[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E991-E992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EU BEEF BAN NOT BASED ON SCIENCE OR FACTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 18, 1999

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his 
colleagues the following editorial from the May 11, 1999, Journal of 
Commerce. This editorial provides a thoughtful look at the issues 
surrounding the European Union's ban on hormone-treated beef. As the 
editorial emphasizes, since the ban is not based on science, the EU 
should give consumers the choice of purchasing American beef.
  The United States and the European Union, twin champions of a rules-
based global trading system, are heading toward another senseless trade 
showdown, this one over hormone-treated beef.
  Like the banana dispute that preceded it--and on which the United 
States is now collecting trade penalties from EU exporters--the current 
fight over beef hormones stems from European intransigence.
  In the banana case, the EU insisted that its political ties with 
former colonies took precedence over its duty to deal fairly with other 
nations' banana producers. In the current fight over hormone-treated 
beef, the EU insists that its trading obligations must take a back seat 
to exaggerated public fears over tampering with nature. This is an 
untenable stance for a major trading power; the EU should abandon it 
before doing any more damage to the global trading system.
  The dispute has dragged on since the EU first banned hormone-treated 
beef in 1988. The issue picked up steam in 1995, when the World Trade 
Organization's agreement on Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary measures 
forbade the use of bogus health and safety regulations as de facto 
trade barriers.
  Acting on a U.S. complaint, the WTO ultimately ruled that the EU ban 
of imports of hormone-treated beef is not based on sound science, and 
told the EU to make a change by May 13. To Washington, this meant the 
ban must be lifted by Thursday. But Brussels decided the ruling means 
that more risk assessment is needed, and it ordered up 17 scientific 
studies. It also said it would announce its intentions this week on how 
to respond to the WTO order.
  Then, last week, EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino dropped 
a bombshell into the hubbub of predictions and expectations. Citing the 
interim results of the first of the 17 studies, the chain-smoking Ms. 
Bonino said hormone-treated beef is so unsafe that it must continue to 
be banned from the EU market. ``There can no longer be any question of 
lifting the ban,'' she said.
  U.S. officials were flabbergasted, and rightly so. The announcement 
pre-empted the so-called scientific studies the EU had launched. It 
even jumped the gun on the final results of the study it purported to 
be based upon. And it raised a curious question: Why should the EU plow 
ahead with 17 expensive studies when it knows the outcome from the 
beginning?
  Moreover, the announcement left major questions unanswered about the 
scientific basis of the EU's policy. The data behind the interim study 
results were not immediately available.
  At the same time, there is substantial evidence the product is safe: 
Americans and Canadians have been eating hormone-treated beef for 
decades with no evidence of harm. Study after study has shown there is 
no difference in the effects of synthetic and natural hormones. And the 
United Nations agency responsible for food safety issues, Codex 
Alimentarius, has given a clean bill of health to the substances the EU 
cites as most dangerous.

[[Page E992]]

  But none of that deterred Ms. Bonino, who says the danger is so great 
that even warning labels will not offer enough protection. Her 
declaration appeared to close off a promising compromise involving 
labeling; if a product is banned, the question of how to label it 
becomes academic.
  U.S. trade negotiators, who initially opposed the idea of labeling 
beef as hormone-treated, now are warming to the idea. To be sure, it 
would add costs to U.S. and Canadian beef products. But faced with the 
option of no access at all to the EU market, producers are relenting. 
Given the chance, some might even make a virtue of necessity, marketing 
their products as ``New, Improved, Hormone-Treated!''
  It remains for the EU to back down from its Nanny stance and let 
consumers decide for themselves--just as they do with cigarettes, 
alcohol, and other products that pose much greater safety risks than 
beef growth hormones. No government can guarantee its citizens zero 
risk, and no public agency should presume to try. The best it can do is 
base its policies on sound science, and respect its citizens' rights to 
make an informed choice.

                          ____________________