APPENDIX 3
Memorandum submitted by the US Meat Export
Federation (S 4)
The US Meat Export Federation (USMEF) is a non-profit
trade association developing international markets for US red
meat. USMEF represents beef, pork and lamb producers; meat packers,
processors, purveyors, and traders; feedgrain and oilseed promotional
groups, farm organizations; and agribusiness companies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EU ban on the importation of beef from cattle
raised with hormonal growth promoters is unjustified on scientific
grounds as it does nothing to enhance consumer safety.
The ban reduces consumer choice.
The failure of the European Union and Member
States to abide by their WTO obligations raises serious questions
about the EU's commitment to a multi-lateral rules-based trading
system.
The "precautionary principle" relegates
the use of quantifiable evidence to a secondary position within
the regulatory system and enhances the power of pressure groups
to the detriment of public policy making. Such a concept could
not be justified in judicial fora.
The denigration of science and scientists within
the regulatory framework is likely to increasingly sensitize the
public to inflammatory statements from pressure groups and lead
to the framing of ill-judged and overburdensome legislation.
The US industry is willing to work closely with
the European Commission, Member States and other interested parties
to address consumer concerns and expectations and enhance choice
through a labeling solution.
INTRODUCTION
The US Meat Export Federation welcomes this
opportunity to submit evidence to the Agriculture Committee on
the EU ban on beef from cattle raised with hormonal growth promoters.
Rather than focus on the history of the dispute between the European
Union and United States, and the political nature of the ban which
we are sure the Committee has been provided by Her Majesty's Government,
this memorandum will highlight the need for a rules-based trading
system that is underpinned by quantifiable scientific evidence.
The US-EU dispute over hormones used for cattle
growth promotion concerns the use of six scientifically approved
hormones: estradiol, melengestrol acetate, progesterone, testosterone,
trenbolone acetate, and zeranol. All six have been used without
negative effects on public health in the United States and many
other countries for decades. The clear international scientific
consensus is that these approved and licensed products are safe
when used in accordance with good veterinary practice. Even the
EU's own scientists agree with these findings.
Given that EU beef imports are strictly controlled
by import quotas, the US beef industry is seeking to make use
of the 11,500 metric ton quota for high quality grain-fed beef.
This amount represents less than 0.2 per cent of beef consumption
in the European Union.
This paper provides information on the following
topics:
— Hormone Use In Cattle In The United
States.
— The World Trade Organization's Role
In the Hormone Dispute.
— The Role Of Science In Consumer Choice.
HORMONE USE
IN CATTLE
IN THE
UNITED STATES
There are six hormones approved by the US Food
and Drug Administration for growth promoting purposes in cattle.
Three of the hormones in question—estradiol, progesterone
and testosterone—are naturally occurring hormones produced
by all humans and food animals. The other three substances—trenbolone
acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate (MGA)—are synthetic
hormones: trenbolone acetate mimics testosterone, zeranol mimics
estradiol, and MGA mimics progesterone.
Growth-promoting hormones have been used by
the beef industry for over 30 years to improve the animal's ability
to more efficiently utilize the nutrients that it consumes in
order to produce more muscle and less fat. The hormones are administered
by placing an implant[1]
(about the size of a pencil eraser) under the skin behind the
animal's ear. Cattle are implanted at a young age while their
growth rates are highest. Approximately 63 per cent of all cattle
and about 90 per cent of the fed cattle in the United States are
implanted. All manufacturing, marketing and use of implants are
regulated by the federal government.
Growth-promoting hormones have the same effect
on cattle as certain naturally occurring hormones produced by
the animal's body, regulating growth and other bodily functions.
The hormones used are similar to those naturally produced in the
human body, as well as those that exist naturally in virtually
all foods of plant and animal origin. However, the administered
doses are far smaller than those found in humans or in many common
foods.
Animals that are implanted with these growth-promoting
hormones grow as much as 15 to 20 per cent faster than untreated
animals. In addition, the cattle produce more lean meat and less
fat than cattle raised without the implants, enabling producers
to provide consumers with higher quality beef at lower prices.
Moreover, scientific evidence worldwide overwhelmingly indicates
there is no hazard to human health resulting from the consumption
of beef from animals implanted with growth-promoting hormones.
Hormones exist naturally in virtually all foods
of plant and animal origin.
There is no such thing as hormone-free beef.
All beef, and all other meats, naturally contain hormones at extremely
low levels. What's more, studies have demonstrated that beef produced
with growth-promoting hormones is not significantly different
than beef produced without them.
Growth promoting hormones enhance beef yields
and lower product cost.
When steers and heifers are implanted with growth-promoting
hormones, they grow significantly faster than non-implanted animals.
Consequently, the animals can reach market weight earlier and
have more lean meat and less fat. Because they reach market weight
sooner, the cost of beef production is reduced. Consumers therefore
benefit from higher quality beef at a lower price.
Hormones Pose No Risk to Human Health
Decades of worldwide scientific studies have
shown that consumption of beef from animals produced using the
six approved growth-promoting hormones does not present a risk
to human health. US beef is safe. In fact, it is impossible to
increase the hormone content of beef sufficiently to have an effect
on humans. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has thoroughly
researched the effects of growth-promoting hormones since the
1950s, and the United States has a regulatory system in place
to ensure their proper use.
The US Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) has researched the effects of growth-promoting hormones
for over 40 years and found no associated risks to human health.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
its Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and other scientific
organizations have found no safety difference for consumers eating
beef from animals raised using hormones versus those raised without
their use.
As recently as February 1999, the Joint Expert
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
re-examined and confirmed the safety of the three naturally occurring
hormones for growth promoting use in cattle. JECFA had done the
same for five of the six hormones in 1987.
Other scientific expert groups—from the
1984 and 1987 Lamming Committee (a scientific expert group formed
by the European Commission) to the Codex Committee on Residues
of Veterinary Drugs in Foods—have repeatedly confirmed the
safety of all six hormones.
FDA has approved the six hormones for use to
increase feed efficiency and promote growth in cattle. Prior to
approval, the specific conditions of use were extensively evaluated
for safety to consumers of meat products.
The United States has an extensive regulatory
control system to ensure the proper use of these hormones. The
US system includes comprehensive food safety standards that are
based on sound, internationally recognized scientific criteria.
Hormones occur naturally in many foods. Consumers
are exposed every day to foods with higher hormone levels than
those found in any beef from animals treated with hormones.
Hormone levels (estradiol equivalent) in beef
are far less than those found in eggs. A person would need to
eat over six kilograms of beef from animals treated with these
hormones in order to equal the amount of those hormones found
in one egg.
One pint glass of milk from an untreated cow
contains about nine times as much estradiol as a 250 gram portion
of meat from a steer raised using hormones.
Even plants produce the equivalent of sex hormones.
Cabbage, wheat germ and broccoli contain high levels of plant
estrogens.
One bowl of split pea soup has more than nine
times as much naturally occurring estrogen as a five-ounce portion
of meat from a steer raised using hormones.
Mention should be made that prior to the May
13 deadline for lifting the ban on imports, the Commission's Directorate
General XXIV headed by Commissioner Bonino published an "Opinion"
on the general safety of hormones, and claimed that one of the
hormones (estrogen) was a "complete carcinogen" and
that this justified the ban on imports of US beef.
The EU's Opinion is not consistent with numerous
scientific reviews conducted by reputable international oganizations,
incuding those mentioned above, and represents a signficant departure
from the conclusions reached by all previous international review
panels.
Indeed, the EU's Opnion presents the same material
the WTO rejected during the dispute process.
For the Committee's information, it is apparent
that if the Commission is suggesting that estrogen is a complete
carcinogen and should therefore be banned, then a wide range of
common foods should be included in future bans.
It is clear that if regulators do not base their
decisions on scientific evidence then risks to consumers are not
quantifiably diminished but consumer choice is reduced.
THE WORLD
TRADE ORGANIZATION'S
ROLE IN
THE HORMONE
DISPUTE
The World Trade Organization owes its existence
to the recognition by countries around the world that trade is
the driving force behind economic development. Both the WTO and
its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, were
established to provide a set of rules which Members commit to
abide by in order to enhance and protect the ability of nations
to trade with each other. This is as true for agricultural products
as it is for industrial goods.
In January 1995 the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement,
including the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) came
into force. The SPS Agreement reaffirms that "no Member should
be prevented from adopting or enforcing measures necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life or health, subject to the
requirement that they are not applied in a manner which would
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between Members where the same conditions prevail or a disguised
restriction on international trade."
The SPS Agreement, which the European Union
and its Member States played a pivotal role in developing, requires
WTO signatories "to ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary
measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human,
animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles
and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence."
The one proviso to this statement concerns cases
where relevant scientific evidence may be insufficient. In such
cases, "Members may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary
measures on the basis of available pertinent information, including
that from the relevant international organizations as well as
from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other Members.
In such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk
and review the sanitary or phytosanitary measure accordingly within
a reasonable period of time."
The establishment of the SPS Agreement is of
paramount importance for the trade in agricultural and food products
because it is designed to prevent the erection of non-tariff trade
barriers for narrow and short-term political reasons. The SPS
Agreement is designed, like the rest of the WTO and GATT Agreements,
to promote trade for the global good. It therefore places public
interest above political interest.
