In 1989, the European Communities banned the import of meat that contained artificial beef growth hormones,[a] although they were approved for use in the United States.
Under veterinary supervision, cattle farmers were permitted to administer the synthetic versions of natural hormones for cost-reduction and possibly therapeutic purposes, such as synchronising oestrus cycles.
[11][12] Under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, signatories have the right to impose restrictions on health and safety grounds subject to scientific analysis.
In response to the public outcry, in combination with the discovery that DES was a teratogen, in 1980 the EU began to issue regulations, beginning with prohibiting the use of stilbenes and thyrostatics by the European Community Council of Agriculture Ministers in 1980, and commissioning of a scientific study into the use of estradiol, testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone, and zeranol in 1981.
[12] The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) lobbied for a total ban upon growth hormones, opposed, with partial success, by the pharmaceutical industry.
(In 1987 the European Federation of Animal Health (FEDESA), formed to represent, amongst other things, companies that manufactured growth hormones.)
The Council of Ministers was divided along lines that matched each country's domestic stance on growth hormones, with France, Ireland, the U.K., Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany all opposing a general ban.
The European Commission, leery of a Council veto and linked to both pharmaceutical and (via Directorate VI) agricultural interests, presented factual arguments and emphasized the problem of trade barriers.
Section 208 of this report says: [W]e find that the European Communities did not actually proceed to an assessment, within the meaning of Articles 5.1 and 5.2, of the risks arising from the failure of observance of good veterinary practice combined with problems of control of the use of hormones for growth promotion purposes.
On 12 July 1999, an arbitrator appointed by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body authorized the US to impose retaliatory tariffs of US$116.8 million per year on the EU.
[2] In September 2009, the United States and the European Commission signed a memorandum of understanding, which established a new EU duty-free import quota for grain-fed, high quality beef (HQB) as part of a compromise solution.
The precautionary principle means that in a case of scientific uncertainty, the government may take appropriate measures proportionate to the potential risk (EC Regulation 178/2002).
"[23] Therefore, although the EU is a strong proponent of labels and banning meat that contains growth hormones, requiring the US to do the same would have violated this agreement.
In 1989, for example, the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Science in the Public Interest both pressed for an adoption of a ban within the US similar to that within the EU.
Because of current policy, in which all beef is allowed whether produced with hormones or genetically modified, US consumers rely on their own judgment when buying goods.