
8 The question still arises as to what the level of imports would have been had the ban not been implemented, especially considering that hormone-free imports from the rest of the world are restricted by a tariff quota regime.
After the initial hearing, the US and Canada Panel Reports concluded that the EC had violated the SPS Agreement -- a conclusion that was appealed by the EC in September 1997. The Panel’s opinion9 was broadly shared by the Appellate Body in its report10 which was delivered to WTO Members in January 1998 (Hurst, 1998). The main disagreements between the Panel and the Appellate Body related to the arbitrary and unjustifiable nature of the measure itself and whether or not it constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade.
The Panel’s main conclusion was that the EC ban on hormone-treated beef imports constituted a violation of the SPS Agreement, specifically with respect to Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5. The Panel interpreted the wording of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 to conclude that the requirement that a measure be “based on” international standards implies that it should conform to international standards and that the measure in dispute did not fulfil this obligation (U.S. Panel Report, para. 8.72; Canada Panel Report, para. 8.75).
With regards to Article 5 of the SPS Agreement which covers provisions and obligations relating to risk assessment, the Panel found insufficient evidence to suggest that the measure was based on a risk assessment, in direct violation of the procedural and substantive requirements of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 (U.S. Panel Report, para. 8.134). The EC’s claim that controlling the use of hormones as a growth promotant in beef production would be more difficult than controlling other regulated substances was also found to be insufficiently substantiated by evidence (U.S. Panel Report, para. 8.146).
The Panel further found the EC in violation of Article 5.5 by adopting different levels of protection in comparable situations in the treatment of hormones occurring naturally versus those administered for growth-promoting purposes; hormones administered for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes versus hormones administered for growth promoting purposes; and hormones administered for growth-promoting purposes versus the administration of other growth-promoting substances (eg. carbadox) (U.S. Panel
9 Since the findings in the reports of the Canadian and US Panels were very similar, they will henceforth be referred to as “the Panel”.
10 WTO (1998a) hereinafter Report of the Appellate Body.
Report, paras. 8.193-6; Canada Panel Report, paras. 8.196-9)).11 The measure chosen by the EC to provide its chosen level of protection – a ban on imports of hormone-treated beef from US and Canada – necessarily restricts international trade.
The single provision in the SPS Agreement under which the EC could implement the ban while considering the scientific evidence (according to the precautionary principle) is contained in Article 5.7 which allows “ Members[s to] provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures...[while they]...seek to obtain...additional information...and renew the sanitary or phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time”(GATT, 1994a). The EC, however, considered its ban to be permanent and so did not choose to defend its measure under the terms of Article 5.7. The Panel ruled that the EC must therefore comply with the provisions of the other Articles of the SPS Agreement, a view shared by the Appellate Body which found that the clear wording of the rest of Article 5 meant that the other provisions prevail over the precautionary principle embedded in Article 5.7 (Report of the Appellate Body, para. 253(c); Sampson, 1999).
There were few other procedural or substantive aspects of the Panel’s interpretation of the terms of the SPS Agreement with which the Appellate Body concurred. The Appellate Body did, however, find against the EC on the grounds that the measure was not based on an adequate risk assessment, and the Arbitrator ruled12 that the EC implement the findings within 15 months (Report of the Appellate Body, para. 208; Arbitration Award, para. 48)). Some observers maintain that the Appellate Body had taken a far more generous view of the Agreement’s provisions in favour of the EC and may have lost substantial ground claimed by the Panel with particular regards to the discrimination-based test of SPS measures affecting trade (Cottier, 1999; Hurst, 1998). That is, while the Panel found the measure constituted a disguised restriction on international trade (despite its prima facie non-discriminatory nature), the Appellate Body disagreed on the basis that the intent of the EC was to protect its consumers from unidentifiable health risks (Report of the Appellate Body, para. 245).
11 Only the last distinction was found to be arbitrary and unjustifiable by both the Panel and the Appellate Body (Hurst 1998).
12 WTO (1998b) hereinafter Arbitration Award, (granting a period of implementation up to May 13, 1999).
By making the intent of a member a relevant, indeed crucial, consideration, the Appellate Body’s conclusion weakens the ability of the SPS Agreement to discipline measures strictly on scientific bases (as was its designed purpose) and on the extent to which they interfere with international trade:
The SPS Agreement is...not designed to protect measures which have no basis in science, regardless of whether the party imposing such measures intends to restrict international trade. The Appellate Body’s conclusion condones measures which – although imposing arbitrary and unjustifiable distinctions in levels of protection which interfere with international trade – are imposed to address purely political concerns...[In any case], because legislation reflects mixed objectives, it may be fallacious to speak of a Members “intent” at all.
Hurst, 1998, p. 23
The Appellate Body’s interpretation of Article 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement was more favourable to the EC. In the opinion of the Appellate Body, the Panel’s requirement that measures “conform to” international standards to meet Article 3.1 obligations was excessively burdensome (Report of the Appellate Body, paras. 167, 253(g)). However, although the Appellate Body confirmed the SPS Agreement specifies no threshold level of risk, the acceptable level of risk chosen by the Member imposing the measure must base its decision on an objective risk assessment (Hurst, 1998). In the opinion of the Panel and the Appellate Body, the latter requirement had not been sufficiently met, and the EC was requested to implement the findings of the reviewing bodies.
3. Economic analysis
The EC ban on hormone-treated beef imports necessarily affects international trade. The purpose of the present section is to analyse those effects using an economic model. The
assumptions of the model are designed to keep the analysis as simple as possible, while maintaining a credible level of reality.
Firstly, negative externalities – in either production or consumption – are initially assumed to be negligible. That is, the presence of hormone-treated beef is assumed to have no effect on the production of other goods or the natural environment or on human health. Secondly, hormone-treated beef is assumed to be in fact safe for human consumption even though it is perceived as unsafe by some consumers in the EU because of lack of scientific evidence, or evidence which lacks credibility in the opinion of those consumers. Thirdly, except for their hormone status, the beef from the EU, the US and Canada, or the rest of the world is assumed to be identical in quality and safety attributes. Initially, the US and Canada are assumed to produce only hormone-treated beef.13 Likewise, EU beef and imports to the EU from the rest of the world are assumed to be hormone-free, consistent with the current EU requirements.
Consumer decisions about the purchase of beef are assumed to be made under conditions of imperfect information. The total demand for beef in the EU depends on the perception of the average quality of beef available on the EU market and the relative amounts of the different types of beef (ie hormone-treated or hormone-free) available on the market. The average demand for beef decreases as the amount of hormone-treated beef on the market increases because some EU consumers, for either health or ethical reasons, see hormone-treated beef as less desirable. The model therefore allows for differences in preferences among EU consumers – some are indifferent between the different types of beef and will purchase the hormone-treated beef if it is cheaper. We assume that EU consumers trust the labelling and certification regimes of the European Commission and private standards groups (such as ISO) but not those of the North American governments or private enterprise. Society is assumed to be risk neutral.
13 In reality, some US producers do produce and export hormone-free beef, but the EC has placed a temporary (until November 15 1999) ban on all US beef imports since supposedly hormone-free US beef was found (in April 1999) to contain (allegedly) exogenously administered hormones (ICTSD, 1999b, c). This situation is therefore consistent with the assumption of no US imports while the ban is maintained.
We assume, in order to keep the model as realistic as possible, that the EU is a large country ie. is a large buyer on the world beef market and therefore the supply curves of the importing countries (such as the US) are upward sloping from the perspective of the EU.14 The US and Canada, although complaining parties in their own right in the Hormones dispute are, for simplicity’s sake, referred to as NA (North America).
The EU beef market is represented in diagrammatic form in Figure 1.15 The demand for (initially hormone-free) beef by EU consumers is shown as D EU . The supply of hormone-free beef by EU producers is shown as S EU and the supply of (initially hormone-free) beef to the EU from the EU and the rest of the world other than the US and Canada (ROW) is shown as S ROW+EU . Since hormone treated beef from North America is currently banned, the market equilibrium is found at A, where the S ROW curve intersects the EU’s demand curve. The equilibrium price is denoted P ROW and the equilibrium quantity, Q ROW is supplied by EU producers (OQ EU) and imports from ROW (Q ROW-Q EU). Producer surplus to EU producers is equal to the area P ROW CD and consumer surplus to EU consumers is represented by area FAP ROW. Producer surplus to importers is shown by the area CAD.
Assume that the EC follows the recommendations of the reviewing bodies in the Hormones dispute, and the ban on hormone treated beef is lifted and replaced with a publicly monitored labelling scheme, which has been suggested as an efficient policy alternative to the ban (Canada Panel Report, para. 8.278; Roberts, 1998). Usually, in the case of credence goods, the qualities of the goods and the claims being made by producers are not detectable or verifiable. Producer-sponsored labelling schemes are ineffectual if the public does not believe them. In such a situation, the labels lose their informational content and producers have no incentive to implement such a scheme (Bureau et al., 1998). Through the assumption here that labels are credible in the view of
14 The EU’s share of world production of beef and veal in 1998 was approximately 14.2% (FAO, 1999a). In 1997, the EU contributed 14.6% of the world’s beef and veal exports, and consumed 13.6% of total world consumption (inferred from FAO, 1999a, b). In this same year, however, the EU consumed only 3.7% of world imports (FAO, 1999b). It is clear that the EU is a net exporter of beef and veal. Hence, the 11417 MT of beef and veal imported in 1997 (FAO, 1999b) may represent specialised types of high quality beef.
consumers if they are government sponsored, the normal problems with credence goods, or indeed with credence attributes such as the biotechnology used to produce goods, can be overcome.
If the labels claim no more than country of origin, then they will convey enough information to those consumers who are concerned with the use of hormones in beef production to be able to avoid NA beef if desired. Those consumers who are adverse to the use of hormone technology will know that NA uses hormones to treat their beef and will purchase beef from elsewhere: they are infra-marginal consumers who are not indifferent and hence will be self selected from the market at the margin. The indifferent consumers – those who do not care if beef has been treated with hormones – are marginal consumers who will be made better off when the ban is removed. In this case, the relevant supply curve becomes S TOTAL which equals S NA plus S ROW+EU . The price facing EU consumers and producers is now the world price, P W.
It is useful to compare how welfare in the EU, NA and the rest of the world changes when the ban on hormone-treated beef is lifted and a (costless) labelling scheme is introduced. At price P W domestic production is equal to OQ EU’ and EU producer surplus is P W ID instead of P ROW CD, a decrease of P ROW CIP W. Imports to the EU from NA at price P W are OQ NA and NA producer surplus is shown by P W ED or BMD. EU imports from the rest of the world are equal to Q ROW’-Q EU’ such that ROW producer surplus is equal to the area IBD instead of CAD, a decrease of CABI. Consumer surplus in the EU is equal to FMP W instead of FAP ROW, an increase of P ROW AMP W which is enjoyed by those who refuse to eat NA beef as much as those who are indifferent. The net gain in EU economic welfare is the difference between the EU producer and consumer surplus changes, or CAMI. According to this analysis, the EU would be better off adopting the recommendations of the WTO reviewing bodies, suggesting that political economy forces within the EU are preventing a net benefit from being realised.
15 A more complete model of the EU beef market, including an analysis of how the market would be affected when the TRQ regime is considered, is outlined in James (1999).
What if, to take the extreme case, no EU consumer wants NA beef? The outcome cannot be worse than what currently occurs under the ban regime in which D NA = 0. If this is indeed the case, then the EC could adopt free trade and achieve two goals: firstly, to have zero imports of hormone-free beef such that the ban result is achieved under conditions of free trade; and secondly, to discourage the use of hormones in beef production in other countries wishing to import to the EU, thus addressing any ethical concerns the EU consumers may have with the use of hormones in world beef production.
Even if only a few EU consumers are indifferent, however, gains will be made by lifting the ban. This model shows it is not possible for the EU as a whole to lose by lifting the ban under these assumptions. Clearly, though, EU beef producers would lose from freer trade if some NA imports occur.16
The change in welfare of non-EU suppliers to the EU market is the sum of the NA producers’ unambiguous gain of area BMD, and ROW beef producers’ loss of CABI. Thus, the ban on hormone-treated beef is preventing an outcome which would be welfare improving for its own citizens (on net) by area CAMI as well as NA producers.
If we further assume that ROW producers are able to adopt hormone technology (but the EC ban on growth promoting hormones remains in place for EU producers) then the S ROW+EU and hence S TOTAL curves would shift down. The equilibrium world price will fall, reducing EU and NA producer surpluses while raising ROW producer surplus and EU, NA and ROW consumer surplus further – assuming EU consumers unwilling to buy hormone-treated beef remain infra-marginal. Furthermore, if EU producers were allowed to use hormones, S EU also would shift down, perhaps enough to offset their welfare loss from the drop in price.
4. Qualifications
16 Presumably, that loss to EU producers could be offset or even reversed if they were allowed to lower their costs of production by using beef hormones, an option discussed below.
The above model shows that, given its assumptions including that a country-of-origin labelling scheme is implemented, EU net economic welfare cannot be reduced by lifting the current prohibition on hormone-treated beef and beef products. A number of qualifying comments should be made, however, regarding possible developments in the EU market which would affect the analysis outlined above, and hence its conclusions.
