EU warned over hormone ban

Date: 21/12/1995

By Michael Mann

THE EU is being warned that to continue its ban on the use of naturally-occurring hormones in meat production could have serious consequences for its future trade prospects.

Meanwhile, a potential ban on exports of European horses to the US is not only threatening the equestrian events at next year's Olympic Games, but has also been seized on by American officials as evidence of the inconsistency of the EU approach to the hormone question.

Scientists met in London last week to begin drawing up the final conclusions from the European Commission's recent conference on hormones in meat production, amid signs that their clear blessing for the controlled use of five currently prohibited substances will have little influence on the EU's policy.

Officials from member states have indicated that even if the Commission were to suggest an end to the ban or propose allowing in imports of US meat without lifting the internal restrictions - which is unlikely - there would be virtually no chance of getting such proposals past agriculture ministers.

The hormone question is likely to dominate talks between Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler and US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman in Brussels on 10 January. Glickman had originally pledged action in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) unless the Commission indicated by the end of 1995 that the ban would be lifted.

US officials suggest that something definite will come out of the January meeting, because any further delay would undermine Glickman's reputation at home.

But they continue to make veiled threats about the consequences of failure at the 10 January talks, saying: “The EU needs to think very carefully about the trade effect for its own products if this type of arbitrary policy were followed by the rest of the world.”

US officials stress that it would be very easy for the Union's trading partners to place similar curbs on exports of EU products in defiance of the strict criteria accepted by the WTO as grounds for barring produce from third countries.

“Just imagine the damage it could do the EU if other countries chose to ban EU beef because of the current scare about BSE, or EU wine because they thought there were additives in it their consumers didn't like. This is a very bad precedent the EU is setting,” said one official.

Adding spice to the whole debate is the revelation that a group of some 25 American senators have written to the US secretary of state to demand that horses from certain EU member states be barred from travelling to Atlanta, Georgia, for next year's Olympic Games, because they have been confirmed as carrying the equine disease piroplasmosis.

Sources suggest those affected include the entire French jumping team and key German, Spanish and Italian horses.

In both cases, public anxiety is forcing policy-makers to take a tough line despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

But US officials accuse the EU of inconsistency for refusing to lift the hormone ban while attacking Americans for threatening to bar European horses from next year's games.

They expressed astonishment that Commission veterinary experts “had the gall” to insist that the US should follow purely scientific arguments, while ignoring them on the hormone question.

Although the Commission's scientific conference concluded quite clearly that the prescribed use of testosterone, progesterone, oestrogen, trenbolone and zeranol was not harmful to humans, Fischler hinted that consumer opinion, economic questions and animal welfare issues would prevent the Commission from changing its current policy.

Previous discussions of the issue in Coreper (the EU's Committee of permanent representatives) have shown that the UK stands virtually alone in wanting an end to the ban.

Other member states, including Ireland, France and some of the Mediterranean countries, have reservations about it to a greater or lesser extent. Germany has remained the strongest - and most influential - opponent of hormone use.

Even those countries most affected by Washington's existing retaliatory action do not appear willing to let this change their view. Since 1989, the US has imposed higher duties on EU exports of, among other things, tomato products, fruit juices, pet food and beef. This has cost the EU around 130 million ecu every year, equivalent to the estimated value of the 10,000-tonne beef quota which the US is prevented from exporting to Europe because of the hormone ban.

Both US and UK officials are convinced that the Union would lose a WTO dispute settlement panel, if it came to that, because the scientific evidence does not give grounds for doubting the use of naturally-occurring hormones on the three accepted criteria of “quality, safety and efficacy”.

Apart from an anticipated consumer backlash against a product whose popularity has already been undermined by the BSE scare, Fischler is conscious it would be a wholly inopportune moment to encourage an increase in production, now that beef stocks are, for once, under control.