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

This report discusses the origin of the beef hormone dispute between the EU and USA, reviews the scientific evidence, analyzes the risks, explores the dispute settlement process, and examines the trade sanctions. It also provides an update on the current status of the dispute.

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

REPORT 3
manufacturing was, at better, scant. However, consumer lobbyist communities were far more
capable to positively affect EU parliament to enact rules in the 1980 than manufacturer
lobbyist communities were, and had far more effects on public insights (Watson , 2017).
Dispute settlement process
The member nations of WTO have created the set of rules regulating foreign trade. These
rules are legally binding on member nations and were made to administer. The dispute
settlement system is considered by World Trade Organization as a key pillar of the
multidimensional trade system, and as a company’s exclusivesupport to constancy of an
international economy. The functions of World Trade Organisation dispute settlement
procedureinclude the people as well as third people to the matter and can cover the dispute
settlement body panel, Appellate Body, Secretariat of WTO, judges, self-regulating
specialists, and variousspecific organisations (Grant and Arita,2016).
Besides, the General Councils discharge the duties as per dispute settlement understanding
through the Dispute Settlement Body. Like the General Council, the dispute settlement body
is self-possessed of legislative bodies of the members of World Trade Organisation. This
board is liable for regulating Dispute Settlement Understanding, such as for supervising the
complete dispute settlement procedure. This also has the powers to develop the panel, follow
panel and Appellate Body report, keepinvestigation of application of ruling as well as
recommendation, and approve the suspension of the duties under the enclosed
agreement. The DSB meets as often as essential to follow to the timeframe rendered for in
dispute settlement system (Hussey and Tidemann, 2017).
Trade Sanctions
The EU claimed the actionsestablished an acceleration of disputes and were more disciplinary
in comparison of the present trade sanctions. The USA disputes whether EU has made the

REPORT 4
proper risk assessment to support the post and keeps there are simpleinternational scientific
consensus sustaining a protection to consumer of takingbeef hormones. USA continues to
know whether the EU has made the proper risk evaluation to keep the post. In retaliation,
starting in the 1980, the USA applied trade sanctions as authorized by World Trade
Organisation in the procedure of high importation tariff on chosen agricultural goods of EU.
The World Trade Organisation issued thecombined rulingspermitting USA to continue the
trading sanctions, however permitting EU to maintain the restriction in 2008 (Lovec, 2017).
In the addition, claiming that the decision of banning is right and in compliance with the
World Trade Organisation rules, the EU has continued to initiate counteractions against USA,
stating that there are no morepermissiblebases for USA to apply trade sanctions against EU.
The Appellate Body report reversed a decision of panel by presenting that a restriction of EU
is not mismatched with World Trade Organisation laws, therefore permitting more admiration
to EU in determining bases for the rules related to security of food. Therefore, trade sanctions
will stay in effect on some EU distributes until a concludingstage of an agreement (Millstone
and Lang, 2018).
Status of dispute in current
EU concession helps to finish long-lasting beef hormone war with Canada and United States
of America wasagreedby MEPs recently. The deal permits EU to maintain the restriction on
import beef hormone, in return for enhancing the quota for importation of best quality beef
from Canada as well as USA. In the addition of this, the deal will raise the quality beef
import quota of EU to 48,200 tonnes. Canada and USA for the part have already discharged
duties, levied in retribution against the EU's beef hormone ban, on earlier banned goods
originating in 26 EU Member nations excluding United Kingdom, worth above 250 million
dollar at current price (Gortanutti, 2016).

REPORT 5
Conclusion
As per the above analysis, it can conclude that one of the impacts of the Beef Hormone
Dispute in USA was to arouse the interest of public in the issues. Now the long-standing
trade dispute will end. It is consideredas win-win solution for European Union. Parliament
has initiated the actions, which would make able agricultural sector in EU to make planning
again and that would reinforce intercontinental trading connections.

REPORT 6
References
Buonanno, L.A. (2017)The new trade deals and the mobilisation of civil society organizations:
comparing EU and US responses. Journal of European Integration, 39(7), pp.795-809.
Gortanutti, G. (2016)The influence of trade unions and social movements on EU trade policy. EU
Trade Policy at the Crossroads: between Economic Liberalism and Democratic Challenges,
ÖsterreichischeForschungsstiftungfürinternationaleEntwicklungspolitik, February, pp.4-6.
Grant, J. and Arita, S. (2016) Revealed Concerns: A New Look at the Impact of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures on Agri-Food Trade (No. 333-2016-14775).
Hussey, K. and Tidemann, C. (2017) Agriculture in the Australia–EU economic and trade
relationship. Australia, the European Union and the New Trade Agenda, pp.97-119.
Lovec, M. (2017) LIMITS TO A POWER GAME: NEGOTIATING THE TRANSATLANTIC
TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD. Teorija in
Praksa, 54(2).
May, B. (2017) New Challenges for Transatlantic Economic Relations 1. In Revival: The New
Transatlantic Agenda (2001), 25(5), pp. 173-190
Millstone, E. and Lang, T. (2018) Hormone-treated beef: should Britain accept it after Brexit?.
Revell, B.J. (2017)Brexit and tariff rate quotas on EU imports: a complex
problem. EuroChoices, 16(2), pp.10-17.
Sinopoli, D. and Purnhargen, K. (2016) Reversed Harmonization or Horizontalization of EU
Standards: Does WTO Law Facilitate or Constrain the Brussels Effect. Wis. Int'l LJ, 34, p.92.

REPORT 7
Watson, C.D. (2017) Impact of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership upon US beef
exports. Academic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(2), pp.48-54.