“The statement by the European Union (EU) that it is now in compliance with...
“The statement by the European Union (EU) that it is now in compliance with the World Trade Organization (WTO) on its ban on U.S. beef produced with the aid of growth promotants,” commented U.S. Meat Export Federation President & CEO Philip Seng, “is yet another attempt to frustrate the will and the process of the WTO and to drag this weary battle on despite a series of legal victories by the United States. Continued actions like this make a mockery of the WTO’s arbitration procedures and damage the credibility of the WTO.”
Seng’s comments came in response to the EU WTO challenge to sanctions imposed by the United States and Canada after the EU had lost a WTO case and subsequent appeals.
In October, 2003, the EU claimed to be in compliance with WTO rulings and asked the United States and Canada to lift their WTO-approved retaliatory trade sanctions. Although it lost its case at the WTO and subsequent appeals because it could not provide scientific evidence that the hormones used in U.S. cattle production were harmful to health, the EU now claims to be in compliance based on recent EU legislation and what it describes as recent scientific studies.
The EU, the United States and Canada have 60 days to resolve their dispute. If they fail, the case will go to another WTO legal panel, which will rule whether Canada and the United States should end their sanctions. EU legislation now in place bans one growth-promoting hormone and temporarily bars five others.
The U.S. sanctions against the EU impose tariffs totaling about $116.8 million on a selected list of products.
After seven years of debate and studies which found no harmful effects, the European Community, as the EU was then called, banned all U.S. meat, even initially pork, in November 1988. The ban took effect on January 1, 1989. In May, the United States began shipping beef certified as produced without the aid of growth promotants.
In January, 1996, The European Parliament voted 366 to 0 (out of 626 total parliament members) to maintain the ban. The United States then requested consultations under Article XXII of the WTO. In July a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel was established to hear the case. A similar panel requested by Canada met in October. The panel’s report in June 1997 found that the EU’s ban on the use of hormones to promote the growth of cattle was inconsistent with the EU’s obligations under the SPS Agreement, since it was not based on science — on a risk assessment or on the relevant international standards. An appeal by the EU ended (in January 1998) with the WTO appellate body finding against the ban. The WTO appellate body upheld earlier findings that the ban was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and must be brought into conformity with WTO rules. The appellate body said that the EU ban was imposed and was maintained without credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks posed by eating U.S. beef from cattle treated with hormones, and despite the fact that most, if not all, of the scientific studies referred to by the EU, in respect of the five hormones, concluded that their use for growth promotional purposes was safe.
WTO arbitration following the appeal gave the EU 15 months, that is until May 13, 1999 to comply.
Instead of complying, however, the EU Commission proposed legislation in 2001 which it claimed would bring its beef ban into line with global trade rules. The U.S. government imposed sanctions on E.U. imports of foodstuffs, worth $117 million a year in retaliation in 1999.
Following two years of debate, European governments and the EU Parliament passed legislation amending its embargo on beef produced with growth promotants in July 2003. The EU then instituted a permanent ban on one natural growth-promoting hormone, 17B-oestradiol, and a temporary ban on five others, progesterone and testosterone; and three synthetic hormones, zeronol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate.
In October, 2003, the European Union, claiming to be in compliance with the WTO rulings, asked the United States and Canada to lift their WTO-approved retaliatory trade sanctions. Yesterday’s action was taken by the EU because the United States and Canada did not lift the sanctions.
The U.S. Meat Export Federation is the trade association responsible for developing international markets for the U.S. red meat industry and is funded by USDA, exporting companies, and the beef, pork, corn, sorghum and soybean checkoff programs.
– USMEF –
Also for use with this release:
Photo: U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) President & CEO Philip Seng addresses the USMEF Board of Directors Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Nov. 4, 2004.