It would be expected that the EU beef producers would place pressure on the European Commission to allow them to employ hormone technology in order to compete more favourably with hormone-treated imports. If the beef producers were successful in their bid, the cost structure and efficiency of the EU producers would change and presumably the S EU curve would shift down. Clearly, the closer becomes the EU’s efficiency to that of the importers, the lower are the additional gains from trade per se but the larger are the gains to EU producers and to consumers at home and abroad. Assuming no adverse health effects and zero ethical externalities (ie. consumers do not experience disutility from the existence of hormone technology), and assuming consumers unwilling to eat hormone-treated beef remain infra-marginal, the EU cannot be worse off from relaxing that regulation on producers.
In reality, the EC’s beef tariff rate quota is not binding, and is in fact less than one quarter filled. There could be several possible explanations for this. Firstly, the EU producers may be so efficient as to preclude imports apart from specialist high-quality lines of beef. Secondly, the 20% in-quota tariff may be prohibitive for many overseas suppliers, as has been suggested by Australian beef industry sources. It could also be that an administrative decision was made to allocate the quota to countries whom the administrators knew could not compete. In any case, the fact that the quota is not filled may give a non-SPS reason for the EC’s reluctance to lift the ban on hormone-treated beef. Hormone technology may yield efficiency gains enough to undermine the EU producers’ efficiency (or the assistance given to them) such that the tariff on in-quota sales is a less effective import barrier.
The labelling scheme used to provide information to consumers is assumed to be costless. If, however, the implementation, enforcement and monitoring costs are positive, they would have to be weighed against the welfare gains from freer trade. Following Bureau et al. (1998), the “quality” difference between the two types of beef must be sufficiently large for the labelling scheme to yield positive welfare results. The EU consumers who benefit from the freer trade and the labelling scheme can be seen in Figure 1 to enjoy consuming an extra amount of beef equal to Q-Q ROW, and their welfare gain is represented by area P ROW AMP W. Only if the EU consumers’ share of the labelling cost is less than their welfare gain will the EU consumers be better off. If there are not many consumers who would be willing to buy NA beef given the choice, then Q NA-Q ROW will not be large, and the condition that AMB be larger than the labelling costs is less likely to be satisfied. The label will be a waste of resources if consumers perceive little difference between hormone-free and hormone-treated beef.17
The above analysis recognises differences in consumer preferences, but assumes those with a higher willingness to pay for hormone-treated beef are infra-marginal consumers. It is helpful to consider how the analysis would change should the market segment such that there are two separate demand curves for the two types of beef.
The hormone-free beef market is shown in the first panel of Figure 2 and shows the supply of EU beef as S EU, the total supply of beef as S ROW+EU and the (initial) demand for hormone-free beef as D f. The equilibrium price for beef is P f at point E. The initial quantity of hormone free beef sold is O f Q f, of which HE is imported and P f H is produced domestically. Following the lifting of the ban and the introduction of hormone-treated beef, the hormone treated beef market is shown in the second panel of Figure 2. The equilibrium for the hormone-treated beef market is found at the intersection of S NA and D EU, yielding a price P t and a quantity traded of O t Q t.
17 Bureau et al. (1998) use a similar model and conclude that the optimal policy for the EU depends on the cost of the labelling scheme and the perceived quality difference between the two types of beef.
(一) 假定你是红星中学初三学生李华。你的美国朋友Jim在给你的邮件中提到他对中国新近出现的一种共享单车“mobike”很感兴趣，并请你做个简要介绍。请你给Jim回信，内容包括： 1. 这种单车的使用方法(如：APP查看车辆、扫码开锁等); 2. 这种单车的优势; 3. 你对这种单车的看法。 注意：1. 词数不少于80; 2. 开头和结尾已给出，不计入总词数。 提示词：智能手机smartphone, 二维码the QR code 参考范文 Dear Jim, I’m writing to tell you more about the new form of sharing bike mobike mentioned in your latest letter. It’s very convenient to use if you have a smartphone. What you do is find a nearest mobikethrough the APP, scan the QR code on the bike, and enjoy your trip. Compared to other forms of sharing bike, the greatest advantage of mobike is that you can easily find one and never worry about where to park it. It is becoming a new trend as a means of transportation, which relieves the traffic pressure and does good to the environment as well. Hope to ride a mobike with you in China. Yours, Li Hua (二) 最近很多大城市都投放了共享单车(shared bikes)，比如摩拜单车(Mobike)、Ofo共享单车等。由于它们方便停放，骑车也能起到锻炼身体的作用，作为代步工具很受大家欢迎。但是，各地也出现了很多毁车现象，比如刮掉车上的二维码(QR code)、上私锁等。 你对这种现象怎么看?你对共享单车公司有什么建议吗?写一篇符合逻辑的英语短文，80词左右。 参考词汇：bike-sharing companies 共享单车公司，Mobike 和Ofo 是两家共享单车公司，convenience 方便，register登记 参考范文 The shared bikes like Mobike and Ofo bring great convenience to people. You needn’t lock them by simply using your smart phone. They can take you where the subway and bus don’t go. And they can be left anywhere in public for the next user. However, bad things happen. Some people damage the QR code on the bike, or use their own lock, which causes trouble to other users. In my opinion, it’s difficult to turn these people’s ideas in a short time. Therefore, bike-sharing companies like Mobike and Ofo need to do something. For example, those who damage the bike should pay for their actions. Also, because people use their real name toregister as a user, it’s a good way to connect to one’s personal credit. In the end, what I want to say is to take good care of public services. (三) 共享单车(bicycle sharing)已成为时下最热的话题之一，请你就这一话题写一篇短文。内容须包括三方面：1. 共享单车蓬勃发展，成为社会热潮;2. 共享单车带来便利，但也存在问题;3. 我对解决问题的建议。 参考范文 Bicycle Sharing With the development of technology, bicycle sharing comes into people's lives. It becomes more and more popular and much news reported it. At the same time, we should see that there are some problems caused by bicycle sharing. On one side, bicycle sharing makes it very convenient of people traveling. You can find a bicycle anywhere at any time when you want to go out for a cycling, and the price of one trip is very low. It can save time for people. On the other side, its management is not perfect. Even kids can open the lock and ride the bicycle, there is no doubt that such behavior is very dangerous.
