Beef hormone label unacceptable, US cattle group says
By Doug Palmer Tuesday March 23, 8:13 pm Eastern Time
(Great idea for labeling. "Made in the USA" would work for beef or food crops.)
(highlight)
"To accept a label that sets U.S. beef apart because of how it is produced would be inconsistent with that ruling and set a bad precedent for other controversial but safe production practices, such as genetically-modified crops, he said."
(full story)
WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) - U.S. cattle producers would accept a ''Made
in the USA'' label on their beef shipments to the European Union, but not
one that says ''made with artificial growth hormones,'' a U.S. cattle
industry aide said on Tuesday.
Labeling has emerged as a potential way out of the bitter trade dispute
between the two agricultural powerhouses. The United States is now
threatening to impose at least several hundred million dollars of punitive
duties on the EU.
But ''the issue of labeling production practices I think is a very slippery
slope,'' Chuck Lambert, chief economist of the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, told reporters, after a House hearing on international trade
issues.
The whole point of the two World Trade Organization rulings against the EU
is that ''there is no scientific difference'' between beef from cattle
injected with artificial growth hormones and beef from other cattle, Lambert
said.
To accept a label that sets U.S. beef apart because of how it is produced
would be inconsistent with that ruling and set a bad precedent for other
controversial but safe production practices, such as genetically-modified
crops, he said.
On Monday, the United States targeted more than $900 million of EU goods for
possible retaliation if the EU does not open its market to U.S.
hormone-treated beef by a May 13 WTO deadline. The EU has acknowledged that
it won't be able to meet that deadline, but has said it is willing to
discuss both labeling and compensation for U.S. cattle producers.
U.S. cattle producers ''conservatively'' estimate their annual lost sales
because of the EU's import ban at about $500 million, Lambert said. At the
time the ban was imposed in 1989, U.S. sales of hormone-treated beef to the
EU totaled about $100 million annually and sales to other markets have grown
sharply since then, he said.
In a banana dispute that is still pending, the United States initially
targeted about $1.5 billion worth of EU goods for punitive duties in
retaliation. Later, it trimmed the list to $520 million, or roughly by
two-thirds. The Clinton administration will hold a hearing late next month
on its beef sanctions list.
Lambert said he expected the final beef list to be trimmed, but maybe by
less than in the banana case. It could just be cut by half, instead of
two-thirds, he said.
A large portion of the EU goods on the list are agricultural products,
particularly beef, poultry and pork.
Nick Giordano, international counsel for the National Pork Producers
Council, told the House panel his group would make a strong push to make
sure that pork stays on the final list.
''The EU pork market has basically been closed to the U.S. pork industry for
over ten years'' because of protectionist rules disguised as food safety
measures, he said.
|
