Reference:

New York Times, Friday, May 9, 1997

Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company
This article is replicated here for educational purposes under fair use considerations and not for profit or compensation.


WTO Overrules Europe's Ban on U.S. Hormone-Treated Beef
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

FRANKFURT, Germany -- The European Union's ban on hormone-treated beef is illegal, a panel of the World Trade Organization has decided, giving the American cattle industry a big victory but also turning over new ground on issues of national sovereignty.

In a preliminary report, which has not yet been released to the public, the organization says that Europe's import ban on beef produced with growth-enhancing hormones is illegal because it has no scientific justification, according to American officials who have seen it.

If it is upheld, and experts on both sides said they believed that it would be, it is likely to set an important precedent for attacking scores of other trade barriers -- from Japanese certification of apples to European rules for poultry inspection -- that are based on health concerns.

But it also marks an unprecedented use of international trade law to overturn internal domestic laws that have strong popular support. Unlike many import restrictions, the European ban on hormone-treated beef was not erected to protect local farmers but rather to assuage widespread popular angst among European consumers over chemicals in food, and it applies equally to European and non-European farmers.

And a ruling by the trade organization could someday cut the other way as well, forcing the United States to drop health or environmental regulations that have broad popular appeal but that do not pass scientific muster in an international tribunal. It was that very possibility that galvanized some American conservatives to campaign against the formation of the group three years ago, contending that the organization would imperil American sovereignty by subjecting United States regulations to a group consisting of representatives of more than 100 other countries.

The issue before the three-member panel of the World Trade Organization was whether the beef ban, which was enacted in 1988, was grounded on any scientific evidence that the use of hormones might endanger health. American farmers routinely use five hormones, including progesterone and testosterone, to make cattle grow faster and produce more milk.

The overwhelming consensus among scientific experts was that there is no such evidence, and the five hormones used by American farmers were specifically approved by a standards-setting body within the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.

U.S. government officials who have seen the 60-page ruling by the trade panel said it firmly concluded that the European Union failed to satisfy the new standard for trade restrictions based on health.

"From our analysis, the preliminary decision comes down squarely on our side, based on the issue that food safety criteria have to be grounded on the basis of scientific principles," said one official, who spoke on the condition of not being identified.

European experts and diplomats said they were not surprised by the ruling, which was delivered to both sides shortly after midnight this morning in Geneva. The scientific consensus was simply too clear, they said.

Nonetheless, the ban on hormone-treated beef is grounded in powerful popular suspicions across much of Europe about chemical additives in food. European news media are full of reports about the decline in male fertility rates, with much of the speculation focusing on chemicals that people are absorbing from their environments. European foods routinely use fewer preservatives than American foods.

And when news reports periodically surface that cattle farmers in one country or another have been illegally using hormones, the reports generate angry popular outbursts and sometimes lead to brief but noticeable declines in beef consumption.

The issue of meat safety has become even more sensitive for Europeans in the last year, because of the furor over British cattle infected with "mad cow disease." Fear of contaminated beef prompted other countries in the European Union to block imports of British meat, igniting a bitter trade battle between Britain and the rest of Europe.

Thursday's decision is the first involving the agreement that restrictions based on health and safety of food products must be based on scientific evidence that the they protect human health.

"The trouble with the WTO agreement is that it does not provide for any measures that are based on consumer concerns," said Stefan Tangermann, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Gottingen in Germany. "It only provides for measures that are based on scientific concerns."

The ruling could also have a direct bearing on potential disputes in the future over genetically engineered crops, which raise some of the same political issues as hormone-treated beef. American companies are already marketing genetically altered corn that resists root worms and soybeans that are impervious to powerful pesticides, and both products have already generated intense political opposition in some European quarters.

The decision on the beef rules is almost certain to ignite a backlash among consumer groups and political leaders in much of Europe. The United States and the European Union both have one month to review the report and press for changes, but experts on both sides say the final decision is not likely to differ much from the preliminary report.

The issue is so sensitive, in fact, that European officials in Brussels have suggested they might well prefer to pay compensation to the United States rather than lift the ban, in the event that they ultimately lost the legal fight.

Many experts on both sides of the Atlantic said today that they expected the Europeans to seek some sort of negotiated solution that would allow them to keep their ban intact. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization, a country can choose to maintain its restriction if it gives up something of comparable value -- by cutting tariffs on other products, for example.

The actual volume of American beef exports to Europe is relatively small -- about $250 million, or about 10 percent of America's total beef exports -- cattle industry executives say.

These executives expressed concerns Thursday that their legal victory might not translate into practical benefits, if the European Union tried to negotiate an alternative to dropping the hormone prohibition.

"We do not feel that having the European Union pay compensation is an acceptable alternative," said Mark Armentrout, head of the international markets committee of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the owner of Mill Park Feedlot in Oakland, Iowa.

Armentrout said his association would be willing to accept requirements that beef be labeled as an American product, but he balked at using labels that would get into the subject of hormones.

"We are not willing to have some label that portrays it in a negative light," he said. "But in there somewhere there is room for negotiation."

European Union officials could not be reached Thursday, because it is a holiday in Belgium, where the European Commission is based.

The United States and the European Union both have an opportunity to make comments about the preliminary report, and a final version will be issued in about a month. The European Union can then appeal to the World Trade Organization, but the organization's rules require that the report be approved unless there is a unanimous vote against doing so.


*