CTA
Small fontsize
Medium fontsize
Big fontsize
English |
Switch to English
Français
Switch to French
Filter by Agriculture topics
Commodities
Regions
Publication Type
Filter by date

US restrictions on EU beef amended in light of confidence-building measures by trade partners

15 December 2013

At the beginning of November 2013, the US announced that it was to revise rules on beef imports from the EU to end 15 years of the blanket application of BSE-related trade restrictions. “Under the new rule, restrictions on beef imports will be lifted if a country is found to have a ‘negligible risk for BSE’, a status determined by the OIE” (World Organisation for Animal Health). However, “products that pose more of a risk may still be restricted.” The Chair of the US Senate panel on agriculture, Debbie Stabenow, described the move as “crucial to breaking down other countries’ unfounded trade barriers”. According to the USDA chief veterinarian, “making these changes will further demonstrate to our trading partners our commitment to international standards and sound science, and we are hopeful it will help open new markets and remove remaining restrictions on US products.” The US National Cattlemen’s Beef Association welcomed the new rules, describing it as “great news for the US cattle industry and integral to our efforts to further expand international trade”.

ICTSD points out that the US announcement “comes at a time [when] Washington and Brussels are in the early stages of negotiating a bilateral trade pact, with food safety issues expected to be one of the issues on the regulatory agenda”. The EC welcomed the US announcement.

The US National Chicken Council (NCC) has told the Senate that the EU “could be one of the top export markets for US poultry meat”, if EU rules on the treatment of poultry meat during processing are modified to accommodate current US production practices. According to the NCC, the EU is “reportedly considering the approval of peracetic acid as an antimicrobial for use on poultry during processing”. Nevertheless, the NCC has expressed “serious doubts… that any new trade agreement with the European Union will result in real and meaningful access for US poultry exports to the European market”, given the past experience of discussions on US processing practices in this sector. The NCC maintains that current EU practices suggest “that Europe is unwilling to allow imports that would compete with European product”.

The Senate Finance Committee Chair, Max Baucus, has called for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations to “address the EU’s unscientific and unjustified barriers to US agricultural exports, including beef and poultry”. He considered this most important, since if such barriers are addressed, then the “new trade agreement could boost export to the European Union by a third and add more than one hundred billion dollars annually to US GDP.” 

Editorial comment

Confidence-building measures in the SPS and food safety sphere need to be seen against the background of the divergent EU and US approaches to SPS and food safety issues. EU policy is firmly rooted in the ‘precautionary principle’, which lays the burden of proof for safety on those seeking to place products on the EU market. By contrast, US legislation – which is rather dated – places the burden of proof with regard to unsafe foods and agricultural practices on the regulatory authorities, with an assumption that the production practice or food product is safe unless proven otherwise.

This is a fundamental conflict in the regions’ approaches to SPS and food safety issues, with the issue being further complicated by the enshrinement of the precautionary principle in the Lisbon Treaty, the foundation document of the European Union.

US commercial interests are pushing for root-and-branch reform of the EU approach, as this reform is seen as essential for the opening up of transatlantic trade, particularly in meat products. The stakes are large – US$100 billion according to the Senate Finance Chair – and could derail the delicate TTIP negotiations unless compromises can be found that open up trade without bringing into question the basis of the EU’s approach to food safety and SPS controls.

From an ACP perspective, the impact of the TTIP negotiations on the EU’s approach to food safety and SPS controls could carry important implications, both negative and positive. Assessing these implications is greatly complicated by the refusal of both parties to publish draft texts and negotiating proposals. The stakes are also high with regard to increased competition on certain markets served by ACP exporters, although the precise parameters of this competitive threat to existing ACP exporters needs to be carefully assessed.

Comment

Terms and conditions