U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of
Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
December 9, 2010January 9, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40199
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
Summary
In January 2009, the outgoing Bush Administration escalated a long-running dispute with the
European Union (EU) over its refusal to accept imports of U.S. poultry processed with certain
pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs)U.S. imports of poultry treated with antimicrobial
rinses. Bush officials requested World Trade Organization (WTO)
consultations with the EU on
the matter, a prerequisite first step toward the establishment of a
formal WTO dispute settlement
panel.
The U.S. poultry industry supported the WTO filing by the
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
and encouraged the Obama Administration to continue to further pursue the case. In February
2009, the United States and the EU held consultations. In October 2009, the USTR further asked
the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel regarding the EU’s restrictions on imports of U.S.
poultry. The United States has asked the panel to review whether the EU’s ban on the import and
marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with pathogen reduction
treatments (PRTs) judged safe by the United States and also by European food safety authorities
is consistent with the EU’s WTO obligations. As of December 2010, a WTO dispute settlement
panel on the case had not yet been composed. Nevertheless, the USTR and poultry industry
officials remain interested in moving forward on this case.
Even if the case advances to a dispute resolution panel, a solution appears to be elusive. The two
sides maintain widely divergent views not only on the poultry issue but on some aspects of their
basic approach to food safety regulation.
Because most U.S. poultry processors use PRTs, U.S. poultry meat has effectively been
prohibited from entering the EU countries, where the practice is not acceptable. Prior to 1997,
when the prohibition took effect, U.S. exports of broiler and turkey meat to the 15 countries that
then constituted the EU were reported to total nearly 32,000 MT with a value of $44.4 million. In
2007, U.S. exports to the same 15 countries were reported to be nearly 16,000 MT with a value of
$16.5 million, but U.S. Department of Agriculture poultry analysts believe that almost all of these
represent “transshipments,” meaning that Europe was not their final destination. In reality,
virtually no U.S. poultry meat is being purchased by the EU, they say. Now that the EU consists
of 27 countries, one estimate values the lost U.S. market at between $200 million and $300
million annually. (Nonetheless, other foreign buyers continue to make the United States the
second-largest exporter of poultry meat in the world, after Brazil.)
The Europeans assert that their poultry producers must follow much stricter production and
processing rules that are more successful in reducing microbiological contamination than simply
washing products at the end of the process. The outgoing Bush Administration expressed its
frustration with the EU’s position, noting that even several favorable European scientific opinions
indicate that PRTs pose no risk to human health.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
U.S. and EU Poultry Trade..........................................................................................................1
The WTO Filing..........................................................................................................................2
Historical Background ................................................................................................................3
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................4
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................5
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................6
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
Overview
In January 2009, the outgoing Bush Administration escalated a long-running dispute with the
European Union (EU) over its refusal to accept U.S. imports of poultry treated with antimicrobial
rinses. Bush officials requested World Trade Organization (WTO) consultations with the EU on
the matter, a prerequisite first step toward the establishment of a formal a WTO dispute settlement
panel.
The U.S. poultry industry supported the WTO filing by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
and encouraged the Obama Administration to continue to further pursue the case. In February
2009, the United States and the EU held consultations. In October 2009, the USTR further asked
the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel regarding the EU’s restrictions on imports of U.S.
poultry. The United States has asked the panel to review whether the EU’s ban on the import and
marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with pathogen reduction
treatments (PRTs) judged safe by the United States and also by European food safety authorities
is consistent with the EU’s WTO obligations.
The Obama Administration’s perceived commitment to reopening the EU to U.S. poultry may be
followed closely by some members of Congress, particularly those from chicken- and turkeyproducing areas. The poultry dispute also is illustrative of some fundamental differences between
each market’s approach to food safety, a topic of much broader interest to Congress.
The dispute dates to 1997, when the EU first banned the use of PRTs on poultry, effectively
shutting out virtually all U.S. imports since then. Such treatments are approved by the federal
government and routinely used in U.S. chicken and turkey plants. The United States views the EU
ban as a trade barrier that is not based on scientific findings that such treatments are harmful. EU
interests believe that stronger sanitary practices during production and processing are more
appropriate for pathogen control than what they view as U.S. overreliance on PRTs.
U.S. and EU Poultry Trade
Trailing only Brazil, the United States is the second leading exporter of poultry meat (broiler and
turkey) in the world. Together these two countries account for nearly 70% of all world poultry
meat trade. 1 Although the U.S. accounts for about one-third of all world poultry trade, virtually no
U.S. exports go to countries of the European Union (EU), a major world importer of poultry meat.
The 27 countries of the EU imported an estimated 720,000 MT of poultry meat from outside the
EU-27 in 2010; Brazil is the single largest supplier of poultry meat to the EU, followed by
Thailand, among other countries.2 (Current major markets for U.S. poultry meat include Russia,
China, Mexico, and Canada.)
Prior to 1997, when the EU began to prohibit U.S. poultry because of the PRT rule, U.S. exports
of broiler and turkey meat to the 15 countries that then constituted the EU were reported to total
nearly 32,000 MT with a value of $44.4 million. In 2007, U.S. exports to the same 15 countries
1
USDA, FAS, Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, October 2010, http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/
2010/livestock_poultryfull101510.pdf.
2
USDA, FAS, EU-27 Poultry and Products Annual Report, April 9, 2010 (GAIN Report FR9039).
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
were reported to be nearly 16,000 MT with a value of $16.5 million. These annual export figures,
from the FAS Trade Internet System database, appear to be misleading, because they likely
include “transshipments,” meaning that Europe was not their final destination. In reality, virtually
no poultry meat is being purchased in the EU, according to USDA. 3
The United States has been losing markets in Europe as additional countries join the EU. After
Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU under the 2007 enlargement (to 27 countries), total U.S.
poultry meat exports to the two countries dropped to zero, compared with 54,479 MT, valued at
$33.5 million, during the prior year. By one estimate, combined effects of the ban and of the
growth of the EU market to 27 countries may have led to $200 million to $300 million in lost
U.S. sales annually. 4
The WTO Filing
Multilateral trade rules allow governments to adopt measures to protect human, animal, or plant
life or health, provided that they do not discriminate or use them as disguised protectionism. This
principle was clarified in 1994 by WTO members’ approval, along with the other so-called
Uruguay Round Agreements, of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
(SPS) Measures. This accord (the “SPS Agreement”) sets out the basic rules for ensuring that
each country’s food safety and animal and plant health laws and regulations are transparent,
scientifically defensible, and fair. A separate accord, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBTs, the “TBT Agreement”) covers other government measures (including but not
limited to food and agriculture) to regulate markets and protect consumers and the environment,
such as ingredient or labeling requirements, nutrition claims, quality attributes, animal welfare
rules, and so forth. Like most major trading nations, both the United States and the EU are parties
to these WTO agreements.5
The U.S. request for WTO consultations on the poultry matter was filed on January 16, 2009.6
The U.S. filing states that the ban by the EU (i.e., the European Communities, or EC) on PRTs for
poultry appears to violate Article 2.2 of the SPS agreement, which permits only those measures
necessary to protect human, animal, and plant life or health and that are based on scientific
principles. Also cited are SPS Article 5, which governs risk assessment and determination of the
appropriate level of SPS protection, with the objective of minimizing trade impacts, and SPS
Article 8, on control, inspection, and approval procedures aimed at treating imports no less
favorably than domestic products, as well as Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, which also is
intended to assure that TBT measures do not discriminate against imports or create unjustified
barriers to trade.
3
CRS communications with USDA staff, February 2, 2009 (FAS) and February 4, 2009 (ERS).
“USTR Requests Formal WTO Consultations in EU Poultry Dispute,” Inside U.S. Trade, January 23, 2009.
5
See CRS Report RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural Trade.
4
6
WTO, European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products from the
United States—Request for Consultations by the United States (WT/DS389/1, January 20, 2009. The document and
current status of the dispute can be found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds389_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
As of December 2010, a WTO dispute settlement panel on the case had not yet been composed.
Nevertheless, the USTR and poultry industry officials remain interested in moving forward on
this case.7
Historical Background
The EU began to prohibit the use of PRTs for both domestic and imported poultry in 1997. Key
language in the regulations reads, in part, “[f]ood business operators shall not use any substance
other than potable water”—or, when otherwise permitted, “clean water—to remove surface
contamination from products of animal origin,” unless use of another substance has specifically
been approved. 8
In 2002, the United States asked the EU to approve the use of four PRTs on poultry destined for
export there: chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorate, trisodium phosphate, and peroxyacids.
Each is approved for use in poultry processing by both USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). More specifically, after birds are slaughtered and the carcasses
eviscerated, a USDA inspector examines them for fecal contamination or other problems. They
then enter a final washing procedure, where the PRTs may be applied, either as a spray or wash
on the processing line, or as an addition to the water used to lower the carcass temperature (the
chiller tank). Federal regulations further specify PRT concentration levels and other usage
requirements.
Subsequently, several key European opinions on PRT use were issued, which helped form the
basis for the U.S. request to allow them. For example, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA), in December 2005, adopted an opinion that use of the four PRTs under described
conditions “does not present any risk to public health” but that “the use of antimicrobial solutions
does not replace the need for good hygienic practices during processing of poultry carcasses,
particularly during handling.” A second EFSA opinion that month also pointed out that
information on one of the substances, peroxyacids, indicated limited effectiveness, requiring that
specific conditions of use should be defined. 9
On April 2, 2008, EFSA published another scientific opinion which found that “there are
currently no published data to conclude in whatever way” that these substances, when applied on
poultry carcasses, cause “acquired reduced susceptibility” (a buildup in resistance to the PRTs), or
cause resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials.10 Around the same time, two other scientific
committees under the auspices of the EC’s Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General
issued a joint opinion which essentially found that there appeared to be low environmental risk
7
8
Comments during a meeting of the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, Washington, DC, December 7-9, 2010.
This is the language in the current EC Regulation No. 853/2004, Article 3 (part).
9
Explanatory Memorandum to accompany the EC “Proposal for a Council Regulation implementing Regulation (EC)
No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of antimicrobial substances to remove
surface contamination from poultry carcasses,” Brussels, October 29, 2008.
10
Scientific Option of the Panel on Biological Hazards on a Request from DG SANCO on the assessment of the
possible effect of the four antimicrobial treatment substances on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, EFSA
Journal (2008) 659, 1-26.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
associated with residues on carcasses, but that there was a lack of enough data for it to make a
comprehensive assessment, particularly with regard to post-processing environmental risk.11
After a U.S.-EU economic summit in May 2008, the EC committed to proposed EU regulatory
changes that would permit PRT-treated poultry meat to be imported or produced in EU member
states. Changes to the EU’s Food Hygiene Regulation were offered on June 2, 2008, to the
Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health; the committee rejected the changes
by a vote of 316-0, with 29 abstentions. Following EC procedures, the same proposal was
considered on December 18, 2008, by the EU Agricultural and Fisheries Council, representing the
agricultural ministers of the EU member states. They too rejected it by the same vote margin.
Earlier, on June 19, 2008, the European Parliament, which has a more limited role in this phase of
the process, nonetheless approved, by a vote of 526-27 with 11 abstentions, a resolution urging
the Commission to reject the food hygiene changes.12
Concluding Observations
The outgoing Bush Administration expressed its frustration with the EU’s decision not to allow
certain PRT-treated meats, given what it characterized as several favorable European scientific
opinions that there is no risk to human health. The Bush Administration expressed concern that
even the rejected changes represented a “heavily conditioned” proposal, including requirements
for labeling, a limitation on PRT use to carcasses, not parts, and a limitation to use of a single
PRT (not a combination of them) to be followed by potable water rinses. “Based on these votes,
as well as discussions with EU officials, the United States has concluded that this issue cannot be
resolved through further negotiation at this time. If WTO consultations cannot resolve the dispute
within 60 days of the U.S. filing, the United States will be entitled to request that a WTO panel be
established to determine whether the EU is acting consistently with its WTO obligations.”13
The U.S. poultry industry supported the WTO filing by the USTR and encouraged the Obama
Administration to continue to pursue the case. In February 2009, the United States and the EU
held consultations. 14 The United States has asked the panel to review whether the EU’s ban on the
import and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with PRTs judged safe
by the United States and also by European food safety authorities is consistent with the EU’s
WTO obligations.15 Even if the case advances to a dispute resolution panel, a solution appears to
be elusive. The two sides maintain widely divergent views not only on the poultry issue but on
some aspects of their basic approach to food safety regulation.
11
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks and Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly
Identified Health Risks, scientific opinion on the environmental impact and effect on antimicrobial resistance of four
substances used for the removal of microbial surface contamination of poultry carcasses, April 2008.
