Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09STATE4100
2009-01-15 15:34:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

USTR ANNOUNCES REVISIONS TO HORMONE BEEF

Tags:  ECON ETRD EUN EAGR 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO7835
OO RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHC #4100/01 0151546
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O P 151534Z JAN 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 6831
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 5226
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 5283
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 1242
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES PRIORITY 5780
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 3346
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA PRIORITY 2376
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 8040
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7088
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 2312
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 3612
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA PRIORITY 2506
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 0306
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 9713
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 7469
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 6552
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 STATE 004100 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON ETRD EUN EAGR
SUBJECT: USTR ANNOUNCES REVISIONS TO HORMONE BEEF
SANCTIONED PRODUCTS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 STATE 004100

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON ETRD EUN EAGR
SUBJECT: USTR ANNOUNCES REVISIONS TO HORMONE BEEF
SANCTIONED PRODUCTS


1. (U) Summary: On January 14, 2009, the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) announced a revised list of
products subject to retaliatory duties in connection with the
long-standing EU ban on beef from cattle raised with growth
hormones. The changes to the retaliation list are intended
to promote a market-opening resolution to the dispute. USTR
recently led an interagency review of the retaliation list
and decided to change the list of products and to apply
retaliatory duties to products of all EU Member States except
the United Kingdom, which alone opposed the original ban.
The revised list will be available on the USTR website
immediately and will be published in the Federal Register in
several days. Customs and Border Protection will begin
collecting increased duties on products that will be added to
the revised list on March 23, 2009. The changes to the list
are likely to arouse keen host country and press interest in
the EU, and may also attract the interest of governments or
press in other G20 countries. Post may use the following
talking points and, if asked, Q and As when responding to
inquiries. End summary.


2. (U) On January 14, 2009, USTR announced revisions to the
list of products subject to retaliatory duties in connection
with the long-standing EU ban on beef from cattle raised with
growth hormones. The revised list is available on the USTR
website at www.ustr.gov. USTR has been working with State,
USDA, Commerce and other agencies on these revisions. The
changes are intended to promote a market-opening resolution
to the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute over the EU
ban. The length of time the increased duties remain in
effect will depend on the willingness of the European
Commission and EU Member States to conclude a market-opening
resolution to the dispute.


3. (U) For approximately 20 years, the EU has banned imports
of beef and beef products produced with growth-promoting
hormones. In 1998, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body found
this ban inconsistent with WTO rules and determined that it
was causing over $100 million in trade harm annually to U.S.
beef producers. The WTO authorized the United States in 1999
to suspend tariff concessions and impose increased duties on
certain EU products. Acting on the basis of that

authorization, the United States imposed increased duties on
certain products of countries that were then members of the
EU (except the United Kingdom). The products and Member
States subject to those duties have remained unchanged since
1999, even as new countries have joined the EU. U.S. beef
producers, meanwhile, have suffered substantial trade damage
since the 1998 WTO findings.


4. (U) The USG recently reviewed whether the long-standing
duties were effectively encouraging a resolution of the
dispute. After receiving more than 600 public comments and
interagency input, USTR decided to change the list of
products and to apply duties to products of all current EU
Member States except the UK. USTR also increased the rate of
duty on one product, Roquefort cheese.


5. (U) USTR announced the revised list on January 14; it will
appear in the Federal Register in several days, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection will begin collecting duties on
products that have been added to the revised list on March
23, 2009.


6. (U) The EU is now seeking a finding that it has come into
compliance with its WTO obligations and that, therefore,
increased U.S. duties on EU products are no longer warranted.


7. (U) USTR and other agencies believe changing the list of
products subject to retaliatory duties will provide impetus
to the EU to seek a WTO-consistent resolution of the dispute.


STATE 00004100 002 OF 008



8. (U) On a separate track, U.S. and EU negotiators had tried
to negotiate an interim agreement, whereby the EU would
provide increased access to U.S. beef produced without the
aid of growth hormones and the United States would suspend
the action imposing increased duties on certain EU products.
Negotiations on this proposal, now underway for more than
five years, have stalled.


