1 / 15

EU – US Beef Hormone Dispute

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

swain
Download Presentation

EU – US Beef Hormone Dispute

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EU – US Beef Hormone Dispute WHAT’S THE BEEF? Daniel Rivera Greenwood Daniel Sewberath Misser Alexandra M. Shahady

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. Background

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. What’s the Beef? E.C Respondent U.S Complainant • 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 • 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)

  8. 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)

  9. 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.

  10. Suspension of Concessions

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. Observations • WTO’s decision is correct one • Science is not conclusive. • Sanctions ultimately affect consumers of both markets.

  15. 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.htm>. • The US EU Beef Hormone Dispute, Congressional Research Service

More Related