12
See “Parliament opposes sale of chlorinated chicken in EU,” June 19, 2008, at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/
getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20080618IPR32120. The cite for the proposed changes is in
footnote 9, above.
13
“U.S. Files WTO Case Challenging EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” January 16, 2009 USTR press release.
Also, “EU proposal for lifting U.S. poultry ban includes strict conditions,” Meatingplace.com, May 29, 2008.
14
“United States Requests WTO Panel in Challenge of EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” USTR press release,
October 8, 2009.
15
“United States Requests WTO Panel in Challenge of EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” USTR press release,
October 8, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
A widely held European view appears to be that the U.S. treatments are necessary to compensate
for poor sanitary standards earlier in the production process. European poultry producers assert
that they must follow much stricter production and processing rules that are more successful in
reducing microbiological contamination than simply washing products at the end of the process.
In its own resolution, the European Parliament agreed and added that the European industry had
made “considerable investments ... in accordance with Community legislation, with a view to
reducing pathogen contamination by implementing a total food chain approach.” The resolution
also argued, among other things, that there was not enough evidence concerning the safety of
PRTs, that to allow them “is out of step with both the European public’s food safety and hygiene
expectations and the demand for production models—both within and outside Europe—which
ensure that high hygiene standards are maintained throughout the production and distribution
process,” and “that it would be likely to undermine European consumer confidence in foodstuffs
sold within the European Union, which remains fragile following the food safety problems that
have arisen within the Union over recent years.”16
Formal WTO cases can take many years to resolve to the satisfaction of either party. A case in
point is the long-running U.S.-EU dispute over the use of hormones in beef, which the EU
prohibits and which has kept beef from the United States, where they are used, out of the EU
market for many years.17 Several WTO dispute panel rulings have concluded that the EU ban is
scientifically unjustified and inconsistent with WTO rules. The United States has imposed WTOapproved retaliatory tariffs on some EU imports, but the EU continues to enforce the ban.18
Meanwhile, as EU officials have pointed out, the United States is permitted to, and does, export
hormone-free beef to the EU; likewise, U.S. poultry meat not treated with PRTs likely would be
accepted.
Even an ultimate WTO ruling favorable to the United States might not result in greater access to
the EU market for U.S. poultry products, given current low traded volumes between the United
States and the European Union. However, the EU reportedly has become a net importer of poultry
meat in recent years, largely following a 2005 WTO ruling that established a tariff rate quota for
Brazil and Thailand. 19
Author Contact Information
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
16
“European Parliament resolution of 19 June 2008 on imports of poultry carcasses,” accessed at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0307+0+DOC+XML+V0//
EN&language=EN.
17
For more information on this case, see CRS Report R40449, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute.
18
See also the U.S. Mission to the EU’s web page on beef hormones at http://useu.usmission.gov/Dossiers/
Beef_Hormones/default.asp.
19
“European Union—Poultry and Products Annual 2009,” ThePoultrySite.com, December 2009,
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1580/european-union-poultry-and-products-annual-2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written in collaboration with Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist in Agricultural
Policy
pursue the case.
PRTs are antimicrobial rinses—including chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium
phosphate, and peroxyacids, among others—that have been approved by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) for use in poultry processing to reduce the amount of microbes on meat.
Meat and poultry products processed with PRTs are judged safe by the United States and also by
European food safety authorities. Nevertheless, the EU prohibits the use of PRTs and the
importation of poultry treated with these substances. The EU generally opposes such chemical
interventions and believes that stronger sanitary practices during production and processing are
more appropriate for pathogen control than what it views as U.S. overreliance on PRTs.
As PRTs are widely used in U.S. poultry processing, the EU’s ban on their use effectively
prohibits U.S. poultry meat from entering EU countries. Prior to 1997, when the prohibition took
effect, U.S. exports of broiler and turkey meat to the 15 countries that then constituted the EU
totaled nearly 38,000 metric tons (MT), valued at $58 million. In 2011, U.S. exports to the same
15 countries were reported to be nearly 9,000 MT, valued at $13 million. USDA analysts believe
that almost all of these U.S. exports represent “transshipments,” meaning that Europe is not the
intended final destination and that virtually no U.S. poultry meat is being purchased for the EU
market. Now that the EU consists of 27 countries, it currently imports worldwide about $500
million of fresh, chilled, and frozen poultry meat annually (excluding intra-EU trade), most of
which is supplied by Brazil and other Latin American countries. Some estimate the U.S. loss of
the EU poultry market at between $200 million and $300 million annually. Still, other foreign
buyers continue to make the United States the second-largest exporter of poultry meat in the
world, after Brazil.
Despite initial consultations between the United States and the EU, in October 2009, the USTR
asked the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel regarding the EU restrictions on imports of
U.S. poultry. The United States has asked the panel to review whether the EU’s ban on the import
and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with PRTs violates the EU’s
WTO obligations. USTR claims that PRTs are judged safe by U.S. and other public health
authorities, citing European scientific opinions indicating that PRTs pose no risk to human health.
The latest scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that “chemical
substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.” In
addition, in 2011, the international food safety organization Codex Alimentarius Commission
(Codex) issued guidelines for the control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat that
covers the use of certain hazard-based control measures, including acidified sodium chlorite and
trisodium phosphate, among other rinses and oxidants. Some believe the Codex guidelines should
effectively resolve concerns about the use of these substances in poultry processing. Nevertheless,
USTR and the U.S. poultry industry remain actively engaged in this case, and the United States
and EU continue to maintain widely divergent views not only on the poultry issue but on some
aspects of their basic approach to food safety regulation.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
U.S.-EU Poultry Trade ..................................................................................................................... 1
EU Prohibitions on Use of PRTs...................................................................................................... 2
U.S. Filing with WTO...................................................................................................................... 3
Current Status and Issues ................................................................................................................. 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
Overview
In January 2009, the outgoing Bush Administration escalated a long-running dispute with the
European Union (EU) over its refusal to accept imports of U.S. poultry treated with certain
pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs). PRTs are antimicrobial rinses that have been approved for
use by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in poultry production to reduce the amount of
microbes on meat. Meat and poultry products processed with PRTs are judged safe by the United
States and also by European food safety authorities. Nevertheless, the EU prohibits the use of
PRTs and the importation of poultry treated with these substances. The EU generally opposes
such chemical interventions and asserts that its own poultry producers follow much stricter
production and processing rules that are more effective in reducing microbiological
contamination than simply washing products at the end of the process.
This dispute dates to 1997, when the EU first banned the use of PRTs on poultry, effectively
shutting out virtually all imports from the United States since then. Such treatments are routinely
used in U.S. chicken and turkey plants. The United States views the EU ban as a trade barrier that
is not based on scientific evidence showing that such treatments are harmful. EU interests believe
that stronger sanitary practices during production and processing are more appropriate for
pathogen control than what they view as U.S. overreliance on PRTs.
Bush officials requested World Trade Organization (WTO) consultations with the EU on the
matter, a prerequisite first step toward the establishment of a formal WTO dispute settlement
panel. The U.S. poultry industry supported the WTO filing by the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) and encouraged the Obama Administration to continue to pursue the case. The
Administration and the U.S. poultry industry remain actively engaged in this case.
U.S.-EU Poultry Trade
Trailing only Brazil, the United States is the second leading exporter of poultry meat (broiler and
turkey) in the world. Together these two countries account for nearly 70% of all world poultry
meat exports.1 Although the U.S. accounts for about one-third of all world poultry trade, virtually
no U.S. exports go to EU countries, the world’s second largest importer of poultry meat. The EU
accounted for about 9% of all world poultry imports in 2011.
Prior to 1997, when the EU began to prohibit U.S. poultry because of the PRT rule, U.S. exports
of broiler and turkey meat to the 15 countries that then constituted the EU were reported to total
nearly 38,000 metric tons (MT) with a value of $52 million. By 2011, U.S. exports to the same 15
countries were reported to be nearly 9,000 MT with a value of $13 million.2 Furthermore, these
annually reported data likely include “transshipments,” meaning that Europe was not their final
destination. According to USDA, virtually no U.S. poultry meat is being purchased for
consumption in the EU.3 Moreover, as additional countries have joined the EU, the United States
1
USDA, Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, October 2012, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/
circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf.
2
Compiled by CRS from data in the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Trade DataWeb database, HTS 0207
(Meat and Edible Offal of Poultry (Chickens, Ducks, Geese, Turkeys and Guineas), Fresh, Chilled or Frozen).
3
CRS communications with USDA staff, February 2, 2009 (FAS) and February 4, 2009 (ERS).