9. (U) Following are talking points and Qs and As on
revisions to the beef hormones retaliation list. Posts can
draw on the talking points as needed, but Q and As should be
used only if asked. Questions on this issue should be
addressed to Bill Busis (202-395-3058,
William Busis@ustr.eop.gov),David Weiner (202-395-9679,
david weiner@ustr.eop.gov) or Roger Wentzel (202-395-5124,
roger wentzel@ustr.eop.gov) at USTR or Jenna Purl, Office of
European Regional Affairs, (202-647-1605, purljk@state.gov).
Questions about domestic litigation on the 1999 retaliation
list should be directed to Bill Busis.


Talking Points on Revision of Beef List
--------------

Talking points to be used with representatives of the
European Commission and of EU Member States regarding the
modified list of products against which retaliatory import
duties will be imposed in the WTO Beef Hormones case.

-- On January 14, 2009, the United States announced that -
after nearly 10 years - it is modifying the list of products
in connection with the WTO dispute settlement case on the
EU's ban on beef and beef products from animals that have
been administered any of six specific growth-promoting
hormones.

-- Nearly 11 years ago, in 1998, the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body adopted findings in favor of the United States, stating
that the EU's ban was not scientifically justified and thus
inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).

-- When the EU chose not to comply with the WTO rulings, the
WTO authorized the United States to impose increased duties
on EU products with a comparable annual trade value in the
amount of $116.8 million. The increased duties went into
effect in July 1999 and the list of products subject to those
duties has remained unchanged since that time.

-- Despite the WTO findings and nearly a decade of import
duties, U.S. beef producers remain shut out of the EU market
in one of the longest-running unresolved trade disputes in
the history of the WTO.

-- Given these circumstances, the United States has concluded
that the 1999 duties have not been effective in encouraging
the EU to resolve the dispute and that modifications to the
list were needed to try to change the dynamic in the EU and
to address the economic effects of the duties in the United
States.

-- Following an intensive review, during which a U.S.
government team reviewed more than 600 public submissions, we
decided to revise the existing list of products against which
duties were initially imposed in 1999. In addition to
imposing duties on a number of products that were not covered
by the original list, the revised list covers products
imported from Member States that joined the EU after 1999.
The rate of duty will also be increased for one product that
will remain on the list from 1999.

-- Our hope is that the modification of the list will promote
a WTO-consistent resolution to the dispute. One possible
resolution that the United States and EU have been exploring
for five years is a negotiated solution. Under this
scenario, the EU would provide increased access to U.S. beef

STATE 00004100 003 OF 008


produced without the aid of growth hormones. The United
States would in turn suspend the increased duties on certain
EU products. (NB: This and the points below describing the
status of the market access negotiations with the European
Commission should only be used in discussions with European
Commission or EU Member State officials.)

-- This interim solution would provide benefits to both
parties: the EU would obtain a lifting of the increased
tariffs, and EU consumers would gain access to high quality,
"hormone-free" U.S. beef. The United States would finally
obtain market access for U.S. beef producers, who have
suffered substantial trade damage since the ban first went
into effect over 20 years ago.

-- The United States and the Commission have reached
agreement on some elements of this interim solution, but the
negotiations have been stalled for the past five months
because the European Commission has refused to negotiate a
tonnage figure for U.S. "hormone-free" beef.

-- The duration of the WTO-authorized tariff action is
entirely within the hands of the Commission and EU Member
States. We urge your government to instruct the Commission
to move forward on concluding an interim agreement in the
beef dispute.


Qs and As
--------------



Q. The EU claims its 2003 beef ban is WTO-consistent, the
Appellate Body advised the parties to initiate an Article
21.5 proceeding to examine this issue, and the EU has now
requested consultations. Does it make sense to change the
list in these circumstances?


A. Yes. The Appellate Body was explicit that it was not
making a finding on whether the EU's new ban has brought it
into compliance, and that the United States is entitled to
maintain the duties until the WTO does make a finding that
the EU has come into compliance.

The 1996 WTO dispute remains unresolved more than ten years
later. Our beef producers have been suffering economic harm
for this entire period. And those depending on imports of
the products subject to the duties have been suffering the
economic consequences for almost 10 years. The WTO does not
require the United States to maintain that economic burden on
the same people indefinitely.

Until there is a new WTO ruling or a resolution of the
dispute, the United States will continue to exercise its WTO
rights.



Q. (To be used if someone argues that it is WTO-inconsistent
to revise the 1999 action.)


A. In 1999, the WTO authorized the United States to suspend
tariff concessions and to increase duties on EU products with
an annual trade value of $116.8 million. The revised list,
like the original 1999 list, is drawn from the list of
WTO-authorized products and is within the WTO-authorized
amount. It is fully within U.S. rights under the WTO
Agreement to change the composition of the product list. We
would also note that the Commission has in the past several
years itself changed lists of products subject to
WTO-authorized increased duties.


Q. In 2000 Congress amended Section 301 to require
semi-annual changes to the list of products subject to
increased duties. But the list hasn't changed until now.
Will USTR now start changing the list every six months?


A. The statute allows flexibility for USTR to consider

STATE 00004100 004 OF 008


relevant circumstances, including the status of settlement
negotiations, in deciding on when and how to modify an action
taken under Section 301. It would not be productive or
appropriate to try to predict when and if circumstances might
call for future modifications to the list of products subject
to increased duties. Rather, the goal of this modification
is to encourage a resolution of the dispute, which, if
successful, would allow for USTR to lift the duties
altogether.


Q. Given that nearly 10 years have passed since the original
retaliation list was adopted, what was the methodology that
the United States used to calculate trade values of the list?



A. In developing the revised list, the United States drew
upon the list of items and associated trade values that were
the basis for the original WTO authorization to suspend
concessions.



Q. What relationship does the October 16 WTO Appellate Body
Report have to USTR's decision to announce possible changes
to the list just two weeks later?


A. On October 16, the Appellate Body rejected the
Commission's claims that the United States had to terminate
the action taken with respect to EU products in 1999, and the
Appellate Body confirmed that the WTO authorization to the
United States to suspend WTO tariff concessions to the EU
remains in effect. The Appellate Body decision was not
determinative, but it was certainly a factor that we
considered.



Q. Could you provide more information on the domestic court
proceeding referenced in press reports, and how it influenced
USTR's action?


A. A domestic importer of one of the products on the current
list brought a case in the U.S. Court of International Trade
claiming that domestic law required USTR to review the
effectiveness of the current list of products subject to
increased duties. The court upheld the claim that a review
needed to be conducted, and on October 15, 2008, the court
issued an order that required USTR to conduct a review. USTR
had to report the results of the review to the court by no
later than January 14, 2009.



Q. Why was this decision made so close to the end of the
Administration?


A. The timing was not determined by any political factor, but
rather by the date we started the review, and by the progress
of the review.

USTR announced the initiation of the review on October 31,
shortly after the WTO Appellate Body, on October 16,
confirmed that the U.S. authorization to suspend concessions
remained in effect. Upon initiating the review, we explained
that we hoped to complete the process by the end of the year.

The timing was also influenced by a domestic court
proceeding. On October 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of
International Trade ordered the USTR to conduct a review of
the effectiveness of the current list. USTR was required to
report the results of its review to the court on January 14,

2009.

As part of the review, USTR issued a request for comments.
Because of the large number of comments received (over 600),
the review could not be completed by the end of 2008. We
needed an additional extra two weeks to finish the work.

The United States initiated action to enforce its rights in
the WTO more than ten years ago, so it would be difficult to

STATE 00004100 005 OF 008


suggest that we've rushed a decision to modify the
retaliation list.



Q. How did you decide which products to add to/remove from
the list?


A. An interagency team of economists and trade policy experts
reviewed the public comments submitted in response to the
November 6 Federal Register notice. In making adjustments to
the list, our goal was to select a combination of products
that we believed would be most effective in terms of
encouraging a resolution of the dispute, while at the same
time not causing disproportionate harm to U.S. economic
interests.



Q. As in 1999, you exclude the UK from any retaliation under
the revised list. Why has the UK received such preferential
treatment?


A. The UK has opposed the EU's ban on U.S. meat and meat
products since the inception of this dispute. Accordingly,
the United States excluded UK products from the 1999 list.
We understand that the UK continues to oppose the ban, and
for this reason we are maintaining our 1999 decision to
exclude UK products.



Q. Why were products from X country, or why was a particular
product, included on the retaliation list?


A. In constructing the revised list, we chose from the list
of potential products and trade values authorized by the WTO
in 1999.

We made a case-by-case examination of each product on the
WTO-authorized list, and we were principally guided by two
considerations: potential effectiveness in promoting a
resolution of the dispute and avoiding disproportionate
economic harm to U.S. interests.

We cannot provide detailed comments on why any particular
product from any particular country was included or excluded
from the new list. Every decision was based on full
consideration of all available information, including the
public comments received in response to the notice.

If any member State is unhappy with the composition of the
modified list, they have a clear recourse: They should urge
the Commission to promptly move forward on concluding a
WTO-consistent resolution of the dispute.



Q. Why does Italy account for a significant portion of the
retaliation?


A. In constructing the revised list, we chose from the list
of potential products and trade values authorized by the WTO
in 1999.

We made a case-by-case examination of each product on the
WTO-authorized list, and we were principally guided by two
considerations: potential effectiveness in promoting a
resolution of the dispute and avoiding disproportionate
economic harm to U.S. interests.

We cannot provide detailed comments on why any particular
product from any particular country was included or excluded
from the new list. Every decision was based on full
consideration of all available information, including the
public comments received in response to the notice.

If Italy or any other member State is unhappy with the
composition of the modified list, they have a clear recourse:
They should urge the Commission to promptly move forward on
concluding a WTO-consistent resolution of the dispute.

STATE 00004100 006 OF 008




Q. Why does Denmark account for a significant portion of the
retaliation?


A. In constructing the revised list, we chose from the list
of potential products and trade values authorized by the WTO
in 1999.

We made a case-by-case examination of each product on the
WTO-authorized list, and we were principally guided by two
considerations: potential effectiveness in promoting a
resolution of the dispute and avoiding disproportionate
economic harm to U.S. interests.

We cannot provide detailed comments on why particular
products were included or excluded from the new list. Every
decision was based on full consideration of all available
information, including the public comments received in
response to the notice.

If Denmark or any other member State is unhappy with the
composition of the modified list, they have a clear recourse:
They should urge the Commission to promptly move forward on
concluding a WTO-consistent resolution of the dispute.



Q. Why did you impose 300% retaliatory duties on Roquefort
cheese?


A. The purpose of these duties is to have an impact on
particular constituencies to generate support for a change in
the EU's approach to this dispute. Imports of Roquefort
cheese have continued since 1999, notwithstanding the
imposition of 100% duties. We expect that a 300% duty will
help to achieve the desired effect.



Q. Why did you impose retaliatory duties on the imports of
almost all EU members?


A. The Commission and EU Member States imposed the ban on
U.S. beef, and the Commission and EU Member States each have
a role in deciding whether to reach agreement on an interim
resolution. The only Member State we excluded was the UK,
because it opposed the ban on U.S. beef from the outset.



Q. Why did you impose retaliatory duties on the Member States
who joined the EU after 2003, when the beef hormones ban was
last voted on?


A. The Commission and all EU member States are applying the
ban to U.S. products and have a role in deciding whether to
reach agreement on an interim solution.



Q. We heard that U.S. pork producers put considerable
pressure on you to retain pork items on the list. Did the
pork industry influence the outcome of the list?


A. We received a broad range of public comments, including
from the U.S. pork industry. Each decision was made on a
case-by-case basis.



Q. Do you plan to implement the 100 percent tariffs
retroactively?


A. The increased duties will apply to imports on or after
March 23, 2009, approximately 60 days after the revised list
is expected to be published in the Federal Register. With
respect to products that will no longer be subject to this
action, the additional duties currently being applied will
not apply to imports on or after March 23, 2009.


Q. When will the increased duties go into effect?

STATE 00004100 007 OF 008



A. The increased duties will apply to imports on or after
March 23, 2009, approximately 60 days after the revised list
is expected to be published in the Federal Register. With
respect to products that will no longer be subject to this
action, the additional duties currently being applied will
not apply to imports on or after March 23, 2009.



Q. Could you describe the basic outline of the interim
agreement you have been discussing with the EU?


A. We have been trying to reach an agreement with the
Commission in which U.S. livestock producers would achieve
increased access for U.S. beef from cattle not treated with
growth hormones in exchange for a U.S. suspension of the
action imposing increased duties on certain EU products.

This interim solution would provide benefits to both parties:
the EU would obtain a lifting of the increased tariffs, and
EU consumers would gain access to high quality,
"hormone-free" U.S. beef. The United States would finally
obtain market access for U.S. beef producers, who have
suffered substantial trade damage since the 1998 WTO findings
alone.

The United States and the Commission have reached agreement
on some elements of this interim solution, but the
negotiations have been stalled for the past five months
because the European Commission has refused to negotiate a
tonnage figure for U.S. "hormone-free" beef. (NB: This and
other points describing the status of the market access
negotiations with the European Commission should only be used
in discussions with European Commission or EU Member State
officials.)


Q. Won't this revision of the list have a negative effect on
the ongoing negotiations between the United States and the EU
to reach an interim settlement on the beef hormone issue?


A. We believe that the modification of the product list will
promote a resolution. The United States has been attempting
to resolve this dispute for many years. The negotiations are
now stalled because the Commission will not negotiate on the
market access issue at the core of a potential interim
settlement. It is hard to see how the current negotiating
situation could get worse. The U.S. interim goal remains a
market-opening agreement that benefits both parties. (NB:
This and other points describing the status of the market
access negotiations with the European Commission should only
be used in discussions with European Commission or EU Member
State officials.)


Q. By imposing prohibitive import duties on previously
unaffected products, is the United States acting consistently
with the spirit of the November G20 commitment on a year-long
standstill on protectionist trade measures?


A. (NB: This question refers to the November 15, 2008
Declaration of the G20 Summit on Financial Markets and the
World Economy, in which G20 members pledged to observe a
one-year standstill on new trade restrictions. The relevant
text follows: "We underscore the critical importance of
rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of
financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12
months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to
investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new
export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization
(WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.")

The U.S. decision to modify the list of EU imports subject to
increased duties in the beef hormones dispute is not
inconsistent with the G20 Declaration.

The United States is modifying a long-standing response to a
trade barrier, not imposing a new barrier. By changing the
composition of the retaliation list, the United States is

STATE 00004100 008 OF 008


seeking to promote the removal of a trade barrier that has
existed for almost two decades. The United States goal is
not to shelter domestic industries.

The right of the United States to impose increased duties,
and the trade value of the action, were established by the
WTO in 1999. As recently as October 2008, a WTO Appellate
Body panel reaffirmed the U.S. right to take trade action
relating to this dispute.

Under the modification, the United States is merely changing
the composition of the product list.


Q. Is there any doubt about the safety of these hormones?
Presumably the EU wouldn't take this position if there were
not some reason for consumers to be concerned about hormones.


A. Scientific reviews of these hormones, established
international standards pertaining to their use, and a
longstanding history of their administration for growth
promotion purposes all support the conclusion that the proper
use of these hormones as growth promoters in animals for
human consumption is safe. In fact, the natural hormones
that are subject to the EU's ban also occur naturally in
every human as well as in foods such as eggs, butter and
milk, often in concentrations substantially greater than in
meat from cattle treated with these hormones.
RICE