Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Paul B. Thompson, David M. Kaplan

Canada, US-EU Beef Hormone Dispute

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_358-4

Synonyms

Introduction

Citing public anxieties about the use of hormones in livestock production in the 1980s, the European Union (EU) banned the nontherapeutic use of a number of synthetic and naturally occurring hormones in domestic beef production and subsequently banned imports of beef produced using these productivity-enhancing hormones. The US and other beef-exporting nations such as Canada argued that the import ban was not justified on scientific grounds and was instead disguised protectionism. Thus began a long-running and often acrimonious trade dispute between the EU and the USA along with Canada. The trade dispute highlights the challenges of dealing with consumer suspicions of a technology to all intents and purposes deemed “safe,” the conflict between a precautionary principle approach to technology versus a...

Keywords

European Union World Trade Organization Precautionary Principle Trade Dispute World Trade Organization Dispute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: Application of a mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bureau, J.-C., Marette, S., & Schiavina, A. (1998). Non-tariff trade barriers and consumers’ information: The case of the EU-US trade dispute over beef. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25(4), 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Council of the European Union. (2012). The transatlantic trade dispute on “hormones” in beef comes to an end (Press release 9178/2, Presse 171, April 26). Luxembourg: Council of the European Union. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129788.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  4. Gaisford, J. D., Hobbs, J. E., Kerr, W. A., Perdikis, N., & Plunkett, M. (2001). The economics of biotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press.Google Scholar
  5. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). (2012). US, EU move closer toward possible trade talks. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Western Europe, 16(25). June 27. http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/136978/. Accessed 15 Oct 2012.
  6. Isaac, G. E. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: Regulatory barriers to GM crops. Oxon: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Isaac, G. E., & Hobbs, J. E. (2002). GM food regulations: Canadian debates. ISUMA – Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 3(2), 105–113.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, R., & Hanrahan, C. E. (2010). The U.S.-EU beef hormone dispute. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service 7–5700, R40449. Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40449.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  9. Kastner, J. J., & Pawsey, R. K. (2002). Harmonising sanitary measures and resolving trade disputes through the WTO-SPS framework. Part I: A case study of the US-EU hormone-treated beef dispute. Food Control, 13, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerr, W. A. (2009). Political precaution, pandemics and protectionism. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Kerr, W. A., & Hobbs, J. E. (2005). Consumers, cows and carousels: Why the dispute over beef hormones is far more important than its commercial value. In N. Perdikis & R. Read (Eds.), The WTO and the regulation of international trade: Recent trade disputes between the European Union and the United States (pp. 191–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Lusk, J., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roberts, D. (1998). Preliminary assessment of the effects of the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary trade restrictions. Journal of International Economic Law, 1(1), 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tonsor, G., Schroeder, T. C., Fox, J. A., & Biere, A. (2005). European preference for beef steak attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30(2), 356–380.Google Scholar
  15. Viju, C., & Kerr, W. A. (2011). Agriculture in the Canada-EU economic and trade agreement. International Journal, 76(3), 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioresource Policy, Business and EconomicsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada