DOCSLIB.ORG

Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain WORLD TRADE WT/DS276/R 6 April 2004 ORGANIZATION (04-1443) Original: English CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND TREATMENT OF IMPORTED GRAIN Reports of the Panel WT/DS276/R Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 A. COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES ..........................................................................................1 B. ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL..................................................................1 C. PANEL PROCEEDINGS..................................................................................................................2 II. FACTUAL ASPECTS ..............................................................................................................2 III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................3 A. UNITED STATES...........................................................................................................................3 B. CANADA ......................................................................................................................................3 IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................................4 A. PRELIMINARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF CANADA ON THE PANEL'S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE DSU...............................................................................................4 1. The Panel has the right and the obligation to refuse to assume jurisdiction in respect of claims that do not comply with the requirements of the DSU.............................4 2. The requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU ...........................................................................5 (a) The text and context of Article 6.2 .............................................................................................5 (b) Object and purpose of Article 6.2...............................................................................................6 (c) Deficiency in a panel request may not be "cured" ......................................................................7 3. Certain claims in the United States' request for the establishment of a Panel fail to meet the requirements of Article 6.2...................................................................................8 (a) Claim under Article XVII of GATT 1994 ..................................................................................8 (b) Claim under Article III:4 of GATT 1994....................................................................................9 (c) Claim under Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement .......................................................................10 (d) Efforts at clarification ...............................................................................................................10 4. Request for preliminary rulings ............................................................................................11 B. PRELIMINARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF CANADA ON PROCEDURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.......................................................11 1. Analysis....................................................................................................................................12 2. Request for a preliminary ruling...........................................................................................13 C. PRELIMINARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE PANEL'S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE DSU .....................................................................13 1. Statement of facts....................................................................................................................14 2. The Requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU ........................................................................15 WT/DS276/R Page ii 3. The Canadian arguments.......................................................................................................17 (a) GATT Article XVII claim ........................................................................................................17 (b) Claim regarding rail car allocation ...........................................................................................19 (c) Claims under Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement......................................................................20 4. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................20 D. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE ON THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION .................................................................................20 E. ORAL STATEMENT OF CANADA AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ............................................21 1. Why are we here? ...................................................................................................................21 2. What are the legal issues involved?.......................................................................................22 3. What is the appropriate remedy in these circumstances?...................................................25 4. Procedures for dealing with SCI ...........................................................................................26 F. ORAL STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING..........................26 1. Canada's request for a ruling under Article 6.2 of the DSU...............................................27 2. Canada's request for a preliminary ruling on Business Confidential Information. .........29 G. FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES .............................................................29 1. Statement of Facts...................................................................................................................30 (a) The CWB export regime...........................................................................................................30 (b) Canadian treatment of imported grain ......................................................................................30 2. Legal arguments......................................................................................................................31 (a) Canada is not in compliance with its obligations under GATT Article XVII...........................31 (i) GATT Article XVII imposes an obligation on Canada to ensure that the CWB makes purchases or sales in accordance with the Article XVII standards ..........................................31 (ii) The standards in Article XVII apply to the wheat exports of the CWB.....................................32 (iii) Canada has not met its obligation to ensure that the CWB makes purchases or sales in accordance with the Article XVII standards.........................................................................33 (iv) Canada's policy of non-supervision cannot meet Canada's obligation to ensure that the CWB complies with the Article XVII standards ..................................................................33 (b) Canada's treatment of imported grain is inconsistent with its obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement ..................................35 (i) Canadian grain segregation requirements ...............................................................................35 (ii) Differential treatment in Canadian transportation system .......................................................36 (iii) The Canadian grain segregation requirements and discriminatory rail transportation measures are also inconsistent with Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement...................................36 H. FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF CANADA................................................................................37 1. Article XVII claims of the United States...............................................................................37 2. Article III:4 claims of the United States................................................................................40 3. Maximum Grain Revenue Entitlement is Consistent with Article III:4............................43 WT/DS276/R Page iii 4. Producer Car Allocation is consistent with Article III:4.....................................................44 5. Claims under Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement.................................................................45 I. FIRST ORAL STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................45 1. GATT Article XVII Claims....................................................................................................46 2. GATT Article III:4 and TRIMs Article 2 Claims................................................................48 J. FIRST ORAL STATEMENT OF CANADA ......................................................................................50 1. Article XVII.............................................................................................................................50 (a) "Commercial considerations" ...................................................................................................50 (b) "Processes or procedures" are not required...............................................................................51 (c) Burden of proof.........................................................................................................................51
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canadian Wheat
    Canadian Wheat By: J. E. Dexter1, K.R. Preston1 and N. J. Woodbeck2 Chapter 6: Future of flour a compendium of flour improvement, 2006, pg - 43-62 Edited by Lutz Popper, Wermer Schafer and Walter Freund. Agrimedia, Bergen. Dunne, Germany. 1 Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Research Laboratory, 1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3G8, Canada 2 Canadian Grain Commission, Industry Services, 900-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3G8, Canada Introduction The vast majority of Canadian wheat is produced in western Canada (Manitoba and provinces to the west). A high proportion of western Canadian wheat is exported, and it is marketed in a highly regulated fashion. As soon as western Canadian wheat is delivered by producers to a grain elevator the wheat becomes the property of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a single desk seller for western Canadian wheat. Approval for registration into any of the eight classes of wheat in western Canada is based on merit according to disease resistance, agronomic performance and processing quality. Wheat is also produced in eastern Canada, primarily in southern Ontario. Eastern Canadian wheat is also registered on the basis of merit, although processing quality models are not quite as strictly defined as for western Canada. There is no single desk seller for eastern Canadian wheat. Eastern Canadian wheat is marketed by private trading companies and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. Approximately 50% of eastern Canadian wheat disappears domestically. The Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), a Department within Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada (AAFC), oversees quality assurance of Canadian grains, oilseeds, pulses and special crops.
    [Show full text]
  • 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–19 Edition) § 180.409
    § 180.409 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–19 Edition) dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) al- Commodity Parts per anine methyl ester] and its metabolites million containing the 2,6-dimethylaniline Cattle, fat ............................................................... 0.02 moiety, and N-(2-hydroxy methyl-6- Cattle, meat byproducts ........................................ 0.02 methyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-alanine Corn, field, grain .................................................... 8.0 Corn, pop, grain ..................................................... 8.0 methylester, each expressed as Goat, fat ................................................................. 0.02 metalaxyl, in or on the following raw Goat, meat byproducts .......................................... 0.02 agricultural commodity: Grain, aspirated fractions ...................................... 20.0 Hog, fat .................................................................. 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts ........................................... 0.02 Commodity Parts per Horse, fat ............................................................... 0.02 million Horse, meat byproducts ........................................ 0.02 Poultry, fat ............................................................. 0.02 Papaya ................................................................... 0.1 Sheep, fat .............................................................. 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts ....................................... 0.02 (d) Indirect or inadvertent tolerances. Sorghum, grain, grain
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Wheat Board, Warburtons, and the Creative
    The Canadian Wheat Board and the creative re- constitution of the Canada-UK wheat trade: wheat and bread in food regime history by André J. R. Magnan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Sociology University of Toronto © Copyright by André Magnan 2010. Abstract Title: The Canadian Wheat Board and the creative re-constitution of the Canada-UK wheat trade: wheat and bread in food regime history Author: André J. R. Magnan Submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Sociology University of Toronto, 2010. This dissertation traces the historical transformation of the Canada-UK commodity chain for wheat-bread as a lens on processes of local and global change in agrofood relations. During the 1990s, the Canadian Wheat Board (Canada‟s monopoly wheat seller) and Warburtons, a British bakery, pioneered an innovative identity- preserved sourcing relationship that ties contracted prairie farmers to consumers of premium bread in the UK. Emblematic of the increasing importance of quality claims, traceability, and private standards in the reorganization of agrifood supply chains, I argue that the changes of the 1990s cannot be understood outside of historical legacies giving shape to unique institutions for regulating agrofood relations on the Canadian prairies and in the UK food sector. I trace the rise, fall, and re-invention of the Canada-UK commodity chain across successive food regimes, examining the changing significance of wheat- bread, inter-state relations between Canada, the UK, and the US, and public and private forms of agrofood regulation over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market Choice in GM Wheat
    Let the Market Decide? Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market Choice in GM Wheat Emily Eaton1 University of Regina: Department of Geography Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2 [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the controversy that surrounded Monsanto’s attempt to commercialize genetically engineered Roundup Ready (RR) wheat in Canada in the early 2000s. Specifically, the paper interrogates the argument made by RR wheat proponents that the fate of RR wheat should be decided in the marketplace according to individual choice. To counter the common-sense notion of the right of consumers and producers to market choice, anti-RR wheat activists, led by agricultural producers, advanced notions of collective action. They argued that markets offered a very narrow set of choices and that once introduced into agricultural systems, RR wheat threatened already existing agronomic practices and export markets. The paper argues that the “let the markets decide” approach denies the common positionality of farmers as producers of food and forecloses a politics of production. Similarly, in the realm of consumption, agency beyond individual self-interest is rendered unthinkable. Keywords: market choice, subjectivity, neoliberalism, genetic modification 1 Creative Commons licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Canadian farmers fight the logic of market choice in GM wheat 108 Introduction [T]here’s a lot of debate on how much benefit local farmers have had ... in using [GM] Canola for example. Saskatchewan farmers, well they’ve readily adopted that technology right? And they have the choice. They don’t have to pay for that seed, they don’t have to use that technology, but they are.
