EU says science backs its beef ban

[Skunk]

I am so glad that the EU refuses to allow new food-stuffs before they have been scientifically been proved to have no harmful effects - rather than allowing new foods on the grounds that there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that they are harmful.

Caution in this case seems to have paid off.


EU says science backs its beef ban
The European Union (EU) says it now has scientific evidence to support its ban on imports of beef raised using growth promoting hormones.

The ban is the subject of a long standing dispute with the United States, which currently has retaliatory sanctions on some imports from Europe.

A European Union spokeswoman says it can prove that growth promoting hormones used by cattle farmers in some countries can cause cancer and should therefore be banned.

She said the evidence is being shared with the US.


Washington made a complaint to the World Trade Organisation about the EU's hormone ban in 1996.

The complaint was upheld because the EU was said to have failed to justify its ban on the basis of adequate scientific evidence.

Europe refused to comply with the ruling, and the US has been applying punitive tariffs to some European goods, including French Roquefort cheese.

The EU says the new evidence means its ban is now consistent with WTO rules and the US sanctions should therefore be lifted.


This is one of a number of disputes that affect transatlantic trade relations.

The US has been found by the WTO to have tax breaks that are in effect banned subsidies for exporters.

The new tariffs on steel imports imposed by the US last year have also been ruled against, although Washington is currently appealing against that decision.

[Dreamer128]

Its great to be European [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

It's great to be the one making claims and then holding all the info that you "SAY" backs it up too [img]smile.gif[/img] Amazingly enough, the Cancer rates in the US are not very different from those in Europe...why would this be if we are all eating that homone infused beef? Waiting to see the "proof". Of course, I think using hormones on cattle is a bit stupid too...but hey...I have to be the contentious one. no need to thank me Mr. Skunk [img]smile.gif[/img] Im just in a weird mood this morning, probably won't happen again.

[Timber Loftis]

Why, MagiK, the Texas Cattle Grower's should hire you -- you sound just like them.

Here's the problem. Back in the WTO Beef-Hormone case, the EU came forward and presented SOME evidence that the beef could possibly be harmful.

The US on the other hand, submitted NONE -- yes, NO EVIDENCE -- regarding the safety of hormone beef. The cited Trade Secrets of US companies (can you smell the BS yet?). Oddly enough, the DSB found for the US. The one that presented NO evidence.

The problem? Well, the SPS Agreement (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) under the GATT, which expands on a one-line exemption in Article XX of GATT, and which was the provision the EU relied on in treating hormone beef different, was interpreted to require SOLID PROOF before excluding a product based on a health concern.

THAT IS THE OPPOSITE BURDEN OF PROOF THAN SHOULD BE REQUIRED. Where health is concerned, shouldn't we require the party asserting something is safe to have the higher burden of proof. We have to know for certain it will harm us -- not just suspect -- before banning it? That flies in the face of the Precautionary Principle and sound scientific thought, doesn't it?

So, what I'm saying to MagiK and those with his argument is: Where my FOOD, MY body, not yours, is concerned, you've got to PROVE IT IS SAFE before forcing it down my gullet -- not the other way around. So, you go get me some proof, okay?

Or, is science a technology more concerned with "can we do it?" rather than "should we?" [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Perhaps this is a fight I need to pick with scientists the world over.

[ 10-16-2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: This is one of a number of disputes that affect transatlantic trade relations. The US has been found by the WTO to have tax breaks that are in effect banned subsidies for exporters. The new tariffs on steel imports imposed by the US last year have also been ruled against, although Washington is currently appealing against that decision.

Beef hormone is an apple. Tax breaks are an orange. Steel Tariffs are a pear. Bananas are, well, bananas.

My point is that each of these are fruits, but they are not very comparable to each other. In fact, I think each of these involves a distinct provision of the GATT.

There are reasonable trade barriers that can be placed. They are defined by the exemptions to the GATT. In each instance, we must analyze whether the exemption being claimed applies. That's what the DSB is all about.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Magik: Amazingly enough, the Cancer rates in the US are not very different from those in Europe...why would this be if we are all eating that homone infused beef? Waiting to see the "proof".

Cancer doesn't suddenly appear the next day after eating a carcinogenic substance - it take ten, twenty, thirty years before the disease kicks in.

If I start smoking today, it could take forty years before I am finally diagnosed with lung cancer - so should I simply ignore the carcinogenic probability because it is likely to happen in the distant future?
Many people waited to 'see' the proof of the link between smoking and cancer - many of them are now dead: they got their proof - the hard way.

[quote]Originally posted by Skunk:

Originally posted by Magik: [qb] Cancer doesn't suddenly appear the next day after eating a carcinogenic substance - it take ten, twenty, thirty years before the disease kicks in. If I start smoking today, it could take forty years before I am finally diagnosed with lung cancer - so should I simply ignore the carcinogenic probability because it is likely to happen in the distant future? Many people waited to 'see' the proof of the link between smoking and cancer - many of them are now dead: they got their proof - the hard way.

And I have been eating Hormone treated Beef, Drinking Hormone laced cows milk and eating geneticly altered foods for roughly 40 years....how long are you supposed to have to wait?

[johnny]

There's also a lot of people that died of cancer who never smoked ONE single cigarette in their life. Yes, even lungcancer. And there are people who smoked their entire life and easily reach the age of 90, and were never sick a day in their life.

[Timber Loftis]

Erm.... MagiK, I don't think hormone treated beef and GMO's have been around for 40 years.

[Donut]

Originally posted by johnny: There's also a lot of people that died of cancer who never smoked ONE single cigarette in their life. Yes, even lungcancer. And there are people who smoked their entire life and easily reach the age of 90, and were never sick a day in their life.

That's all true johnny. But it's not the whole truth. Look at the data - it's incontrovertable!

Smoking causes cancer.