 |
22 July 1999
Financial TimesAmerican Farmers Baffled as Europe
Steers clear of beef treated by hormones
In the US 95% of cattle are given hormone growth supplements. Europe
wants none of it, even to the extent of suffering the sanctions the US
is allowed to apply as a result. Mark Suzman reports:
David Sjeklocha tips back his cowboy hat and watches as the small brown
steer leaps out of a narrow walkway to find itself pinned in a full body
metal vice. Within seconds, two farmworkers have fixed a metal tag to
one ear and injected a hormone-based growth supplement into the other.
The dazed animal is released as the steel jaws re-open to grab another
steer for the same treatment. For Mr Sjecklocha, cattle operations
manager at Farr Feeders in Greeley, Colorado, it is a routine procedure,
but a vital one.
The steer is one of 70,000 at his farm and millions across the US that
will pass through the same process over the course of the year. The
combination of the hormone injection and a rich diet will transform the
scrawny cow into a stocky, healthy beast for the slaughterhouse and from
there to dinner tables as far afield as Canada and Japan. But one place
it won't be going is Europe.
This week, the US formally announced Dollars 116.8m in sanctions against
the EU for continuing to uphold an 11-year ban on imports of
hormone-treated beef, despite a ruling by the World Trade Organisation
that the measure is unjustified. Although a string of independent
studies accepted by both the WTO and the World Health Organisation
testify to the meat's safety, the EU says it remains worried about
potential health risks and its own research will not be completed until
the end of this year.
The EU attitude causes deep frustration both for the Dollars 40bn US
cattle industry, which is increasingly keen to have access to the EU to
offset stagnant domestic sales and a depressed Asian market, and US
trade officials. Although both sides still speak about possible
compromise there appears to be limited scope for a deal, raising fears
that the issue could join an equally contentious transatlantic dispute
over bananas as a potential stumbling block to US/EU co-operation at
November's WTO summit in Seattle.
US officials acknowledge there are some genuine consumer worries in
Europe concerning hormone-treated beef, but say that is a result of
inadequate European food regulation policies rather than legitimate
scientific concerns. The notoriously hard to please US Food and Drug
Administration and other US agencies have approved six hormones for use
in beef production, none of which have proven ill effects for either
cattle or humans when used properly.
More to the point, according to Dave Weaber, director of research at
Cattle-Fax, an industry information group, the process allows producers
to process significantly more high quality beef - with corresponding
financial gains - than they would otherwise. "There's so much economic
incentive to use it that nobody can afford not to," he says, pointing
out that 95 per cent of US beef cattle are now injected with hormones,
leaving very little unaffected meat that could be sold to the EU.
US beef industry officials say that while retaliation is not a strategy
they would have chosen, they hope the sanctions - which have been
carefully targeted to maximise discomfort for key EU members such as
France and Germany - will produce a change of heart in Brussels. "If it
gets their attention it's worth it," says Dale Moore, executive director
for legislative affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
But in practice, it seems unlikely that the dispute will be resolved
soon.
Europeans say they are still seeking a compromise and have offered
compensation as an alternative to the 100 per cent tariffs that will be
implemented on goods ranging from tomatoes to mustard. But the US
insists that it would only agree to such a move if a time limit for
lifting the ban was agreed beforehand, a commitment the EU has so far
declined to give. Discussions over possible labelling of US beef have
also made little progress.
Peter Scher, special agriculture negotiator for the US Trade
Representative, says he remains hopeful that when the new European
Commission takes office in September the two sides may be able to strike
a deal before the launch of the new trade talks.
But privately officials on both sides acknowledge that it is equally
likely the sanctions will stay in place for the foreseeable future. And
that is a prospect that dismays and baffles Mr Sjecklocha and his fellow
cattlemen. "We produce a lot of beef, we produce it effectively and we
produce it safely," he says with evident frustration as he watches yet
another terrified steer receive its shot. "We just want a fair chance to
compete."
US suspends export trade in hormone-free meat
The US has suspended exports of hormone-free beef to the EU after
expressing concern that American meat companies were not delivering what
they promised. The action by the US Agriculture Department will cut off
a modest Dollars 39m a year in US sales to the EU, out of total US beef
exports of more than Dollars 3.43bn, Reuters reports from Washington.
While the US has fought for market access for the 95 per cent of beef
which is treated with hormones, US companies have also tried to fill the
market niche for meat that is free of hormones.
Last year, the USDA told US meat companies to improve efforts to certify
meat labelled as "hormone-free" after EU testing showed that 12 per cent
of the hormone-free beef contained hormone residues. The problem was one
of accuracy in labelling, not food safety, said Mr Tom Billy,
administrator of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
"The industry has been asked to take steps to address FSIS concerns
about the programme before certification is reinstated," Mr Billy said.
"While hormones used to promote growth in cattle have been proven safe.
. . the agency needs assurance that valid and accurate information is
provided," he added.
In April, the EU threatened to block US shipments of the hormone-free
beef if American companies did not resolve problems with hormone
residues. The USDA agreed to require the industry to pay for more
sampling, and to establish control points to make sure the
hormone-treated beef was not mixed with hormone-free beef. |