EU – US Beef Hormone Dispute
WHAT’S THE BEEF?
Daniel Rivera Greenwood
Daniel Sewberath Misser
Alexandra M. Shahady
History/Context
 1981 EU adopted restrictions on the use of
hormones in beef
 1989
EU fully implemented ban on imports of meats
treated with hormones
 Loss of $100 million annually for the US
 Ban on imported beef arose from (EU)
consumer pressure, not from the producers
 Stems from possible health risks from use of
hormones (mad cow disease)
 US says use of hormones is safe, and
scientifically backed up with over 40 years of
research
Beef Industry
According to the USDA, US beef industry is
 $73 Billion Industry (2009)
 U.S. exports totaling $2.8 Billion
 Largest markets




Mexico ($690 million)
Canada ($621 million
Japan ($496 million)
South Korea ($215 million)
Background
European Communities — Measures Concerning Meat and
Meat Products (Hormones)
Complainant
United States of America
Respondent
European Communities
Third Parties
Australia; Canada; New
Zealand; Norway
Agreements cited
Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS): Art. 3, 5, 2
Agriculture: Art. 4
Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT): Art. 2
GATT 1994: Art. III, XI
Request for Consultations
January 26, 1996
Panel body set up
May 20, 1996
EC Appealed
September 24, 1997
Appellate Body Report
January 16, 1998
WTO Agreements & Provisions Involved
 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS):
 Article 2: Basic Rights and Obligations



“Members have the right to take sanitary and phytosanitary
measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant
life or health, provided that such measures are not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Agreement.”
Article 3: Harmonization
Article 5: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the
Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection
WTO Agreements & Provisions Involved
 Agreement on Agriculture Part III
 Article 4 Market Access
 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
 Article 2: Preparation, Adoption and Application of
Technical Regulations by Central Government
Bodies
 GATT 1947
 Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation
and Regulation
 Article XI: General Elimination of Quantitative
Restrictions
What’s the Beef?
E.C Respondent
 EC bans US imports of
beef treated with
enhancing hormones
 Prohibition on the
placing on the market
and the
implementation of
meat and meat
products treated with
certain hormones
U.S Complainant
 Retaliates against ban of
U.S beef and bans
miscellaneous EC goods
 Argued that ban was
inconsistent with GATT
Articles III or XI, SPS
Agreement Articles 2, 3
and 5, TBT Agreement
Article 2 and the
Agreement on
Agriculture Article 4 ( 26
January 1996)
Timeline of
Dispute
The Panel found
that the EC ban on
imports of meat and
meat products from
cattle treated with
any of six specific
hormones for
growth promotion
purposes was
inconsistent with
Articles 3.1, 5.1 and
5.5 of the SPS
Agreement. (18
August 1997)
Establishment of a
Panel
May 20, 1996 (US)
October 10, 1996
(Canada
Circulation of
Panel Report
August 18, 1997
Circulation of AB
Report
January 16,1998
Adoption
February 1998
Appellate Body Decisions
 On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its
intention to appeal certain issues of law and
legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
 The Appellate Body upheld the Panel’s finding
that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent
with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement,
but reversed the Panel’s finding that the EC
import prohibition was inconsistent with
Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
Suspension of Concessions
Dates Filed
Issues
3 June 1999
U.S and Canada requested US$202
Million and Can.$75 Million
respectivly
12 July 1999
U.S level of nullification amount
was US$116.8 million and to
CDN$11.3 million
7 November 2003
EC claims that they have fullfilled
obligations, U.S disagrees
1 December 2003
Request for Multilateral Decision
30 September 2009
Compliance proceedings
completed with findings of noncompliance
Implementation
 After AB’s decision, EU given 15 months, set to
expire May 1999.
 In February 1999, EU gives 3 options to resolve



Eliminate Ban, with labeling (preferred by US).
Compensation
Conversion to temporary measure
 EU conducts additional research (1st review),
SCVPH concludes a hormone (estradiol 17-Β) is
harmful to humans.

Criticized by US and UK scientific research.
 After time given by AB for compliance, US looks for
trade sanctions.
 WTO sets value of tariff at US$116.8 million

Ad Valorem rate of duty, on France, Denmark, Italy and
Germany. UK excluded.

Beef, pork, cheese, sausage casings, onions, soups, goose livers.
 In 2003, EU bans additional hormones, under
Article 5.7 of SPS Agreement.
 In 2008, new panel finds fault with EU and US
positions


EU: Ban not backed by enough science
US: Trade sanctions not compliant
 Appellate Body:
 Sanctions ok.
 Ban not incompatible under WTO: Article 5.7
 2009: MOU: Non-hormone treated beef
Observations
 WTO’s decision is correct one
 Science is not conclusive.
 Sanctions ultimately affect consumers of both
markets.
Works Cited
 U.S. Agriculture Department Official on EU Beef Hormone
Banhttp://useu.usmission.gov/092600_beef_hormones.html
 USDA Research Service
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
 Reuters. "U.S. Will Restrict Imports From EC to Avenge Meat Ban."
Editorial. The Financial Post [Toronto, Canada] 28 Dec. 1988, Daily
ed., News sec.: 5. Lexis Nexis. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
 "WTO | Dispute Settlement - the Disputes - DS26." World Trade
Organization - Home Page. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.h
tm>.
 The US EU Beef Hormone Dispute, Congressional Research Service