FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
U.S. MISSION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

Last update:  August 3, 2007

Home  |  A-Z Index   |  Mission |  Staff  |  FAS Offices in the EU  |  Euro Exchange Rates

Exporter Guides  |  Finding EU Legislation  |  Links to EU & US Websites  |  Tips for Travelers 

Background

On January 1, 1989, the European Union implemented a ban on imports of red meat from animals treated with six growth promotants, both natural and synthetic, cutting off U.S. beef exports to the EU. The products used in the U.S., three natural hormones and three synthetic products, have been thoroughly tested and have been shown to have no adverse effects on human or animal health.  The EU, however, continued to publicly rule out an end to the hormone ban, stating that economic, environment and consumer concerns must be considered in addition to the scientific evidence. Therefore, the United States and Canada launched separate WTO dispute settlement panel cases against the EU regime in 1996.

On August 18, 1997, the WTO distributed its final report. In a major victory for the hard-fought Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, the panel strongly upheld all the principles argued by the United States, and ruled that the EU ban was inconsistent with the principles of the SPS Agreement. The EU appealed this finding.

On January 16, 1998, the Appellate Body (AB) released its report and firmly upheld the Panel findings. Although EU officials claimed victory because the AB weakened a couple of the Panel findings on specific SPS articles, the AB's bottom line is that the ban is inconsistent and must be brought into conformity with WTO rules. On February 13, 1998, the Panel and Appellate Body reports on the EU hormone ban were adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). At the DSB meeting on March 13, the EU announced only that it would implement the Appellate Body finding in "as short a time as possible."

Because the parties were not able to agree on a "reasonable period of time" for implementation, the EU requested binding arbitration. The EU argued for 4 years in which to come into compliance: 2 years to conduct a risk assessment, and 2 years to complete legislative procedures, depending on the outcome of the risk assessment. The arbitrator decided, however, that the EU only needed 15 months, and that is was not necessary to conduct another risk assessment. The 15 months started in February 1998, with the adoption of the Appellate Body report. The deadline expired on May 13, 1999.

For more information on the WTO dispute settlement panel final ruling, see the WTO homepage.

EU'S Opinion on risk

On May 1, 1999, the EU made available a report on the potential human health risks associated with consumption of beef from animals treated with U.S. approved growth-promoting hormones.  The opinion is not consistent with numerous scientific reviews conducted by reputable international organizations and represent a significant departure from conclusions reached by all previous international review panels.

The FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) reviewed and affirmed safety of food derived from animals treated with approved hormones in 1987 and again in March 1999.  Several other authoritative international scientific groups reviewed and also affirmed the safety of these approved hormones: the Lamming Committee in 1984, and again in 1987; the EU's Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production in 1995; and expert consultant to the World Trade Organization panel in 1997.

The EU's Opinion focuses on only one growth promotant, estradiol, and in particular its potential genotoxicity, suggesting that the EU's most serious concerns are related to estradiol's presence in beef.  The Opinion directs relatively little attention towards the other natural and synthetic hormones.

The EU failed to use solid evaluative methods in their studies and completely disregarded the large body of evidence from epidemiological studies that indicate that estradiol does not contribute to any increased cancer risk and that meat from animals tested with estradiol is safe for consumers.

In summary, the Opinion fails to provide any new evidence that would call into question the findings and conclusions of other authoritative reviews, that beef from cattle treated with the six growth hormones in question pose no cancer risk to consumers.

On June 12, 2007, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion related to hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products.  The European Commission asked EFSA to examine new data on substances with hormonal activity which may be legally used in third countries.  EFSA concluded that the new data that are publicly available do not provide quantitative information that would be informative for risk assessment and therefore do not call for a revision of previous risk assessments.

UK scientific report questions EU position on beef hormones (GAIN Report UK6022): Following a three and a half year study, independent scientific advisors in the UK have concluded that they are unable to support the conclusions of a 2002 report by the EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH). The report by the SCVPH had concluded that the risks associated with the consumption of meat from hormone-treated cattle may be greater than previously thought.
 

Suspension of Concessions

On July 12, 1999, WTO arbitrators determined that the EU beef ban results in a significant loss to U.S. beef exporters, and that the United States is entitled to suspend tariff concessions covering EU trade in the amount of $116.8 million per year.  On July 19, 1999, the United States announced the final list of products from the EU on which the United States has imposed 100 percent ad valorem duties, effective July 29, 1999.  The United-States, however, remains willing to discuss the issue of compensation, as an interim step until the EU lifts its import ban.

In May 2000, the European Commission, following an EU scientific committee opinion, proposed to ban definitively the use of estradiol in farm animals both for growth promotion and therapeutic purposes and to maintain the prohibition on the five other hormones on a provisional basis while it seeks more complete scientific information.  The Commission stated that this provisional ban would be in compliance with the ruling of the Appellate Body.  The Commission's effort to replace its eleven-year old ban with a new "provisional" ban was an attempt to bring it into compliance with the WTO decision.  This action was unacceptable to the United States who contended it did not comply with WTO rules. 

In November 2004, the EU requested WTO consultations with the U.S. (WTO doc. WT/DS320/1).  The U.S. maintains its WTO-authorized sanctions on EU products and does not agree that the EU is in compliance with the WTO ruling as the EU's position remains unsupported by any scientific rationale.  The U.S. and the EU continue to explore possible approaches to resolve this long-standing dispute.

European Union Bans Estradiol

On October 14, 2003, Directive 2003/74/EC, finalizing the EU's ban on estradiol in food-producing animals, was published in Official Journal L 262.  The prohibition of estradio-17 has been in effect since the early 1980's.  The EU considers this action as fulfilling their risk assessment obligations to the WTO.  For more information see GAIN report E23193.