Beef Hormone Dispute: Origin, Scientific Evidence, Risk Analysis, Dispute Settlement, and Trade Sanctions

Running head: REPORT 0
MSC FOOD AND NUTRITION
MAY 12, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

REPORT 1
Introduction
The European Union has branded beef that was raised with artificial hormone treated beef as
unnatural and restriction importations. America and other beef-exporting countries like
Canada made arguments that the import ban was not relevant on scientific ground and was
instead concealed protection. Thus, the long-running trading disputes have been started
between USA and EU along with Canada. In the following parts, origin of beef dispute,
review of scientific evidence, risk analysis, Dispute settlement process, trade sanctions, and
status of dispute is discussed and critically examined.
Origin of dispute
The beef Hormone dispute is most perverse agriculture dispute since the formation of World
Trade Organisation. The beef Hormone dispute is known as beef war in media. In year 1989,
EU restricted import of meat having artificial beef growth hormones supported for utilisation
and regulated in USA. Formerly, this ban contained 6 hormones however was amended in
year 2003 to eternally ban one hormone namely estradiol-17β when temporarily banning the
utilisation of remaining 5 hormones.World Trade Organisations rules allow these restrictions,
however only where theco-signer represents proper scientific evidence that the restriction is
the safety measure and health measure (Sinopoli and Purnhargen, 2016).
Review of scientific evidence
EU and USA have involved in thelong-lasting and unfriendly trading dispute over a decision
of EU to restrict hormone-treated meat, dating back to starting of 1980. In spite of ongoing
series of dispute settlement procedures and decisions by WTO, there are continued
disagreements between EU and USA on theseries of practical issues as well as legal issues,
and the scientific evidence and agreementregardingprotection of beef hormone. Further, it is

REPORT 2
found by the panel that the EU had not showed proper scientific evidence to validate
importation of ban, involving the 2003 risk assessment report of EU. The panel criticised
both Canada and USA for maintaining the obligatory tradingauthorisations. It is also found
by them that both had made technicalbreaches under the World Trade Organisation Dispute
Settlement Understanding due to theindependent acts they had made (May, 2017).
Moreover, the World Trade Organisation Appellate Body's reversal of panels on the problem
of scientific evidence has led certain argues that it is the possibly precedent-setting decisions,
which may be professed to direct WTO dispute settlement panel to be more admiring to the
central governmentwhile the proper scientific evidences are not presented to create the
objective risk assessment. Certain claims that it can permit for more suppleness to the nations
in implementing SPS provisions in future World Trade Organisationobedience panel, and
may alter how panel operates on the cases related to a burden of proof and in post-retaliation
conditions. The most recent review was conducted in year 2007 by the European Food Safety
Authority.The reviewscontained more scientific evidence, which emerged after last risk
assessment (1999, 2000, or 2002) related to an utilisation of some natural and artificial
development-developing hormones in cattle (Revell, 2017).
Risk analysis
As per the agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary, signers have the rights
to apply prohibitions on grounds related to protection subject to scientific evaluation. The
heart of the beef war was a truth that all risk evaluation is arithmetical in nature. It unable to
determine with inevitability the lack of risks related to health, and resulting disagreements
between the USA beef producers and Canada beef producers on the one hand, who supposed
that the broader scientific consensus presented that beef manufactured with utilisation of
hormones was secure, and the EU on other thatdeclared that this was not so secure. The
scientific evidence for risks related to health with utilisation of growth hormones in meat