The Hormone Case
The roots of this WTO dispute go back into the 1970s, when European consumers became increasingly concerned over the use of growth-promoting hormones in livestock. After suspicion that hormonal irregularities in teenagers had been caused by veal treated with illegal hormones (DES), European consumer organizations called for a boycott of veal.
In 1980, the EC Council of Ministers decided to ban the use of oestrogen, and endorsed a greater harmonization of EC members States’ legislation on veterinary medicines as well as greater control of animal rearing. In 1988, the EC banned the use of six hormones for growth promotion. Included were three natural hormones (oestradiol 17ß, progesterone and testosterone), and three synthetic hormones (trenbolone acetate (TBA), zeranol and melengestrol acetate).
The EC also banned imports of meat and meat products unless the exporter could prove that these had not been treated with the banned hormones. The use of the three natural hormones for therapeutic and for herd-management purposes was still authorized.
The Findings at a Glance
- The EC measure violated Article 3 on harmonization. Although international standards existed for five of the six hormones in question, the EC measure was not based on these standards; it reflected a higher level of protection and was not justified by a risk assessment, as required by Article 3.3.
- The EC ban was not based on a risk assessment, and violated Article 5.1. The EC’s scientific studies on five of the hormones did not support the ban on hormone-treated meat.
- The EC measure violated Article 5.5, because the level of protection sought for hormone-treated meat was higher than required in comparable situations; these differences were arbitrary or unjustifiable, and resulted in discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.
- The EC had not invoked Article 5.7, which allows precautionary measures to be taken on a provisional basis, but rather the “precautionary principle” in general. The Panel found that invoking the “precautionary principle” did not override a country’s obligations under the SPS Agreement.
