The second major area of controversy surrounding eco-labelling is its impact on international trade. It seems to me there are two dimensions to the trade issue. The first is a phoney but understandable problem arising from the fact that forms of qualitative value like eco-labelling inevitably put restrictions on capitalist trade that seeks only profit, regardless of the social or environmental cost. These trade conflicts will naturally be sharper on the international level where corporations have more freedom from regulation. It is on the level of global markets that a general assault on national economic regulation is based. Many have argued that eco-labelling may already be in violation of the WTOs Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and a number of significant international trade disputes have centered on eco-labellingmost notably with Canada and the US arguing that the EUs restrictions on genetically-modified foods are an unfair restraint on international trade. Norway and the EU, among others, are requesting that eco-labelling be put specifically on the agenda of the Millennium Round of the WTO negotiations, to make sure that eco-labelling is recognized as appropriate and desirable (Reynolds, 1999). There is a secondto my mind, more legitimateconcern about eco-labelling and trade that corresponds to the corporate abuse of labelling, and also to the need for better international coordination in the development of labelling standards. This coordination must take into account power differences in the global economy and make sure that poor countries, especially those forced into dependence on global markets, are not unduly penalized by the use of environmental standards. Although a 1998 OECD study did not find any actual use of eco-labelling as a means of unfair trade practice by national governments, it admitted that the potential for