The first case brought under the SPS Agreement
was the EU ban on the import of beef from cattle raised with
hormones. While the United States had previously sought to challenge
the EU's ban within the existing GATT rules, the EU was able to
prevent adjudication by using a number of administrative blocking
tactics.
Under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding
(DSU), a progression of steps is followed to try to resolve the
issue. If, through consultations, a solution is not reached, the
complaining member may request a panel to review the dispute.
The panel is composed of well-qualified individuals who are selected
with a view to ensuring independence and diversity of background
and experience.
Importantly, the disputing members must agree
on the panel members. Once the panel is chosen, the disputing
members present their case. The parties can appeal the panel's
findings to the WTO Appellate Body for a final decision.
The member whose measure has been found to be
inconsistent with the WTO must bring the measure into compliance
within a reasonable period of time. If the disputing members can
not agree on the reasonable period of time, an independent arbitrator
can be asked to rule.
The objective of dispute settlement is the withdrawal
of measures found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the
WTO. The DSU is clear on the issue of compensation. Compensation
must be mutually agreed upon both parties and is only temporary
pending the withdrawal of the offending measure. Finally, the
DSU outlines the procedures by which an injured member may withdraw
concessions if an acceptable solution is not found.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)
was developed to provide security and predictability to the multi-lateral
trading system and to preserve the rights and obligations of WTO
Members.
Following unproductive WTO consultations in
March 1996 (in which the United States was joined by Canada, Australia
and New Zealand), the United States requested a WTO dispute settlement
panel. Each side presented its case, incorporating both verbal
and written testimonies from expert scientists. The panel thoroughly
reviewed the case, including information from independent scientific
experts convened by the Panel. On 18 August 1997, the panel found
that the EU's ban on the use of hormones to promote the growth
of cattle is inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. In particular, the
panel's report affirms that the EU's ban is not supported by scientific
evidence. The panel found that the ban was not based on a risk
assessment or on the relevant international standards.
In September 1997, the EU appealed the Panel's
findings. In its report, the Appellate Body (AB) firmly upheld
the Panel's finding that the EU's ban is inconsistent with the
SPS Agreement and must be brought into conformity with the WTO
principles. The AB clearly affirmed the Panel's findings that
the EU ban was imposed and maintained without credible evidence
of any health risks posed by eating beef from cattle treated with
hormones, and despite scientific evidence showing such meat to
be safe.
On 13 March 1998, the EU announced only that
it would implement the Appellate Body finding in "as short
a time as possible". This was unacceptable to the United
States. Because the parties were not able to agree on a "reasonable
period of time" for implementation (15 months had been the
norm for cases so far), the EU requested binding arbitration.
The EU argued for four years: two years to conduct a risk assessment
and two years to complete legislative procedures, depending on
the outcome of the risk assessment. The arbitrator decided, however,
that the EU only needed 15 months. The arbitrator's ruling was
clear in that the reasonable period of time is provided to bring
the measure into compliance and not to conduct studies to demonstrate
the consistency of a measure already judged to be inconsistent
with WTO principles. The reasonable period of time for the EU
to come into compliance with the WTO rulings ended on 13 May 1999.
According to Article 22.2 of the DSU, if the
EU failed to comply within the reasonable period of time and no
mutually acceptable temporary compensation has been agreed to,
the United States had the right to request authorization to suspend
trade concessions. This the United States did and trade concessions
were withdrawn against EU products to the value of $116.8 million.
Importantly, trade concessions were not withdrawn against products
from the United Kingdom because of its unwavering support for
the WTO findings.
The decision of the European Union to ignore
the WTO rulings in this case are seriously threatening the viability
and credibility of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and
the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
This may have serious implications for all agricultural
and food exporters as it encourages other Members to renege on
their commitments. There is a huge variety of issues that countries
seeking to prevent European products from entering their markets
could employ. Such examples could include Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,
Bovine Immuno-Deficiency Virus, Swine Fever, Dioxin contamination,
azadirachtin, deltamethrin and Plant Growth Regulators. Indeed,
for the creative protectionist, the list is endless as it is impossible
to prove a negative.
The limitless potential for artificial barriers
should be of concern to Europe's farmers. After all the EU is
the world's largest exporter of agricultural products to a value
of over $62 billion in 1997, equal to 7.6 per cent of total EU
exports.
The EU's unjustified recalcitrance may also
affect the next round of global trade talks. This may have significant
detrimental effects on other sectors and on future growth-inducing
agreements.
THE ROLE
OF SCIENCE
IN CONSUMER
CHOICE
Every government has a responsibility to protect
consumer health. In a liberal democracy it is also the government's
duty to allow citizens freedom of choice. However, as is amply
illustrated by the debate over smoking, these objectives often
conflict. Given that the act of living is not risk free, the question
for government is to determine when a risk becomes a hazard. Not
only is this not a purely philosophical debate, it has real implications
for the functioning of government and society.