三分钟励志拼搏演讲稿 亲爱的老师，同学们： 大家好！ 人生是一场戏，是一场不需别人演唱和吹奏的戏。你就是演唱者，你就是吹奏员。等待你的或是兴奋的喝彩，或是无奈的叹息；人生是一场梦，是一场丰富多彩而又曲折宛转的梦。它不须别人的编织与装点，你就是编织者，编出来的或是绚丽多彩，或是枯萎变形；人生是一碗药，是一碗苦在嘴里，甜在心中的药。不要怕刚开始有多苦，有多么地难喝，因为良药苦口。无须计较眼前的苦，重在以后的甜。当你品完这碗药时，你将会获得人生无穷尽的甜！人生是一条崎岖的山路，它不可能让你毫无阻碍地走下去，但只要你脚踏实地，你必将冲破种种险阻，到达胜利的那头；人生是一条波涛汹涌的长河，你随时都有被惊涛骇浪覆灭的可能。但只要你有信心、有毅力，把握航向，你必将到达胜利的彼岸。 人生到底是何物？ 人生是考验？是前世的冤孽？还是说不清、道不完的故事？不，人生是一次表现，一次拼搏。人生不会是平坦的大道，它不会主动给你指明方向，完全靠你自己！
美国大萧条时代的詹姆士屡屡失业。一家人苦苦挣扎，靠着政府的救济金，才勉强没有死于饥饿。对于詹姆士来说。他的出路就是打拳。以养活老婆和3个孩子。最后。这个多年没打过拳、对拳击台已非常陌生的男人，决定重操旧业，为家人、为自己的尊严而战斗。 一直以来。詹姆士只不过是个平庸的拳手。但是这一次，他却一路走到最后。还出乎所有人的意料，拿到了丰厚的奖金并夺得了拳王的称号！在记者招待会上。有人问詹姆士。是什么让他变得如此之强？詹姆士轻声说：“因为。我的心里清楚地知道。自己要什么！”当记者询问是什么时。他简单地说了两个字：“牛奶！”平静语气中道出的两个字。包含了詹姆士对妻子儿女深厚的爱。 如果不是因为穷困到连牛奶也买不起。我想詹姆士永远也得不到拳王的称号，会一生都是个毫无建树的拳击手。虽然现在大多数人都不必因饥饿而挣扎。也不必踏上危险的拳击场。但是生活中的挑战却随处可见。我们的对手没有电影里主人公的对手那么显而易见。不是一个戴拳套的壮汉。但是它却极不容易对付。我们要与之战斗的。是我们甘于安稳生活的心理！
介绍北京的英语作文(2) AsBeijinghasbeenconfirmedhomecityofOlympics2008,the spiritofgreenOlympics,scientificOlympicsandhumanizedOlymp icwillsurelybringmoreandmorechangestoBeijing,promotethed evelopmentofsportsandOlympicsinChinaaswellasintheworld,a ndstrengthenthefriendlycommunicationsbetweenChineseandf oreignpeople. 篇六：Beijing BeijingisthecapitalofPeoplesRepublicofChinaandthenation scentreforpolitics,economyandculture.Itenjoysalongandrichhis tory.Therearenumerousheritagesitesandwonderfulexamplesof ancientarchitecture,suchastheworld-famousGreatWall,theTem pleofHeavenandtheForbiddenCity. Besidessightseeingplaces,therearemanydeliciousfoodsuch asPekingducksandBeijingsnacks.Beijingisreallyagoodplacetotr avel. 篇七：Beijing AsthecaptainofChina，Beijinghasbeenthemostpopularcityofchina。SomoreandmorepeoplewanttovisitBeijing.
学国学诵经典演讲稿范文三篇 学国学诵经典演讲稿范文篇1各位领导、家长、老师，同学们： 大家好。 首先我代表xx小学对各位领导、家长能够在百忙中来参观、指导我校国学教育工作，表示衷心感谢。 现在，家长和老师们都有共同认识，现在孩子缺乏文明礼貌，不尊老爱幼；缺乏合作意识，唯我独尊；缺乏吃苦耐劳精神，抑制力不强；缺乏刻苦学习精神，厌学得多，学习目标不明确。为啥？这也是我们共同疑问。关键是以前我们只重视了学生学习成绩，而忽视了培养学生如何做人教育。多年来，学校经过多方面探究，寻找了一条教育孩子成才必先成人捷径，那就是加强国学经典教育。国学经典是中华民族传统文化精华，博大精深，通过对国学经典文化学习，不但能够增长知识，更重要是能够砥砺品行，健全人格，涵养性情，提高修养，使孩子们学会做人。 以前学校系统编印了国学经典校本教材，让学生诵读，从这学期开始，学校统一订购了教材，把国学课列入课表，选出专职教师任课，成立了教研组，还确定了研究课题，使国学教育真正落到实处。 在上学期，学校组织了第一届“国学经典诵读”展示活动，效果非常好，得到了领导和家长大力支持和好评，学生
积极性也非常高，掀起了人人诵经典热潮。今天结合中心校十二月份国学经典诵读展示月活动，学校组织第二届“国学经典诵读”展示活动，进一步推进国学教育开展。以后形成制度，每年将组织一次大型展示活动。学校也准备把国学教育作为学校亮点，操场建好后准备在校园内立孔子塑像，建孔子书院，楼道文化建设也以国学教育内容为主题，让学生时刻受到国学经典文化熏陶，力争把我们xx小学打造成国学教育示范校。 最后，祝这次展示活动圆满成功，也希望各位领导、家长参观后多提指导意见。 谢谢！ 学国学诵经典演讲稿范文篇2尊敬老师、亲爱同学们：大家上午好！ 经典浸润童年，智慧点亮人生。中华文化源远流长，在五千年历史长河中，名篇佳赋，灿若星河，大浪淘沙，留下一部又一部闪烁着光辉思想和深远智慧篇章，这些经典已经成为中华民族赖以生存精神宝藏！ 为了弘扬民族优秀文化，传承中华文明，激发全体学生对祖国语言文字热爱，全面提升学生语言文字应用能力和综合素质，我校举行这次集吟诵、演唱、表演、背诵为一体国学经典诗文诵读比赛。 品悟中华文化，传承民族精神，就需要我们诵读经典诗文，在诵读中品悟，在品悟中传承。阅读经典可以使我们心情愉悦，眼界宽广；可以使我们拨云见日，柳暗花明。《论
[标签:标题] 篇一：关于汽车的英语作文 好的 Nowadays, with the rapid improvement of people’s living standards, cars have become an indispensable part of people's lives,so that more and more people have a car of their own, especially in cities. It brings some benefits for us but also causes many problems at the same time. For one thing,there’s no doubt that cars provide much convenience for people to go where they want to quickly and easily. Especially on weekday,driving a car can save a lot of time for us to go to work.When some places are too far away from our home, driving our own car is also convenient, we can go wherever we want. However,for another, too many cars will lead