APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the International
Meat Trade Association Inc (S 9)
Thank you for your letter dated 30 July in which
you invite individuals or organisations to comment on certain
subjects relating to the forthcoming World trade talks on which
you are seeking evidence. We should like to comment on two of
the subjects which you have highlighted as follows:
HORMONES IN
BEEF
It is perhaps pertinent to recall that originally
the British Government opposed the EU ban on the use of growth
promoters for cattle on the grounds that it was not scientifically
based. The British Government took the EU to the European Court
over this issue, but when the case was lost, the UK fell into
line with the rest of the Community in imposing the ban.
Every year since that time a proportion of the
North American Hilton Beef Import Quota has been shipped, using
hormone free cattle and strict segregation in feed lots and abattoirs
in the USA.
In the meantime the US has challenged the EU
position on hormones in the WTO and has obtained a ruling in that
Organisation that the EU ban is inconsistent with WTO rules. The
subsequent failure of the EU to lift the ban on hormones has resulted
in the imposition of 100 per cent ad valorem duties on a whole
range of agricultural products from EU countries. The UK is exempt
from these retaliation measures, presumably because of the original
UK support for the US position. Independent scientific advisers
to the Government concluded that the recent EU report on hormones
did not justify the ban. It seems clear that some compromise must
be reached, and in our view the obvious solution would be to allow
the US to ship its meat and offal provided it is labelled for
example "hormone free" or "treated with hormones".
The consumer would still have the ultimate choice.
IMPORT INSPECTIONS
OF FOODSTUFFS
Inspections at ports and airports of animal
products entering the EU from Third Countries have become extremely
strict and administratively burdensome over the last few years,
and particularly since the implementation in the UK of Directive
97/98 from 1 July this year.
It should be recalled that the UK's Port Health
Authorities have for many years successfully performed the task
of safeguarding the UK's animal and public health from the introduction
of disease from outside. They themselves considered that it was
not necesssary to tighten the rules.
However, the introduction of a complex system
of documentary, identity and physical checks was regarded by the
EU as an essential part of establishment of the Single Market.
We have no difficulty with documentary and physical checks which,
apart from the extra paperwork, appear to be following traditional
lines. However the Identity Check seems to us to create an unnecessary
raft of additional inspection which is costly and time-consuming.
There are also a number of impracticalities in the new requirements
concerned with the need for the veterinary paperwork to travel
inland with the load. This is diametrically opposed to the principle
of "cleared for free circulation" which has always existed
in the past.
We have raised objections to all these points
with the EU Commission, UK Ministers and MAFF officials but so
far without success. In a situation where our own Minister is
calling for less bureaucracy the above situation does appear somewhat
incongruous. In the light of the forthcoming world trade negotiations
we believe that these issues should be considered so as to evaluate
whether the measures are justified in improving consumer health
and safety in practice, or whether they are simply a barrier to
trade by adding to the costs of import.
We support the imposition of controls where
these are based on sound scientific evidence, but where restrictions
are being imposed due to perceived consumer interests we believe
that effective labelling should be the approach, allowing consumers
to make an informed choice.
1 November 1999
| 
