Beef Hormone Dispute and Global Trade - Coursework Example

The Europeans prefer the natural method of rearing livestock without the use of any growth-stimulating hormones. Consumer groups, animal rights groups, and possibly even environmental groups in the EU welcomed and supported the decision and it is quite possible that the EU had been under public pressure to implement such a directive from the farming community in the EU (Friends of the Earth, International). Many individuals around the world will also find it ethically repugnant to use growth hormones to rapidly fatten up animals and to change their natural biology when their ultimate destiny was to be slaughtered for the benefit of humans.

The precautionary principle used by the EU to place this ban in order to protect public, environmental and animal health is recognized in Article 5.7 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Code of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, and the definition is considered to be a workable one, although it has been said that this definition can be improved. However, article 20 of GATT also stipulates that (National Consumer Council, UK): “Nothing in the Agreement shall prevent the adoption or enforcement by any member country of measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, provided they are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries or as a disguised restriction on international trade”.

As a result of this EU decision, the United States government had come under intense pressure from Monsanto, the multinational chemical manufacturing giant which has been producing many hormones for use in agriculture and livestock production and other farming interest groups, which had indulged in intense lobbying on Capitol Hill to try and protect American economic interests (Friends of the Earth, International). A complaint was lodged with the World Trade Organization or the WTO in May 1996 and Mickey Kantor, the then US Trade Representative who later became a board member of Monsanto was responsible for initiating the WTO action. 

Canada also lodged a complaint against the EU on its so called protectionist trade policies and the same WTO panel was formed to hear and adjudicate on both the complaints. On August 18, 1997 the WTO panel which was formed to adjudicate on the dispute found that there was no evidence to suggest that meat produced using hormones to stimulate growth in livestock had any adverse impact on human health and ruled against the EU’s use of the precautionary principle (The United States Mission to the European Union).

Although the initial burden of proof rested with the United States to demonstrate that the use of hormones was safe and the application of the precautionary principle illegal, this burden of proof later shifted to the EU, which had to demonstrate that there was a probability that the use of hormones in meat production was unsafe. However, one of the hormones used on livestock which is known as MGA had no international standard or publicly available study which could substantiate its safety and the United States refused to provide evidence related to this hormone, stating that information related to MSG was confidential and proprietary in nature (Eggers).

The EU appealed against the decision of the panel and although the appellate body issued a report on January 16, 1998 that modified the ruling of the WTO panel which was first constituted to adjudicate on the complaint, the appellate body also ruled against the EU. In May, 1998 the WTO granted EU until May 13, 1999 to comply with the rulings of the world trade body (The United States Mission to the European Union). The EU refused to comply with the decisions of the WTO, stating that a change was required in the international agreement on trade and on July 26, 1999, the WTO authorized United States to impose retaliatory sanctions against the EU amounting to US$ 116.

8 million per annum, an amount which was calculated by the WTO arbiters as being the level of damage suffered by American producers (Friends of the Earth). Since then, the EU has refused to comply with the ruling of the WTO and has been trying to make the ban compatible with the World Trade Agreement, while the United States of America has been trying to force the EU to lift its ban on hormone treated meat. The EU has been suffering US sanctions and has also imposed its own sanctions, while both the parties to the beef hormone dispute have been trying to have their version of the GATT imposed on the world.

In 1995 the Codex Alimentarius Commission or Codex - the international food standards body – had controversially adopted standards accepting residue levels of these hormones in meat after the United States chaired the relevant committee and forced a secret ballot. This was something which went against the earlier decision of Codex. The EU has claimed that it has higher standards associated with the protection of public health then Codex. This essay takes a look at the beef hormone dispute, presenting perspectives associated with the use of hormones for beef production, the WTO system and the GATT agreement.

A conclusion is then presented about the ability of a government to restrict the entry of products which it finds to be unsuitable for its citizens in an era of free trade. Opponents of the WTO see the organization as being too powerful and infringing excessively on the sovereignty of member states. The next section takes a look at the hormones that are used in meat production in North America. 2.1 Beef Hormones and Evidence of their adverse Impact on Human Health Meat is widely consumed around the world and it is considered to be an important ingredient in a balanced diet for humans.

Hence, meat is widely traded internationally between countries and its methods of production differ. In the United States and Canada, growth stimulating hormones which are said to produce leaner meat in cattle which is made to rapidly gain weight through their use enables more economical production to be made possible.