to the pressure of public transport, a series of problems will appear.First of all,it will bring about more air pollution,a large amount of polluted air given off by cars do great harm to our health.What’s more, as the existing roads are not so wide for the increasing number of cars,undoubtedly,traffic jams will become more and more serious. Last but not least, cars also place burden on the public facilities in providing more parking lots. As far as I am concerned,everything has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s high time that effective action must be token to limit the ever growing number of cars, the government should take measures to control the air pollution from the cars. Some roads should be widened and more new roads should be constructed. Only in this way，will people benefit from the popularity of cars. 坏的 Nowadays, with the rapid improvement of people's living standards, cars have become an indispensable part of people's lives,so that more and more people have a car of their own, especially in cities.It brings some benefit for us but also causes many problems at the same time. For one thing,it's no doubt that that cars provide much convenience for people to go where they want to quickly and easily. Especially on weekday,driving a car can save a lot of time for us to go to work.When some places are too far away from our home, driving our own car is also convenient, we can go wherever we want. However,for another, too many cars will lead to the pressure of public transport, a series of problems will appear.First of all,it will bring about more air pollution,a large amount of polluted air given off by cars do great harm to our health .What's more, as the existing roads are not so wide for the increasing number of cars,undoubtedly,traffic jams will become more and more serious. Last but not least, cars also place burden on the public facilities in providing more parking lots. As far as I am concerned,everything has its advantages and disadvantages. It's high time that effective action must be token to limit the ever growing number of cars, the government should take measures to control the air pollution from the cars. Some roads should be widened and more new roads should be constructed. Only in this way,will people benefit from the popularity of cars. 篇二：雅思作文高分范文：私家车的利与弊 智课网IELTS备考资料 雅思作文高分范文：私家车的利与弊
关于人生拼搏的励志演讲稿 【拼搏与成功】 亲爱的老师，同学们： 大家好! 只有拼搏才会成功。铅笔不经历刀削般的疼痛，怎会写出美丽的 文字?种子不经历破壳的疼痛，怎能绽放出甜美的笑容?蛹儿不经历破 茧的挣扎，怎能化蝶，凌飞于天空?我们人类不经过拼搏，怎能成功? 拼搏的奏出了成功的高潮。 林肯的人生路上，到处布满了荆棘和阻石，可谁会想到，在那一 个个挫折后竟是无上的光辉。人生能经历多少次失败?林肯却总能在失 败处顽强地站起来。人生有多少个日子去拼搏?林肯却坚持着永不言弃。他相信花儿败了，有再开的时候，于是他承受住了经常失败的痛苦。 他相信再幸运的水手也会遇到风浪，于是他一次又一次竞选议员，渴 望迎风破浪就能看见雨后灿烂的阳光。于是他坚信了自己的信念，正 视一次次失败，收获一个个经验，换来经久不息的掌声。他的拼搏换 来的是万人崇尊的总理，他对于人生的价值观和对于现代经济的独特 看法更使他成为了一代伟人。如果林肯在其中的任何一次失败中沉沦 下去，他必定不能获得后来的成功与喜悦。 大家都知道“邰丽华”吗?2000年，在富丽堂皇的纽约卡内基音 乐厅，邰丽华领衔主演的《千手观音》，受到全国观众的一致好评。 邰丽华以其“孔雀般的美丽，高洁与轻灵”征服了不同肤色的观众。即使，她是个残疾人。可“台上一分钟，台下十年功。”她将自 己变成一只旋转的陀螺，24小时中除了吃饭和睡觉，其他时间都在舞蹈。每一次跌倒，她都勇敢的站起来，舞蹈就是她的生命，她的一切，哪怕在那雪白的舞裙上染上她的鲜红的血。她也想过放弃，她也有过
退缩，但是她离不开舞蹈。于是，她用心去伴奏，用生命来舞蹈，为 理想而奋斗，让圣洁的灵魂和美妙的舞姿感动了每一位观众。 梅树经过与霜雪的拼搏，开出动人的美丽，她在刻骨的寒风中含 苞怒放。 亲爱的朋友们，努力吧，只有拼搏才会成功! 我的演讲完毕。 谢谢大家! 【拼搏的青春路】 亲爱的老师，同学们： 大家好! 青春年华，似水而逝。钟表上的时针与分针争分夺秒地你追我赶，时间就在这个分一秒中流逝，青春路虽不如所想象的那般美好，但只 要奋力拼搏过，再回首时就不会后悔。 青春就像是挂在门口的风铃，微风吹过，叮当作响，唤醒了我的 心扉。 桌子上堆着高高的习题，我一页一页地做着，题目似乎越来越难，我越想加快进度，却感觉到这些习题偏要和我对着干，它们古怪刁钻 的面孔，越来越陌生，我心里一时有些无助。那些难题们似乎在嘲笑我，看不起我，我冷冷地盯着它们，心里顿时燃起了熊熊的火焰，不 服输的青春斗志蓦然迸发，脑子飞速转动，手下的笔毫不懒怠。一番 较量之后，心中满意的答案终于表现于笔下，我微笑着把这页习题拿 过一边，微风拂过，烦躁无影无踪。盛夏的午后，太阳的金色光辉洒 满了大地，倾听树上的蝉鸣声，细嗅小草的淡雅清香，花儿的浓郁芬 芳在空气中弥漫，心中阴霾一挥而散。 青春就像是悦耳动听的音符，陪我一路奔跑，冲向希望的方向。
我与经典同行主题的演讲稿范文5篇 我与经典同行主题的演讲稿范文1 人生，就是一节在铁路上飞驰的列车，而我，则是哪个怀里抱着书本的乘客，瞳孔里纷飞着黑玫瑰般铅字，望着窗外那飞舞的人生，不停地转动的时光，我陷入了深思。 如果想为自己风风火火的都市生活或是疲倦重复的农家生活打开另一扇窗，倘佯在另一个世界中，那么、读书吧。 在标新立异的现代生活中，与书本竞争的对手太多太强了，人们可以轻松地敲着电脑键盘，打出一行行大小均匀的文字，研读诗书的人越来越少，人们可昼夜不停、目不转睛的关注股票的涨跌，却不爱翻阅唐诗宋词元曲，人们有了痛苦烦闷与愿上麻将桌下舞池去发泄，却不愿静下心来反思以寻求心灵的澄明。他们疏远了让他们返璞归真的心灵殿堂——书籍。他们宁愿用焦油和酒精来麻醉自己，却不屑光顾这片乐土，他们的精神家园在何方?他们的理想情感寄托在哪儿? 经典，仿佛是我生命中不可缺少的一部分，翻开书本，一切的烦恼忧愁，都离我而去，在我的脑海中，只剩下那壮阔浩瀚的故事，一次次冲击着我的心房。 经典，让我学会了坚持，翻开海明威的《老人与海》，我仿佛看见那多日无猎物的老渔夫，仍然无悔地选择踏上那渔船，又一次踏上了旅途。这一次，他是幸运的，却又是不幸的，他捕到了一条大马哈鱼，可血腥味吸引来了鲨鱼，来与他争抢猎物，他并未灰心，在狂风暴雨中与鲨鱼战斗，终于带着大马哈鱼的骨架上了岸，傲然说出：“人
可以被毁灭，但不可以被打败。”是的，人不能被打败，无论前方的路怎样，我都将一如既往的走下去，该来的总是会来，无法逃避时只能一战，纵使毁灭亦无悔。 经典，让我读懂了人情温暖，世事无常。翻开莫泊桑的《羊脂球》，我看见了善于恶，__羊脂球和一群法国贵族去逃难，贵族们没有带食物，羊脂球慷慨的把自己的食物分给了他们，路上他们遇到了一位普鲁士军官，说必须让羊脂球陪他一晚上才肯放大家走。为了大家，羊脂球只好含泪顺从。第二天，他们又能出发了。这次，羊脂球没有带多少食物，可贵族们却淡漠地看着她，辱骂她是一个无耻的__。看到这，我久久无言，一群贵族竟不如一个__。我终于明白，善与恶并不在于职位大小，心中有爱，就已足够。 其实，现代人类的生活离不开读书，衣着能赋予你外在的美，读书能给你气质的美。人不能事事靠直接经验来感知世界，读书获得的间接经验能使你大大加快走向世界，了解世界，融入世界的进程。读书能使人心灵得到净化与升华，能使人的心灵摆脱土俗得纷扰，飞升到一个绚丽神奇的世界，只有在这个世界里，你才能超越时间的限制，去感知、探求人类的一切。唯有读书能够让我们在物质和精神生活的两极中保持宁静与平衡。 在成长的岁月里，我一直享受着读书所带来的快乐，翻开书本，我默默的成长，合上书本，我看见了百变的人生。 经典，伴我一生! 我与经典同行主题的演讲稿范文2
奋斗主题励志演讲稿三篇 奋斗主题励志演讲稿三篇 青春一个如彩虹般的阶段，一个值得拥有的阶段，她充满了酸，甜，苦，辣。激扬青春，真我风采;激扬青春，放飞理想;激扬青春，畅想未来。下面wtt和大家分享奋斗主题励志演讲稿。仅供参考，欢迎大家喜欢阅读。 篇一 各位领导、各位评委、各位青年朋友们:大家好! 我叫xx，很高兴能够和大家一起探讨追求卓越，奉献青春，这个话题，今天我要演讲的题目是《甘于奉献，点燃烈火青春》。 让青春烈火燃烧永恒，让生命闪电划过天边，用所有热情换回时间，让年轻的梦没有终点!我非常欣赏《烈火青春》里面的这段话，并一直用它激励自己的学习、工作和生活。我认为，青春就应该燃烧，发出亮光才有价值!人的一生可能燃烧也可能腐朽，既然这样，我不愿腐朽，也不能腐朽，我愿意燃烧起来!在座的朋友们!你们愿意吗? 青春，是我们一生中最美丽的季节，她孕育着早春的生机，展现着盛夏的热烈，暗藏着金秋的硕实，昭示着寒冬的希望，充满诗意而不缺乏拼搏的激-情，时尚浪漫而又饱含着奋斗的艰辛。当一个人的青春融汇到一个时代、一份事业中，这样的青春就不会远去，而这份
事业也必将在岁月的历练中折射出耀眼的光芒。 说到这里，我想起了这样一句话:“有的人活着，他已经死了;有的人死了，他还活着。”生命的意义在于活着，那么活着的意义又是什么呢?当然不是为了活着而活着，答案只有两个字，奉献!我们可以设想一下，不付出、不创造、不追求，这样的青春必然在似水年华中渐渐老去，回首过往，没有痕迹，没有追忆，人生四处弥漫着叹息。我想，这绝对不是我们存在的意义。古往今来，有无数能人志士在自己的青春年华就已经成就了不朽的人生，在这里我来不及一一列举。可是，有一个人的名字我却不能不提，他是我们永远的学习榜样，一个最平凡最无私也是最伟大的人。大家知道他是谁吗?这个传奇人物就是雷锋，他告诫我们说:“青春啊，永远是美好的，可是真正的青春，只属于那些永远力争上游的人，永远忘我劳动的人，永远谦虚的人!”我想在座的每一位包括我自己都可以成为这样的人。 实话，三年前，我刚来工作的时候也有过失落和茫然，感觉现实不尽如人意，感觉离曾经的梦想总是有一些距离，一度陷入困惑之中。可是，青春的我是一把刚铸好的刀，不容得你有片刻的等待和迟疑。我决不能眼睁睁看着这把刀慢慢氧化，失去光泽，随即斑驳、锈蚀、风化，最后成为一块废铁。我告诉自己，“只要你是金子，就能放光，只要你斗志昂扬的面对生活、面对工作，你就会有所获得。”路漫漫其修远兮，吾将上下而求索。青春是学习的季节，青春是奋斗的岁月，不要停止我们前进的步伐，因为青春的路正长。有空的时候静下心来好好看看书，回头想想自己走过的路，为自己的人生做好一个规划，
介绍北京的英语作文1篇 篇一MyFamily Ilovemyfamily,becauseIhaveahappyfamily. MyfatherisanEnglishteacher.HisnameisJacky.Heisthirty-eight.Helikesplay ingbasketball.What’smymotherjop?Issheateacher?Yes,you’reright!Mymotherisverykindandnice,sheisthirty-seven.Mymotherisalways laboriouswork.Ilovemyparents! OnStaurdayandSunday,Ioftengotothelibraryandplaythepiano,Myfathergot oplaybasketball.Sometimes,wewatchTVandlistentomusicathome. Ilovemyfamily.BecauseI’mveryhappytolivewithmyparentstogether! 篇二MyFamily MyFamily Everyonehasafamily.Weliveinitandfeelverywarm.Therearethreepersonsin myfamily,mymother,fatherandI.Welivetogetherveryhappilyandtherearema nyinterestingstoriesaboutmyfamily. Myfatherisahard-workingman.Heworksasadoctor.Healwaystrieshisbesttoh elpevery,patientandmakepatientscomfortable.Butsonetimesheworkssohard thathecan”trememberthedate.
与经典同行的作文 篇一：与经典同行 与经典同行 一书一世界，一念一室香。——题记 我所在的世界，仿佛从来都是被墨香氤氲着，被经典熏染着的。所谓经典，便是如墨蓝穹宇中亘古闪耀的星，如馥郁书海中亘古飘香的花。此时此刻，我执笔于此，向经典致敬。 年少便浸染于唐诗宋词之中。“安能摧眉折腰事权贵，使我不得开心颜”彰显了李白的傲气阔达；“安得广厦千万间，大庇天下寒士俱欢颜，风雨不动安如山”则流露出杜甫对天下百姓深切的关怀；而李清照“莫道不销魂，帘卷西风，人比黄花瘦”一句成为了刻画愁苦女子形容憔悴的经典；辛弃疾一句“而今识得秋滋味，欲说还休，欲说还休，却道天凉好个秋”则将他报国无路的无奈及对南宋的嘲讽 淋漓尽致地表达出来?? 诗词曲赋是中华民族文化之瑰宝。浩浩江水承载的是文人的情怀，巍峨山川描绘的是文人的才智。即使朝代更迭，但不变的是文人对所见所闻的慨叹抑或歌颂，这些文字便成
为历史的见证，成为不可或缺的经典，陪伴着我们，陪伴着一代代的中华儿女，亦是警醒着我们，激励着我们前进成长。 当思想日渐成熟，便想着西方文化又是如何？如此，便开启了另一扇窗，透过微光，我触摸到了吸引着我的一部部巨著。狄更斯的《双城记》，小仲马的《茶花女》，司汤达的《红与黑》等等作品为我打 开了探索欧洲文化社会的大门，人性的丑恶与光辉毫无保留地铺展在我面前，是非对错的界限似乎变得模糊，使得我不得不开始思考：人性的自私是对是错？《圣经》中耶和华所带领的天堂不可否认是真善美的，人性的光辉普照着天使，而撒旦代表的地狱又可以完全说是丑陋的么？我想，不能肯定吧。我们说厌恶恶魔，正是因为他们自私，贪婪，他们聚集了人性丑陋的一面，把人内心最阴暗的一面赤裸裸地摊开来，如此，人们便总是把不好的事物归到地狱里，以此来凸显自身的高尚。这些，使原本相信人性本善的我又开始认为人性本恶，是教育使我们懂得克制内心的自私贪婪。 这些经典的作品引领着我向更深处思考探索，思考人性，探索人生。使我在阅读的同时，通过与伟人的对话来丰富精神世界，一步一步走向智慧之巅。 经典的作品，总是百看不厌，它们已然超出作为“书”的价值，成为人们精神上的引领，成为社会进步的导
汽车的重要性《英语作文》 The automobile has become one of the most important means/ways of transportation in the world since it was invented. The automobile has completely changed the lifestyles of almost all the people in the world. In the past, animals like horses and camels were used for traveling and transporting goods. Automobiles are more comfortable and faster. Automobiles have also made it possible for us to transport large quantities of goods and people at the same time. Besides, the invention of the automobile has provided jobs for millions of people all over the world. 翻译： 汽车已经成为世界上最重要的交通工具之一，因为它是发明的。汽车已经完全改变了世界上几乎所有的人的生活方式。 在过去，像马和骆驼的动物被用来运送货物。汽车更舒适，更快速。汽车也使我们能够在同一时间运送大量货物和人。 此外，汽车的发明为全世界上百万的人提供了工作。
励志演讲稿为了理想而奋斗 尊敬的老师、同学们： 大家早上好！今天我演讲的题目是《为理想而奋斗》。 理想是花，需要奋斗的汗水来浇灌；理想是树，需要奋斗的土壤来培育；理想是森林，需要奋斗的生机来装扮；理想是海洋，需要 奋斗的沉静来点缀。 记得曾有这样的一个人：36岁前他默默无闻，36岁后他站在舞 台上用歌声感动世界；36岁前他是平凡的，36岁后他是非凡的；今 日我们看到他在舞台上光芒万丈，可谁知道那36年的辛酸和苦楚。36年，他对音乐的热爱和对梦想的孜孜以求始终没有改变。他就是《英国达人秀》冠军得主——保罗·帕兹。一个三十多岁的手机业 务员能站在世界的舞台上表演歌剧并获得如此佳绩，这是个震撼世 界的奇迹。他用坚持将平凡缔造震撼，这是否在告诉我们只要每个 人都坚持自己的梦想，并为之而努力奋斗，终有一天会创造出奇迹！海伦·凯勒有这样一句非常形象而生动的话：“当一个人感觉到有 高飞的冲动时，他将再也不会满足于在地上爬。”正是有了远大的 理想，她接受了生命的挑战，创造了生命的奇迹。 但是，单单有了梦想，就能到达理想的彼岸么？ 爱默生告诫我们：“当一个人年轻时，谁没有空想过？谁没有幻想过？想入非非是青春的标志。但是，我的青年朋友们，请记住， 人总归是要长大的。天地如此广阔，世界如此美好，等待你们的不 仅仅是需要一对幻想的翅膀，更需要一双踏踏实实的脚！”理想， 并不是没有目的的空想，它需要以奋斗为基石，没有理想的奋斗是 不明智的，不去奋斗的理想同样也是无用的。纵观历史长廊，上面 的成功者决非一帆风顺。可是他们无一例外地为着自己的理想和事业，竭尽全力，奋斗不息。孔子周游列国，四处碰壁，乃悟出《春秋》；左氏失明后方写下《左传》；孙膑断足后，终修《孙膑兵法》；司马迁蒙冤入狱，坚持完成了《史记》；伟人们在失败和困
三一文库（https://www.doczj.com/doc/ef6523621.html,） 〔我想去北京英语作文〕 我想去北京的英语作文如何写？那么，下面是小编给大家整理收集的我想去北京英语作文，供大家阅读参考。 我想去北京英语作文1 I’d like to go to a beautiful place. I think it would be Beijing. Beijing is not only our capital city, but also a famous city with long history and wonderful culture. Beijing is also China’s political and cultural center. There’re many old places of great interest, such as the Great Wall, the Summer Palace, the Forbidden City, the Temple of Heaven, and Tiananmen Square. Once you see Tiananmen Square, you will think of Beijing. It has been the symbol of Beijing since 1949. 我想去北京英语作文2 I went to Beijing more than eight times. Beijing is the capital of China. It’s a big city. I am very familiar with Beijing. It takes an hour and forty minutes from Nantong to Beijing by plane. There are many tall buildings in Beijing. It’s a modern city. My family visited the Great Wall, the Summer
与经典同行 一书一世界，一念一室香。——题记 我所在的世界，仿佛从来都是被墨香氤氲着，被经典熏染着的。所谓经典，便是如墨蓝穹宇中亘古闪耀的星，如馥郁书海中亘古飘香的花。此时此刻，我执笔于此，向经典致敬。 年少便浸染于唐诗宋词之中。“安能摧眉折腰事权贵，使我不得开心颜”彰显了李白的傲气阔达；“安得广厦千万间，大庇天下寒士俱欢颜，风雨不动安如山”则流露出杜甫对天下百姓深切的关怀；而李清照“莫道不销魂，帘卷西风，人比黄花瘦”一句成为了刻画愁苦女子形容憔悴的经典；辛弃疾一句“而今识得秋滋味，欲说还休，欲说还休，却道天凉好个秋”则将他报国无路的无奈及对南宋的嘲讽淋漓尽致地表达出来…… 诗词曲赋是中华民族文化之瑰宝。浩浩江水承载的是文人的情怀，巍峨山川描绘的是文人的才智。即使朝代更迭，但不变的是文人对所见所闻的慨叹抑或歌颂，这些文字便成为历史的见证，成为不可或缺的经典，陪伴着我们，陪伴着一代代的中华儿女，亦是警醒着我们，激励着我们前进成长。 当思想日渐成熟，便想着西方文化又是如何？如此，便开启了另一扇窗，透过微光，我触摸到了吸引着我的一部部巨著。狄更斯的《双城记》，小仲马的《茶花女》，司汤达的《红与黑》等等作品为我打
开了探索欧洲文化社会的大门，人性的丑恶与光辉毫无保留地铺展在我面前，是非对错的界限似乎变得模糊，使得我不得不开始思考：人性的自私是对是错？《圣经》中耶和华所带领的天堂不可否认是真善美的，人性的光辉普照着天使，而撒旦代表的地狱又可以完全说是丑陋的么？我想，不能肯定吧。我们说厌恶恶魔，正是因为他们自私，贪婪，他们聚集了人性丑陋的一面，把人内心最阴暗的一面赤裸裸地摊开来，如此，人们便总是把不好的事物归到地狱里，以此来凸显自身的高尚。这些，使原本相信人性本善的我又开始认为人性本恶，是教育使我们懂得克制内心的自私贪婪。 这些经典的作品引领着我向更深处思考探索，思考人性，探索人生。使我在阅读的同时，通过与伟人的对话来丰富精神世界，一步一步走向智慧之巅。 经典的作品，总是百看不厌，它们已然超出作为“书”的价值，成为人们精神上的引领，成为社会进步的导向。 纵使清风揉碎了岁月，我们亦与经典同在。
汽车英文演讲稿 篇一：汽车英语演讲稿 Good morning everyone ,today, the topic of my lecture（演讲） is “Do you love automobiles（'tmbilz）”. before I start my speech ,I want to ask a question,did there anybody present had seen the movie”the Fast and the Furious['fjrs]”.There are many cars of different styles in the movie,for example ,when you see the movie,you can find roadsters（跑车） just like Porsche（保时捷） GT3,sports utility (通用的）vehicles （车）SUV such as Volkswagen ['f:lks,va:gn]Touareg ['twɑ:reɡ](大众途锐）,even armored cars ,all of them are so powerful and beautiful. When I was a child,I dreamed I can have a car like FORD GT 40,this racing bike（跑车） is amazing and fantastic,but as time goes on ,my hobby is changing,now my favorite car is Jeep Rubicon,this is a car I really want ,it’s dynamic performance（性能） and off-road （越野） performance is top-ranking（一流的） ,which other ordinary SUV is unable to compare; the shape and color of this car is magnificent (华丽的） [mg'nfs()nt],and it’s gear-shift system（齿轮转
拼搏向上励志演讲稿 大家好！ 清晨温柔的阳光透过绿色的叶子洒向大地，年轮中曾经青涩的时光向未来讲述着美丽的传说。记得奥斯特洛夫斯基的《钢铁是怎样炼成的》这部名著中有这么一段话：“生活赋予我们一种巨大的和无限高贵的礼品，这就是青春。充满着力量，充满着期待的志愿，充满着求知和斗争的志向，充满着希望和信心的青春。”的确如此，青春是人生最美好的季节，是人生最铿锵的篇章，是摧枯拉朽的豪情，是旭日东升力量。青春的我们意气风发，青春的我们敢为人先，青春的我们斗志昂扬。 青春的拼搏是人生一副洒满阳光的风景，是一道转瞬即逝的彩虹，是一首用热情奏响的乐章。所谓“高堂明镜悲白发，朝如青丝暮成雪”，说的就是青春。青春既是一个极具诱-惑力的话题，又是一种感觉。于是，诗情画意的梦，天真纯洁的幻想、无忧无虑的日子，构成了一幅美丽的青春画卷。但蓦然回首，你发现在天蓝风轻的春光中，一切都像是透明的，从而感到一种超然的力量在心底爆发，时刻提醒着我们要永远向前。生命易老，时光飞逝，无论失败或是成功，青春的痕迹告诉我们永远努力奋斗。我们拥有青春，就如朝阳蓬勃向上；我们拥有青春，就如山溪不羁奔流；我们拥有青春，就如幼蚕破茧而出……
作为刚踏出校门不久的年轻人，我们双手握着梦想，怀揣着美好的明天，带着年轻人无比的朝气和敢为人先的激-情，就这样开始了我们人生的旅途跋涉。不过很幸运，我们成为了热电公司的一分子，在这里我们成长了，将理论知识与实际工作得到了融会贯通，将个人的能力和特点在这个大舞台上得到了充分的展现；在这里我们更加深刻的了解了什么是大家庭，什么是团结协作，什么是自我奉献。来到这里，我们默默地为即墨的热电事业贡献着自己的一点点微薄之力，为即墨的广大老百姓在寒冷的冬天中送去一份温暖和关怀，让自己的一点点光和热去温暖每个人的心灵。也许我们年轻人的工作做的不是很好，也许我们在工作中有过过错和失误，也许在前进的道路中有许多的坎坷和阻挠，但是我们从不气馁，从不妥协，因为我们年轻，因为我们拥有青春，因为我们拥有远大的理想和报复。跌倒了可以再爬起来继续前进，在风雨雷电的洗礼中，只会让我们更加成熟，更加勇敢，更加努力拼搏，为以后能更好的为即墨的热电事业贡献自己的青春和人生而奋斗着。 “人过留名，雁过留声”，我们每一个年轻人都非常努力的在自己平凡的岗位上拼搏着，青春就是我们前进的脚印，汗水就是我们奋斗的希望，老百姓的微笑就是我们劳动的成果和工作的动力。作为热电部门的一份子，我们很骄傲，很自豪，但我们不高傲，不狂妄。我们知道自己的渺小和平