Stephen Cadogan: American move on growth-promoter beef leaves sour taste
The outgoing administration in Washington has taken the first steps in a trade war aimed at getting a more favourable market in the EU for US beef, by moving to load extra import taxes onto $116.8m per year of EU products sold in the US.
Since 1988, the US has been trying to overthrow the EU’s ban on import of meat and meat products from animals treated with the promoters.
The EU’s assessment of risks to human health from growth promoter hormone residues in bovine meat has resulted in an ban on such meats since 1981.
Although they make beef production cheaper (the increase in productivity from using hormones is 5%-20%), EU farmers cannot use them, and they are banned in meat imported into the EU.
About 30 growth-promoting products are marketed for cattle in the US.
They are combinations of sex hormones and growth hormones, and adrenal hormones (beta-agonists), which are also banned in the EU.
For six hormones used in beef production, a risk to the consumer was identified by scientists in cases of excess intake of hormone residues.
Endocrine, developmental, immunological, neurobiological, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects could be envisaged.
Of the risk groups, pre-puberty children are the group of greatest concern.
No threshold levels or daily intake limits were acceptable to food safety scientists.
In particular, oestradiol 17ß hormone is considered “a complete carcinogen”, with both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects.
In their bid to get growth promoter beef into the EU, in 1996, the US and Canada challenged the EU ban, through World Trade Organisation dispute settlement.
They won the case, and were authorised by the WTO to put extra taxes on nearly $130m per year of produce imported from the EU.
The EU products affected included beef, pigmeat, Roquefort cheese, chocolate, juices, jams and truffles.
This trade war simmered until 2009, when the US and Canada reduced taxes on EU products, in return for a bigger EU import quota (48,200 tonnes) of high-quality, hormone-free beef.
This was welcomed particularly by Ireland, one of the main EU beneficiaries, because of its considerable food exports to the US.
The US was able to supply most of the beef imported under the quota, from special production units where no hormonal growth promoters are used.
Unfortunately, changing market trends over the past three years saw US beef accounting only for a minority and declining share of the allowed quota.
More competitive producers in Australia, Uruguay and Argentina have replaced US beef.
This is unsustainable and demands a firm and decisive response, said US Meat Export Federation (USMEF) President and CEO Philip Seng.
The 2009 agreement has not lived up to the US beef industry’s expectations, and USMEF says it cannot stand by as competitors take an ever-expanding share of a quota specifically created to compensate the US.
The 2008 WTO ruling gave the US a continuing right to trade measures, until its beef dispute with the EU is resolved.
Hence the move now by the Obama administration to hit out at the EU by reinstating a trade measure, once again blaming the EU for a beef ban “not based on sound science”, that “discriminates against American beef farmers”.
It is likely the taxed imports will include beef from Irish plants approved to export to the US since 2015, when Ireland became the first EU member regaining access to this market.
In 2016, up to December, 2,000 tonnes were shipped.
Can the US gain increased access to the EU for its $6bn per year beef exports? Not likely, if the EU wants to live up to its name as the source of healthy safe food.
The EU Commission can rely on farmer and consumer support on this issue, if this trade war gets dirty.