    [Show full text]
  • Torrefaction of Oat Straw to Use As Solid Biofuel, an Additive to Organic Fertilizers for Agriculture Purposes and Activated Carbon – TGA Analysis, Kinetics
    E3S Web of Conferences 154, 02004 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015402004 ICoRES 2019 Torrefaction of oat straw to use as solid biofuel, an additive to organic fertilizers for agriculture purposes and activated carbon – TGA analysis, kinetics Szymon Szufa1, Maciej Dzikuć2 ,Łukasz Adrian3, Piotr Piersa4, Zdzisława Romanowska- Duda5, Wiktoria Lewandowska 6, Marta Marcza7, Artur Błaszczuk8, Arkadiusz Piwowar9 1 Lodz University of Technology, Faculty of Process and Environmental Engineering, Wolczanska 213, 90-924 Lodz,, Poland, [email protected] 2 University of Zielona Góra, Faculty of Economics and Management, ul. Licealna 9, 65-246 Zielona Góra, Poland, [email protected] 3 University of Kardynal Stefan Wyszyński, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Science, Dewajtis 5, 01-815 Warszawa, Poland, [email protected] 4 Lodz University of Technology, Faculty of Process and Environmental Engineering, Wolczanska 213, 90-924 Lodz,, Poland, [email protected] 5 Laboratory of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Banacha str. 12/16, 90-131 Łódź, Poland, [email protected] 6 University of Lodz, Chemical Faculty, Tamka 13, 91-403 Łódź, Poland, [email protected] 7 AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Energy and Fuels, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30- 059 Krakow, Poland, [email protected] 8 Czestochowa University of Technology, Institute of Advanced Energy Technologies, Dabrowskiego 73, 42-200, Czestochowa, Poland, [email protected] 9 Wroclaw University of Economics, Faculty of Engineering and Economics, Komandorska 118/120 , 53-345 Wrocław, Poland, [email protected] Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Storage of Wet Corn Co-Products Manual
    Storage of Wet Corn Co-Products 1st Edition • May 2008 A joint project of the Nebraska Corn Board and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Storage of Wet Corn Co-Products A joint project of the Nebraska Corn Board and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Agricultural Research Division University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension For more information or to request additional copies of this manual, contact the Nebraska Corn Board at 1-800-632-6761 or e-mail [email protected] Brought to you by Nebraska corn producers through their corn checkoff dollars— expanding demand for Nebraska corn and value-added corn products. STORAGE OF WET CORN CO-PRODUCTS By G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein, R. Rasby, A. Stalker, B. Plugge, D. Bauer, D. Mark, D. Adams, J. Benton, M. Greenquist, B. Nuttleman, L. Kovarik, M. Peterson, J. Waterbury and M. Wilken Opportunities For Storage Three types of distillers grains can be produced that vary in moisture content. Ethanol plants may dry some or all of their distillers grains to produce dry distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS; 90% dry matter [DM]). However, many plants that have a market for wet distillers locally (i.e., Nebraska) may choose not to dry their distillers grains due to cost advantages. Wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) is 30-35% DM. Modified wet distillers grains plus solubles (MWDGS) is 42-50% DM. It is important to note that plants may vary from one another in DM percentage, and may vary both within and across days for the moisture (i.e., DM) percentage.
