|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1981 | EC Council adopts Directive 81/602 to prohibit the use of hormones, except for therapeutic purposes, but later postpones action on five hormones pending EC study. | |
| 1982 | Interim report by EC Working Group concludes that the three natural hormones "would not present any harmful effects to the health of the consumer when used under the appropriate conditions as growth promoters in farm animals" and that further research is necessary on the two synthetic hormones. | |
| 1984 | June | EC Commission proposes amending Directive 81/602 to allow the use of natural hormones. |
| 1985 | October | European Parliament adopts a resolution that endorses a ban on two synthetic hormones and rejects the proposed authorization of the three natural hormones except for therapeutic purposes. |
| December | The EC bans the use of natural hormones (except for therapeutic purposes), bans the use of synthetic hormones, and prohibits imports of animals and of meat from animals to which hormones have been administered, effective no later than January 1, 1988. | |
| 1986 | September | U.S. raises EC hormone ban in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade ("Standards Code") of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). |
| 1987 | U.S. invokes dispute settlement under the Tokyo Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. EC refuses to address U.S. concerns during two sessions of bilateral consultations. The EC blocks formation of the technical expert group. | |
| June | Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) establishes acceptable daily intake levels and acceptable residue limits for synthetic hormones and decides that levels do not need to be set for the naturally occurring hormones because they Aare unlikely to pose a hazard to human health." | |
| November | Nov. EC delays application of the hormone ban to imports for one year, until January 1, 1989. | |
| December | Committee on Veterinary Drugs of the Codex Alimentarius Commission agrees on safe limits for two synthetic hormones and agrees that limits are unnecessary for the three natural hormones. | |
| December | President Reagan announces, and suspends, retaliatory tariffs (100 percent ad valorem) on about $100 million worth of EC imports. Despite lack of scientific justification, EC unwilling to resolve dispute. | |
| 1988 | November | EC bans all U.S. meat. Despite the fact that the U.S. has no hormonal substances approved for use in pork or horsemeat, the Commission indicates that the U.S. needs a residue testing program for these meats to be in compliance with Directive 81/602. |
| 1989 | Jan. 1 | EC hormone ban and U.S. retaliation measures take effect. |
| Mid January | U.S. and EC agree to a 1-month grace period for products in the "pipeline." | |
| May | U.S. and EC agree to interim measures that enable U.S. producers to ship to the EC meat from cattle not treated with hormones. | |
| 1993 | The issue of the role of science in the Codex decision-making process is delegated to the Committee on General Principles. With participation by both the U.S. and the EU, the Committee develops four principles that re-enforce the pre-eminent role of science. | |
| 1995 | January | The GATT Uruguay Round Agreement, including the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreeement (SPS) enters into force. |
| June | EU Commissioner Fischler announces plans for an
EU hormone conference at the end of 1995, saying that "on the basis of the findings
of this conference, I shall make up my mind as to whether there is a need, and to what
extent there are possibilities for adjusting the EU hormone ban." U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Glickman targets the end of 1995 for resolving the dispute. |
|
| July | The four principles developed by the Codex Committee are adopted despite EU opposition. In addition, the Codex Commission decides that maximum residue limits (MRLs) are not necessary for the three natural hormones and adopts MRLs for the two synthetics. | |
| November | The EU=s Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production concludes that there is no evidence of health risk from the five hormones approved for use in the United States. The WTO Panel, Appellate Body, and Arbitrator would all later find that the studies from this Conference did Anot rationally support the EC import prohibition@. | |
| 1996 | Jan. 18 | The European Parliament votes 366 to 0 (out of 626 total Parliamentarians) for a resolution to maintain the ban. |
| Jan. 22 | The Agriculture Council discusses the final report of the Hormone Conference and also re-affirms its commitment to maintaining the ban. | |
| Jan. 26 | The U.S. requests consultations under Article XXII of the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the EU's hormone ban. | |
| March 27 | Consultations are held in Geneva with Australia, Canada, and New Zealand joining the U.S. in its complaint. | |
| May 8 | U.S. requests, at WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meeting, that a panel be formed. The EU blocks the request | |
| May 20 | U.S. makes a second request for a WTO panel. | |
| July 2 | A panel to examine the EU=s hormone ban is formed with members agreed upon by both sides. Two panel meetings held on October 10 and on November 11. | |
| October | Canada requests a panel, which meets Jan. 7 and Feb. 18, 1997. | |
| 1997 | Feb. 17 | Meeting of technical experts (selected by the Panel), the U.S., the EU, and the Codex Secretariat. Report delayed due to Canada=s decision to pursue its own WTO case against the EU ban. |
| May 7 | Panel issues its interim reports for both the U.S. and the Canadian panels. | |
| June 30 | Panel report finds that the EU=s ban on the use of hormones to promote the growth of cattle is inconsistent with the EU=s obligations under the SPS Agreement, in that the EU=s ban is not based on science, i.e., on a risk assessment or on the relevant international standards. AIn our view, the scientific conclusions reflected in the EC measures in dispute...does not conform to any of the scientific conclusions reached in the evidence referred to by the European Communities.@ | |
| Sept. 24 | EU notifies the WTO of its decision to appeal the Panel=s finding. | |
| 1998 | Jan. 16 | The Appellate Body (AB) releases its report, firmly upholding Panel findings that the ban is inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and must be brought into conformity with WTO rules. The AB clearly affirms the Panel=s findings that the EU ban was imposed and is maintained without credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks posed by eating U.S. beef from cattle treated with hormones, and despite the fact that Amost, if not all, of the scientific studies referred to by the European Communities, in respect of the five hormones, involved here, concluded that their use for growth promotional purposes is >safe=.@ |
| Feb. 13 | The Panel and AB reports on the EU hormone ban are adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. | |
| March 13 | At the DSB meeting, the EU announces only that it will implement the AB finding in "as short a time as possible," but must wait for the outcome of additional risk assessments. The United States and Canada insist on a firm deadline for compliance. Because the parties are not able to agree on a "reasonable period of time" for implementation, the EU requests binding arbitration. | |
| May 29 | The arbitrator decides that the EU needs only 15 months to comply. The arbitrator=s ruling is clear in that the Areasonable period of time@ is provided to bring the measure into compliance and not A..to conduct studies to demonstrate the consistency of a measure already judged to be inconsistent ...@ with WTO principles. The Areasonable period of time@ for the EU to come into compliance with the WTO rulings ends on May 13, 1999. | |
| 1999 | May 13 | Deadline for EU compliance with the WTO rulings. |
|
|