U.S.-EUROPEAN UNION (EU) BEEF HORMONE DISPUTE

 

U.S.-EUROPEAN UNION (EU) BEEF HORMONE DISPUTE

 

Overview of the dispute

For the past fifteen years, the United States and the European Union have been having disputes on the use of growth hormones in Cattle. This disagreement was over a ban on the use of growth promoting hormones in cattle. In 1989 when the European Union placed a ban on the importation of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones. This effectively cuts out the United States from exporting its beef. The United States asserted that beef from cattle treated with the approved growth hormones did not pose public health risks, therefore, proof wrong the EU ban. There are several studies conducted in addition to the studies carried out by the EU, international food safety standard setting body as well as codex supporting the United States position.  This dispute took a positive turn in 1996, after the United States presented its case against the European Union to the World Trade Organization (Crump & Odell 2008).  Following a thorough review presented from the scientific studies, the World trade Union ruled in favor of the United States, following the evidence of no proven data to back the EU allegations.

The imposition of the EU ban is not consistent with the World Trade regulations and principles, therefore after the ruling the EU were given three years, until 1999 to bring their measures to compliance. The current debate is on EU compliance with the World Trade Organization rulings honoring its obligations under the international agreements. For example, during the Uruguay negotiations, the European Union made a commitment to uphold the principles and obligations set by the World Trade Organization. B y maintaining its ban the EU does not further the objective of protection of the public, instead it undermines the World Trade Organization agreements on sanitation (SPS), inviting other countries to break their international obligations.  In 2009, the United States trade representatives of the outgoing Bush administration announced the transformations on the European Union products subject to the increase of tariffs under the disputes.  Following the increase in the tariffs, the EU alleged that this action was more punitive, than the currently imposed trade sanctions. However, the EU made a decision to hold further actions until the beginning of the Obama administration. Finally, in May 2009, following the negotiations carried out the settlement to resolve this long dispute.

United States argument in favor of the beef hormone

Growth hormones are widely used in production of beef in the United States and in other meat exporting countries. The US maintains that the Federal Food approves all the drugs administered to the animals under the Cosmetics Act 21 U.S.C. 301. In the current market, there are approximately 30 animal growth-promoting products. In addition, several other countries have approved the use of the growth promoting hormones. For example, countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan amongst other countries have approved the use of these hormones. The use of hormones is not allowed in the EU countries following the several rights and regulations set by the EU single market ban. However, the EU has continued to ban the imports of hormone treated meat restricting most export of meat to limited quantity certifies without the use of hormones. (Johnson & Hanrahan 2010)

The Food and Drug Administration as well as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) maintains that the use of these hormones have no significant impacts on the  physiological safety of the foods for  humans. In the United States, hormones have been used in the meat production since the 1950 (Johnson & Hanrahan 2010).  Most of the large-scale cattle producing companies use the growth hormones because they allow the cattle to grow faster on less feed and produce leaner meat. The leaner carcasses are in line with the consumer preferences for diet reduction and reduced fat. The hormones used in the cattle include the compound naturally occurring in the body of the animals; hence, the hormones mimic these naturally occurring compounds. For example, other hormones such as the melengesterol acetate improved weight gain in cattle and it is approved for use as a feed additive.

The EU beef hormone ban

The European enacted its ban on both the production and the importation of meat derived from the animals treated with growth promoting hormones. This ban restricted the use of natural hormones, due to the therapeutic purpose, banning the use of synthetic hormones and the importation of animal beefs, until 1989.  Initially the ban only covered the meat products from animals treated with more than six growth hormones, which are alternatively approved in the United States. In 2003, the commission amended the policy to ban the use of all the hormones, to pave way to seek for complete scientific approval. This ban also restricted the trade of meat products in the EU countries, from the countries that regularly treat the farm meat with growth hormones. (Thomsen 2010)

The EU justifies its ban on the reasons of protection of the consumer’s health and safety. This ban followed the initial ban in the 1970’s on the illegal use of one of the growth hormones referred to as the diethylstilboestrol in France and in consumers. This raised concerns about the possible negative effects of hormones in livestock production. Furthermore, during the 1990s, the EU consumer meat demands were adversely affected by the outbreak in British cattle of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. This is a fatal disease of mad cow disease. Scientifically, the established disease correlation with the other diseases decreased the consumer safety of the food. Many of the transgenic types of plants and other forms of biotechnology foods are restricted from entering the food chain.

The EU maintains that there is no enough data on the type, and amount of growth hormone residues in meat. Therefore, due to the lack of enough quantitative data, it is not possible to understand the risks associated with the hormones. The EU maintains that their claim is backed by their scientific research data, though there is no conclusive testing done on the issue. From 1999 to 2002, the European Commission Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to the public health issued a series of opinions on the potential risks of hormone residues on meat product. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted most recent studies on the topic in 2007. The study covered the recent scientific evidence that emerged from the previous studies carried out between 1999 and 2002, relating to the use of natural and synthetic growth hormones. From their results, the consumption of red meat from the alleged cattle with residues of the growth hormones and their metabolites pose health risks to the consumers. Some of their evidence mentions that estradiol growth hormone is a potential carcinogenic compound.  Based on these scientific reviews the EU reaffirms public health concerns about the large-scale use of hormones in the EU.

Other factors such as the political and economic considerations have contributed to the commissioner’s decisions to continue with its policies to the ban on hormone treated beef. The producers and the consumer’s interests continuously exert pressures on the EU trade policy officials to hold their position banning the hormone treated beef. The EU beef sector benefits from the support of its domestic products and the trade policies on the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which have resulted in the accumulation of large to store surpluses. Most of the EU import ban also resulted in the accumulation of large beef surpluses. On the other hand, the majority of the European cattle owners support the European Union ban because they are concerned about competition from cheaper imported beef from the United States and other countries. In this effect, the domestic policy issues and the rules of settlement and other SPS measures have restricted the policies on the rules disputing the settlement or the customs regulations.

The hormone dispute in the WTO status

The EU and the US have continued to challenge the EU beef ban in the WTO, questioning whether the ban is consistent with the obligations under the EU policies. After several series of consultations, appealing to the cases, the EU and the US claims that the formal proceedings the EU and the US have stated their respective positions on the case. The case has proven to be an intractable as it involves the internal national regulation as well as policy issues, and the SPS measuring to restrict trade rather than commercial disputes over the trade and customs regulations (Crump & Odell 2008). In 2009, further consultation between the US and the EU has not yielded any fruits, with EU expected to seek a dispute from the settlement panel on whether the ban was consistent with the SPS agreements. Although the WTO has issued decisions that have questioned the validity of the ban, the EU has voted repeatedly in the favor of the ban (Hofmann & Kim 2009).  The EU has concerns on the worries questioning the animal welfare, the quality of meat and the effects of the hormones on the EU beef and milk stores.

The laws set in place to govern the ban have been reissued, with several updates since 1988 to 2009. The EU maintains that its claims to support the ban have support from the several studies on the potential human and health associated risks with the hormone treated beef (Ford 2001). On the other hand, the United States has backed up their claim on the adequate risk assessment, maintaining that there is a clear worldwide scientific consensus supporting the safety of the consumers after eating hormone treated meat. In return, the United States started the trade sanctions as authorized by the World Trade Organization, in the form of importing high tariffs of EU agricultural products. To complicate the matters further, the WTO issued a mixed ruling in 2008, allowing the United States to proceed with the trade sanctions while also allowing the EU to maintain its ban (Daugbjerg & Swinbank 2008).  Resulting from this the United States has continued with its trade sanctions, while the EU has continued to maintain its ban. The WTO body reversal on the scientific evidence has led to some people arguing that this has led to more differential national government risk assessment (Grimmett 2011).

From the dispute, I support the US in their stand that the beef from cattle they export are only treated with approved growth hormones, therefore pose no health risks. There is a clear worldwide scientific data to back up their claims, as there are many other countries supporting the safety of the approved and licensed hormones (Wallach & Sforza 2011). These hormones are used according to the veterinary doctor’s prescriptions in addition to good animal rearing husbandry. The US claims that their position is supported by enough scientific reviews, and the international standards and the long-term administration of the hormones to cattle to enhance their growth. The use of hormones in cattle is safe, when applied following good veterinary practices. The US claims are also supported by other safety assessments done by the FDA, comparable to the results from other countries. The EU own scientific conference in 1995 concluded that there was no possible health risks to the consumers due to the use of natural sex hormone for growth.

 

Conclusion

The conflict has made significant impacts on the trade relations across the Atlantic, affecting directly and indirectly the trade system. Some of the present choices include the removal of the EU ban, with or without a policy   on allowing the EU consumers to make a choice of the meat products. The beef hormone is a test on how the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures put in place work, and how the provisions can face interruptions resulting from lack of understanding of member countries. To the US, their beef poses no health risks; while the EU claims that the enacted ban is to protect the beef market in Europe.  The SPA Agreements need clarification, as the members consider adequate scientific justification for the trade restriction and the ways in which the specific obligations will be corrected. One of the most significant aspects of the SPS is to give prominence to the uses of the international standards in the setting of the international standards.

 

References

Crump, L & Odell, JS 2008, Analyzing complex US trade negotiations.Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 355-369.

Daugbjerg, C & Swinbank, A 2008, Curbing agricultural exceptionalism: The EU’s response to external challenge. The World Economy, 31(5), 631-652.

Ford, RA 2001, Beef Hormone Dispute and Carousel Sanctions: A Roundabout Way of Forcing Compliance with World Trade Organization Decisions, The. Brook. J. Int’l L., 27, 543

Grimmett, J 2011, WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of US Compliance in Pending Cases. DIANE Publishing.

Hofmann, T & Kim, SY 2009, The Political Economy of Compliance in WTO Disputes. In International Political Economy Society Conference in College Station, Texas.

Josling, T, Roberts, D, & Hassan, A 1999, The beef-hormone dispute and its implications for trade policy. Working Paper.

Johnson, R, & Hanrahan, CE 2010, The US-EU beef hormone dispute.Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report, 40449.

Shaffer, GC, & Pollack, MA 2008, The EU regulatory system for GMOs.Uncertain Risks Regulated, 269.

Thomsen, PM 2010, US EU beef hormone and poultry disputes.

.

Taylor, CR, Walsh, MG, & Lee, C 2003, The US/EU beef controversy and a proposed framework for resolving standards disputes in international trade.Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(1), 101-122.

Wallach, L, & Sforza, M 2011, The WTO: Five years of reasons to resist corporate globalization. Seven Stories Press.

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]