Case Presentation v4

Ben Fish
Amelia Leib
Roch Mangenot
Wang Zhen
 Disagreement over beef treatment due to separate
agricultural policies.
 Brief history of beef hormone use (US vs. Europe).
1954 – DES (Diethylstilbestrol) approved by the FDA.
1979 – DES banned in United States.
1981 – Growing concerns in Europe.
1989 – Europe bans hormone use; US retaliates via 100%
Tariffs (worth $100 million).
1996 – WTO gets involved in resolution.
2005 – Still pending resolution.
Basis for US Policy
 Based on scientific data and fact
 Rely on FDA for control
 Allow hormones to be utilized in beef
production as long as approved by FDA.
 Aimed at Protecting business and beef
US Perspectives/Approaches
 As long as there aren’t any damaging effects to humans
beef would be safe for consumption.
 Countries should not put a ban on US beef.
 Beef labeled USDA should be able to be sold in Europe.
 Economic collapse.
 Would hurt cattle farmers by forcing destruction of
inventory and formation of new cows.
How ties into US Policies
 Business influence.
 Chiquita banana example; big business voiced concern
to government which then intervened.
 Fair trade and equality.
 US felt burned by ban on beef exportation which
resulted in increased tariffs on European beef.
 US brand recognition.
 USA marketplace presence across the world.
Future Outlook
 Have the WTO accept a method to allow both
hormone and non-hormone beef available for
purchase in Europe.
 Ask WTO to incorporate US scientific methods for all
international policies.
 Provide information for the European public on the
safety of hormone usage in beef production.
 Have a cultural understanding to arrive at a resolution.

similar documents