At the one extreme, it can be envisaged that
government becomes highly prescriptive, requiring its citizens
to adopt confining lifestyles in order to reduce risk. This risk
may be actual or perceived. Thus, government would be responsible
for legislating for everything from diet to allowable sports.
At this level, risk assessment would be left entirely to government.
Citizens have little or no freedom of choice under this system.
Under this system innovation and increases in living standards
are likely to be inhibited as over regulation will hinder entrepreneurial
developments across all fields.
The other extreme would remove government from
the regulation of risks and require citizens to be entirely responsible
for checking and evaluating the risks involved in each action.
Citizens may have full freedom of choice but the consequences
of their actions are often not clear to them as they make their
decisions. Here, the burdens placed on the rest of society through,
for example, increased costs on the health service must be weighed
against the expanded range of choices available to individuals.
Thus far, the preferred method of protecting
the public from hazard has been to base risk assessment on scientific
analysis. Science has therefore played a key and integral role
in assessing real risks. Citizens have, to a great degree, been
responsible for incorporating their individual perceptions of
risk into their decision making. For instance, a consumer may
perceive one product to contain more fat than another, even when
the emperical evidence shows this not to be the case.
Interestingly, the European Commission and some
other governments now appear to wish to incorporate perceived
risk into their regulatory decision-making by promoting and defining
a concept known as "The Precautionary Principle." This
concept stems directly from many European consumers' lack of confidence
in the regulatory system and the regulators' ability to restore
faith in the system. However, by embracing this principle, the
Community is sending the message to consumers that their own government
doesn't trust science. This is likely to lead to reduced transparency
in regulatory risk assessment by formally incorporating the prejudices
of pressure groups into the risk appraisal process, thereby compounding
consumers' mistrust of the regulatory system.
This will have the effect of increasing the
political interference in the appraisal of risk and increase governmental
involvement in defining perceived risk for any activity. Clearly,
the result of this will be to curtail freedom of choice as the
ability of the individual to base his or her actions on individual
perceptions of risk will have been removed.
The May 1999 decision by the Commission's DGXXIV
to use misinformation and spin in its defence of the hormone ban
had the objective of increasing negative perceptions of US beef
in the minds of EU citizens and thus increasing the height of
the political hurdle facing those within the EU that wish to abide
by their WTO commitments. The episode clearly shows the danger
of downgrading the role of science within the regulatory framework
and should serve as a warning to those policymakers who wish to
achieve the establishment of an unbiased food safety system that
is trusted by consumers and places trust in consumers.
The EU's ban on the import of US beef is perhaps
the textbook case of when scientific evidence is denigrated by
politicians, quasi-politicians and pressure groups for their own
short term interests. Rather than accept scientific evidence,
the European Commission has ploughed significant resources into
defending a ban based on the prejudice of interest groups over
a 10 year period. The scientific evidence is clear that eating
US beef is no riskier to consumers than eating European beef or
many other foods that are readily available on the EU market today.
The regulation therefore removes consumer choice without any justification.
The US industry recognizes that there may be
consumers who do not wish to purchase US beef because of their
individual perceptions. However, we do not believe the perceptions
of some provides a justification for continuing the ban and denying
choice for those that may wish to purchase US beef. That is why
the US industry wishes to work closely with the European Commission
and Member States to develop a labeling solution as a way of allowing
choice and solving this dispute.
CONCLUSION
The hormone dispute has become the textbook
case of when short term political interests using emotional and
unsubstantiated arguments override evidence-based policymaking.
The failure of the EU to play by the rules has the potential to
lead to a breakdown in confidence in the WTO and lead to a return
to countries seeking unilateral remedies to disputes. Such a scenario
would lead to a contraction in world trade and a reduction in
economic growth and development.
Time after time, international scientific reviews
have confirmed that the EU's ban has no basis in fact and is unjustified.
This has the effect of reducing freedom of choice.
The hormone issue can be seen as a test case
of how risk assessment should be based on quantifiable evidence
and of the dangers of incorporating perceptions into public policy.
Trust in government regulation by the public and trust of the
public is fundamental to moving away from the current rollercoaster
of food scares which benefit few, with the possible exception
of those who increase their influence by propagating misinformation.
The US industry would like to use this opportunity
to reaffirm its readiness to work with the European Commission,
Member States and other interested parties to work toward a solution
based on labeling.
5 October 1999
1 "Implants" are the common term used to
describe growth-promoting hormones. However, one of the six growth-promoting
hormones is mixed with feed and administered orally. Back
| 
