Strengthening the Compliance of the OIC Member States
to International Standards
24
Box 5: The Beef Hormones Dispute at the WTO
Perhaps the best known example of a standards-related dispute at the WTO is the beef hormones case
(USA vs. EU). The issue arose because US beef producers often use hormone products that are not
authorized in the EU. The EU prohibited the import and sale of meat products containing those
hormones. The US brought the issue to the WTO, ultimately seeking the establishment of a Dispute
Settlement Panel. Following a first ruling, the issue was then taken to the Appellate Body, which issued a
second ruling. Compliance by the EU proved challenging, and the US took retaliatory measure in the
interim to try and bring about compliance. The dispute was finally settled by an agreement between the
parties that allowed non-treated US beef into the EU market, and permitted the US to apply some
additional duties on EU imports.
The substance of the beef hormones case revolved around the interpretation of the SPS and TBT
Agreements, as well as parts of the Agreement on Agriculture. The main thrust of the US argument was
that the EU measures lacked scientific basis, because they had not been adopted following a thorough
risk analysis, and that indeed other risk analyses indicated that the hormone products were safe for
human consumption. Significantly, the Appellate Body overturned the Panel’s original finding that the
EU measure constitute a disguised restriction on international trade, noting that they were based on
genuine concerns as to safety. The key finding against the EU therefore related to the absence of a prior
risk assessment to support the measures, a point that the EU subsequently sought to remedy, although
not to the satisfaction of the US. Ultimately, the case points to sharp differences in consumer preferences
between the two markets, as embodied in their standards. The final resolution of the case represented
very much a diplomatic solution, as it was seen as politically infeasible for the EU to simply remove its
restrictions on hormone treated beef. In the end, the two divergent approaches remain, but those US
beef producers that do not use hormones can now access the EU market, so the import prohibition has
been slimmed down. The case illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing protectionist motivations from
protection of consumers in the context of a concrete standards dispute.
Source: