Skip to main content

Canada, US-EU Beef Hormone Dispute

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics
  • 604 Accesses

Synonyms

Consumer preferences; Growth-promoting hormones; Labeling; Precautionary principle; Risk assessment; Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement; WTO dispute panel

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...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gaisford, J. D., Hobbs, J. E., Kerr, W. A., Perdikis, N., & Plunkett, M. (2001). The economics of biotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Isaac, G. E. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: Regulatory barriers to GM crops. Oxon: CABI Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, G. E., & Hobbs, J. E. (2002). GM food regulations: Canadian debates. ISUMA – Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 3(2), 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, W. A. (2009). Political precaution, pandemics and protectionism. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Viju, C., & Kerr, W. A. (2011). Agriculture in the Canada-EU economic and trade agreement. International Journal, 76(3), 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill. E. Hobbs .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hobbs, J.E. (2012). Canada, US-EU Beef Hormone Dispute. In: Thompson, P., Kaplan, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_358-4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_358-4

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6167-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics