Thursday

23rd Nov 2017

Opinion

Time to beef up EU trade rules

  • Independent beef farmers who raise their cattle on pasture also exist in the US, but are less prominent than in the EU. (Photo: Oli)

The long-standing conflict with the United States over the European Union's ban on the use of growth hormones in beef cattle is back on the table.

Two decades ago, the US and EU clashed over the health impacts of using hormones to speed up the growth of cattle, before both sides agreeing on a fragile compromise to end the trade fight.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

The conflict is on the verge of a major comeback after the US meat industry pushed for a change in the EU’s beef import rules.

Now it is up to president Donald Trump’s US trade representative (USTR), Robert Lighthizer, to decide on whether to buckle to corporate pressure and slap new punitive duties on EU agricultural exports, as well as a possible rotating “carousel” of sanctions on other products - ensuring the impacts hit as many sectors as possible.

The EU has prohibited the use of growth-promoting hormones in beef since 1989 because of concerns for human health.

In 2008, the US won a World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge to that decision, winning the right to impose retaliatory tariffs on EU farm goods.

Revenge of the tariffs

At the time, the US and EU decided to play nice by agreeing to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which started a special programme to import a set quantity of beef - not treated by hormones - into the EU.

With other countries such as Brazil and Uruguay competing for that quota, the US beef companies, led by the North American Meat Institute - the most powerful U.S. meat lobby - have become increasingly incensed that they have a declining share of the programme.

With the MOU set to expire, the previous USTR, started a process late last year to determine a list of retaliatory tariffs to impose on the EU for the hormone ban, and launched a period of public consultation.

The USTR received more than 11,000 comments, primarily from US retailers of EU motorcycles. Their import costs would double if the US were to follow through with slapping tariffs on EU motorcycle producers.

The US could also raise tariffs on EU exports of Roquefort cheese and Perrier water - raising concerns both from US grocery stores and EU exporters.

At a public hearing in February, William Busis from USTR stated the issue plainly: “The way trade disputes get resolved is that stakeholders within Europe talk to their member governments, and then their member governments talk to the commission. And then there is enough, I don’t know if the word is pressure, but there is enough input (emphasis added) that the commission then decides, ‘Oh, yes, maybe I should resolve this dispute.’”

The US is clearly hoping that hitting other sectors will get the European Commission to cave in and allow the imports of hormone beef.

The hormone beef case raises fundamental questions about the role of trade and the influence of industrial players.

Fundamental questions

Who gets to choose what kind of food and farm system we want? Is it the big corporations and beef traders that sell these products, and the trade negotiators acting on their behalf? Or are democracies allowed to judge the risks and decide for themselves which farm systems they deem culturally, environmentally, or socially appropriate?

Sadly, the issue doesn’t just stop at whether growth hormones are used or not. The beef entering the EU market under the special quota is supposedly hormone-free and considered “high quality beef”. This description is questionable at best, if not misleading.

The US meat industry essentially negotiated a deal that would require beef cattle to be fed a minimum of 62 percent feed grains or concentrated feed.

Aside from the environmental problems related to monocultures of genetically modified and chemically intensive soy and corn-based feeds, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has even opined that excessive grain can cause several animal welfare problems.

Moreover, the “high quality” cattle are fattened in barren feedlots - rather than allowed to roam free on pasture. Nutritionists confirm that cattle raised on pasture make for less fatty beef with Omega 3 and other nutrients not found in grain-fed beef.

Independent beef farmers who raise their cattle on pasture also exist in the US, but are less prominent than in the EU.

On both sides of the Atlantic, however, they are being squeezed out by the larger industrial-scale farms, together with trade deals seeking to push the price down further.

The sorry conclusion of the hormone-beef saga is that farmers, consumers, and the environment are being sacrificed at the altar of free trade and corporate power.

We do not subscribe to the politics of a trade war - we do, however, believe it’s time to seriously rethink trade policy.

The starting point should be the advancement of higher food and agricultural production standards that enhance animal welfare, public health, the environment - and the lives of people who produce the food.

Shefali Sharma is the director of the European Office of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Mute Schimpf is a food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe.

Agriculture MEPs call for rejection of GMO plan

A majority in the agriculture committee voted “to propose rejection of the Commission proposal” that would give member states the power to ban the use of genetically modified food.

EU commission changes gear on trade

The EU executive seeks new deals with Australia and New Zealand, while aiming to overhaul the global investment protection system. It also wants to screen foreign investments.

Eastern partners, eastern problems

The EU must hold out the olive branch of possible membership in the distant future - but the current domestic problems in the ex-Soviet states, let alone their links to Russia make more than that difficult.

EU must put Sudan under microscope at Africa summit

The EU is throwing a lot of money at Sudan to manage migration from the Horn of Africa to Europe - but the upcoming Africa Union-EU summit is a chance to probe Sudan about its own human rights record.

EU must confront Poland and Hungary

Curtailing NGOs and threatening judicial independence are the hallmarks of developing-world dictators and authoritarian strongmen, not a free and pluralistic European Union.

Mind the gap: inequality in our cities

Minimum wages, 'living' wages and a universal basic income are all part of the ongoing mix to find ways to reduce social inequality across the EU.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Energy Ministers Pledge to Work More Closely at Nordic and EU Level
  2. European Friends of ArmeniaLaunch of Honorary Council on the Occasion of the Eastern Partnership Summit and CEPA
  3. International Partnership for Human RightsEU Leaders Should Press Azerbaijan President to End the Detention of Critics
  4. CECEKey Stakeholders to Jointly Tackle the Skills Issue in the Construction Sector
  5. Idealist Quarterly"Dear Politics, Time to Meet Creativity!" Afterwork Discussion & Networking
  6. Mission of China to the EUAmbassador Zhang Ming Received by Tusk; Bright Future for EU-China Relations
  7. EU2017EEEstonia, With the ECHAlliance, Introduces the Digital Health Society Declaration
  8. ILGA EuropeFreedom of Movement For All Families? Same Sex Couple Ask EU Court for Recognition
  9. European Jewish CongressEJC to French President Macron: We Oppose All Contact With Far-Right & Far-Left
  10. EPSUWith EU Pillar of Social Rights in Place, Time Is Ticking for Commission to Deliver
  11. ILGA EuropeBan on LGBTI Events in Ankara Must Be Overturned
  12. Bio-Based IndustriesBio-Based Industries: European Growth is in Our Nature!

Latest News

  1. EU awaits UK proposals in final push for Brexit breakthrough
  2. Berlin risks being 'culprit' for stalling EU, warns Green MEP
  3. Eastern partners, eastern problems
  4. Germany's Schulz under pressure to enter coalition talks
  5. LuxLeaks trial re-opens debate on whistleblowers' protection
  6. Wilders says Russia is 'no enemy' ahead of Moscow visit
  7. EU must put Sudan under microscope at Africa summit
  8. Mali blames West for chaos in Libya

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Dialogue PlatformErdogan's Most Vulnerable Victims: Women and Children
  2. UNICEFEuropean Parliament Marks World Children's Day by Launching Dialogue With Children
  3. European Jewish CongressAntisemitism in Europe Today: Is It Still a Threat to Free and Open Society?
  4. Counter BalanceNew Report: Juncker Plan Backs Billions in Fossil Fuels and Carbon-Heavy Infrastructure
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic countries prioritise fossil fuel subsidy reform
  6. Mission of China to the EUNew era for China brings new opportunities to all
  7. ACCASmall and Medium Sized Practices Must 'Offer the Whole Package'
  8. UNICEFAhead of the African Union - EU Summit, Survey Highlights Impact of Conflict on Education
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council Calls for Closer Co-Operation on Foreign Policy
  10. Swedish EnterprisesTrilogue Negotiations - Striking the Balance Between Transparency and Efficiency
  11. Access EuropeProspects for US-EU Relations Under the Trump Administration - 28 November 2017
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable Growth the Nordic Way: Climate Solutions for a Sustainable Future