A Beef Over Beef

For more than a decade, Washington and the European Union have been battling over a European ban on $100 million a year in hormone-treated beef from the United States, a tiny sum in a two-way trade that exceeds $325 billion annually. But the dispute has now intensified and is about to turn into still another trade war. More important, it might sour transatlantic negotiations on a related but far bigger issue--trade in genetically altered food. International trade rules clearly offer a way to a settlement of both. The two sides should follow it.

The EU justified the ban on the basis of consumer fears that hormone residues in the meat pose a public health hazard. The United States argued that the EU had no evidence of such a danger, and it produced studies of its own showing that the beef is safe. The World Trade Organization, which was asked to settle the dispute, last year found that the EU had violated international rules. It gave the 15-nation bloc until next Thursday to comply. But earlier this week, the EU produced what it called a conclusive finding that some hormone residues in beef are carcinogenic. U.S. officials angrily rejected the study, produced by the EU veterinary committee, saying it was based on the same findings on which the WTO had ruled against the EU.

The European study, combined with growing European consumer concerns about food safety, virtually guarantees that the ban will not be lifted altogether any time soon. But that’s not the only solution available under WTO rules.

The EU can allow the importation of the hormone-treated beef but impose labeling requirements. That would be the “market” solution, letting consumers decide. Both sides would have to work together to develop testing and certification procedures to make sure that growth hormones are used properly and safely. U.S. beef producers, who support such a solution, are confident they can demonstrate to European consumers that the beef is safe.

Another, and more likely, solution is for the EU to compensate American exporters for the loss of their European market, for example by raising limits on other imports from the United States. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is not opposed to such a solution on principle but accepts it only as a temporary measure. WTO rules, which do not set limits on how long a measure of this sort could be in place, leave both parties with plenty of room to negotiate.

A great deal of animosity over beef has accumulated between the United States and EU. It’s time to bring the case to a close. Then the two sides should sit down and hash out their growing disagreements over the separate but related issue of genetically engineered food before they erupt.