    [Show full text]
  • Straw Mulching
    STRAW MULCHING What is it? The application of straw as a protective Hand Punching: cover over seeded areas to reduce erosion and aid in A spade or shovel is used to punch straw revegetation or over bare soils that will be landscaped into the slope until all areas have straw standing later to reduce erosion. perpendicularly to the slope and embedded at least 4 inches into the slope. It should be punched about 12 When is it used? inches apart. This method is used on slopes which have been seeded and have high potential for erosion. It Roller Punching: requires some type of anchoring by matting, crimping A roller equipped with straight studs not less or other methods to prevent blowing or washing than 6 inches long, from 4 - 6 inches wide and away. approximately one inch thick is rolled over the slope. Straw mulch forms a loose layer when applied over a loose soil surface. To protect the mulch from wind drifting and being moved by water, Crimper Punching: it must be covered with a netting such as plastic or Like roller punching, the crimper has punched into the soil with a spade or roller, or by serrated disk blades about 4 - 8 inches apart which spraying it with a tacking agent. The mulch should force straw mulch into the soil. Crimping should be cover the entire seed or bare area. The mulch should done in two directions with the final pass across the extend into existing vegetation or be stabilized on all slope. sides to prevent wind or water damage which may start at the edges.
    [Show full text]
  • Reciprocal Access in US/Canadian Grain Trade Background Issues for the US Grain Trade
    AE 98001 January 1998 Reciprocal Access in U.S./Canadian Grain Trade Background Issues for the U.S. Grain Trade* William W. Wilson and Bruce L. Dahl ** *Special paper prepared at the request of the USDA/FAS for discussion. **Professor and Research Scientist, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo. Acknowledgments Constructive comments on this and earlier drafts were received from our colleagues, Demcey Johnson, Won Koo, George Flaskerud, Graham Parsons, Organization for Western European Cooperation (OWEC), and Frank Gomme (USDA). However, errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. NOTICE: The analyses and views reported in this paper are those of the author. They are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Agricultural Economics or by North Dakota State University. North Dakota State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Information on other titles in this series may be obtained from: Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, ND 58105. Telephone: 701-231-7441, Fax: 701-231-7400, or e-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 1998 by William W. Wilson and Bruce L. Dahl. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to review past trade relations in the grains sector between the United States and Canada and to document trade barriers and the potential for the evolution of reciprocal trade.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPROVING BAKING QUALITY and LOCAL MARKETS for WHEAT GROWN in WESTERN WASHINGTON by KAREN M. HILLS a Dissertation Submitted In
    IMPROVING BAKING QUALITY AND LOCAL MARKETS FOR WHEAT GROWN IN WESTERN WASHINGTON By KAREN M. HILLS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Crop and Soil Sciences DECEMBER 2012 © Copyright by KAREN M. HILLS, 2012 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by KAREN M. HILLS, 2012 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of KAREN M. HILLS find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ______________________________________ Stephen S. Jones, Ph.D., Chair ______________________________________ Jessica R. Goldberger, Ph.D. ______________________________________ Carol A. Miles, Ph.D. ______________________________________ Andrew T. Corbin, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing of this dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many people. First and foremost, I’d like to thank my advisor, Dr. Stephen Jones, for seeing promise in me and guiding me toward what has been an interesting subject matter. During the three years I have spent at WSU Mount Vernon, he has not only been a great mentor, but has given me plenty of opportunities to build my strengths in public speaking, event organizing and leadership, and has encouraged me to take on projects that helped me to develop professionally. I would also like to offer heartfelt appreciation to my committee members: Dr. Jessica Goldberger, for her willingness to mentor me in the implementation and interpretation of my survey of commercial bakers, Dr. Andrew Corbin, for his career and research advice, and Dr. Carol Miles, for always challenging me to be a better researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • The Attack on the Canadian Wheat Board: Seven Reasons Non-Farmers Should Care
    The Attack on the Canadian Wheat Board: Seven Reasons Non-Farmers Should Care ... and Act Saving the Canadian Wheat Board matters to you. Losing the CWB will affect the food you serve to your family, your community’s economy, and Canada’s democracy. On October 18th, Prime Minister Harper introduced legislation, Bill C-18, to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. The majority of farmers oppose the Prime Minister’s plan—farmers have repeatedly voted for a strong, effective CWB. Farmers are organizing and protesting. But to save our democratically controlled marketing agency, farm families need your help, and the help of the organizations with which you work. The loss of the CWB will hurt every Canadian family. Here are seven reasons why non-farmer Canadian citizens should act to help protect the Wheat Board: 1. Privatization and loss of economic control Few sectors of the Canadian economy are 100% owned and controlled by Canadians. But one is: our multi-billion-dollar western wheat and barley marketing system. If the Harper government destroys the CWB, it will turn over to transnational corporations (most of them foreign) a critical sector of our economy that is now owned and controlled by Canadian citizens. What C-18 takes away from farmers and other Canadians, it gives to grain giants such as Cargill. 2. Genetically modified food In 2000, Monsanto moved to introduce genetically modified (GM) wheat. Farm organizations, environmental groups, and citizens’ organizations banded together to stop Monsanto and keep GM wheat out of Canadian fields and foods. United, we succeeded. The CWB was a crucial ally.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Barley Straw As an Alternative Algal Control Method in Northern California Rice Fields
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 45: 84-90 Evaluation of Barley Straw as an Alternative Algal Control Method in Northern California Rice Fields DAVID SPENCER1 AND CAROLE LEMBI2 ABSTRACT most troublesome during the 30-day period following the spring flooding of rice fields. California rice fields are shallow water systems with depths Copper sulfate is applied aerially to manage algal prob- usually less than 15 cm. Excessive algal growth often charac- lems in rice fields. However, growers have observed in recent terizes a significant proportion of them. Especially trouble- years that algal populations may not be as inhibited by cop- some are species of green algae and cyanobacteria that per sulfate treatments as they have been in the past.4 Barley interfere with rice growth by becoming entangled with the straw (Hordeum vulgare) has been identified as an effective seedlings and subsequently uprooting them when the algal method for reducing algal growth in a variety of aquatic sys- mats dislodge from the sediment. We sought to determine if tems within the United Kingdom (Welch et al. 1990, Everall barley straw would reduce excessive algal biomass during the and Lees 1997, Harriman et al. 1997). It has been reported crucial 30-day period of seedling establishment following ini- to be effective against species of filamentous green algae tial flooding of the field. We conducted experiments in 2005 (Caffrey and Monahan 1999, Gibson et al. 1990), cyanobac- and 2006 in northern California rice fields. Algae dry weight teria (referred to as “blue-green algae”) (Ball et al. 2001, Bar- varied considerably ranging from 0 to 286 g m-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dietary Fibre from Whole Grains and Their Benefits on Metabolic Health
    nutrients Review Dietary Fibre from Whole Grains and Their Benefits on Metabolic Health Nirmala Prasadi V. P. * and Iris J. Joye Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 31 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020; Published: 5 October 2020 Abstract: The consumption of whole grain products is often related to beneficial effects on consumer health. Dietary fibre is an important component present in whole grains and is believed to be (at least partially) responsible for these health benefits. The dietary fibre composition of whole grains is very distinct over different grains. Whole grains of cereals and pseudo-cereals are rich in both soluble and insoluble functional dietary fibre that can be largely classified as e.g., cellulose, arabinoxylan, β-glucan, xyloglucan and fructan. However, even though the health benefits associated with the consumption of dietary fibre are well known to scientists, producers and consumers, the consumption of dietary fibre and whole grains around the world is substantially lower than the recommended levels. This review will discuss the types of dietary fibre commonly found in cereals and pseudo-cereals, their nutritional significance and health benefits observed in animal and human studies. Keywords: dietary fibre; cereals; pseudo-cereals; chronic diseases 1. Introduction Consumers worldwide are interested in a healthy diet. Whole grain products, encompassing both cereals and pseudo-cereals, should constitute an important part of this healthy diet. The consumption of whole grain products is considered to have a beneficial effect on risk reduction of non-communicable diseases (NCD), including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, gastrointestinal disorders and type 2 diabetes [1–3].
    [Show full text]