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
has lost markets in Europe. After Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU under the 2007
enlargement (to 27 countries), total U.S. poultry meat exports to the two countries dropped to
zero, compared with about 54,000 MT, valued at $34 million, during the prior year. The 27
countries that now comprise the European Union (EU-27) imported an estimated 175,000 MT of
fresh, chilled or frozen poultry meat from outside the EU in 2011, which was valued at $503
million.4 Some estimate that the combined effects of the ban and the growth of the EU market
may have led to $200 million to $300 million in lost U.S. sales annually.5
EU Prohibitions on Use of PRTs
The EU began to prohibit the use of PRTs for both domestic and imported poultry in 1997. Key
language in the regulations reads, in part, “[f]ood business operators shall not use any substance
other than potable water”—or, when otherwise permitted, “clean water—to remove surface
contamination from products of animal origin,” unless use of another substance has specifically
been approved by the EU.6
In 2002, the United States asked the EU to approve the use of four PRTs on poultry destined for
export there. These included chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorate, trisodium phosphate,
and peroxyacids. Each is approved for use in poultry processing by both USDA and the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).7 More specifically, after birds are slaughtered and the
carcasses eviscerated, a USDA inspector examines them for fecal contamination or other
problems. They then enter a final washing procedure, where the PRTs may be applied, either as a
spray or wash on the processing line, or as an addition to the water used to lower the carcass
temperature (the chiller tank). Federal regulations further specify PRT concentration levels and
other usage requirements.
Following the U.S. request for use of these four PRTs, several key European opinions on PRT use
were issued. These opinions helped form the basis for the U.S. request to allow them. For
example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in December 2005, adopted an opinion
that use of the four PRTs under described conditions “does not present any risk to public health”
but that “the use of antimicrobial solutions does not replace the need for good hygienic practices
during processing of poultry carcasses, particularly during handling.” A second EFSA opinion
that month also pointed out that information on one of the substances, peroxyacids, indicated
limited effectiveness, requiring that specific conditions of use should be defined.8
4
Compiled by CRS from Global Trade Atlas data, HTS 0207 (Meat and Edible Offal of Poultry (Chickens, Ducks,
Geese, Turkeys and Guineas), Fresh, Chilled or Frozen). Data exclude intra-EU shipments.
5
“USTR Requests Formal WTO Consultations in EU Poultry Dispute,” Inside U.S. Trade, January 23, 2009.
6
EC Reg. No. 853/2004, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0055:0205:EN:PDF.
7
21 CFR Part 173, Subpart D (“Specific Usage Additives”). See also, for example, FSIS Directive 7120.1, “Safe and
Suitable Ingredients used in the production of meat, poultry, and egg products,” July 2012; USDA/FSIS, “Guidance on
Ingredients and Sources of Radiation Used to Reduce Microorganisms on Carcasses, Ground Beef, and Beef
Trimmings;” and University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension, “Processing Tip: Chlorine is still the most popular
sanitizer in the poultry industry,” November 2007.
8
Explanatory Memorandum to accompany the EC “Proposal for a Council Regulation implementing Regulation (EC)
No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of antimicrobial substances to remove
surface contamination from poultry carcasses,” Brussels, October 29, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
In April 2008, EFSA published another scientific opinion which found that “there are currently no
published data to conclude in whatever way” that these substances, when applied on poultry
carcasses, cause “acquired reduced susceptibility” (a buildup in resistance to the PRTs), or cause
resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials.9 Around the same time, two other scientific committees
under the auspices of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of the European
Commission (EC)10 issued a joint opinion which essentially found that there appeared to be low
environmental risk associated with residues on carcasses, but that there was not enough data for it
to make a comprehensive assessment, particularly with regard to post-processing environmental
risk.11
On December 18, 2008, the EU rejected the U.S. request of approval for use of four PRTs on
poultry destined for export to the EU—six years after the U.S. request was submitted.12 This
followed a U.S.-EU economic summit in May 2008, where the EC committed to proposed EU
regulatory changes that would permit PRT-treated poultry meat to be imported or produced in EU
member states. Changes to the EU’s Food Hygiene Regulation were offered, in June 2008, to the
Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health but were overwhelmingly rejected
(316-0, with 29 abstentions). The same proposal was considered in December 2008, by the EU
Agricultural and Fisheries Council, representing the agricultural ministers of the EU member
states. They too rejected it by the same vote margin.13
U.S. Filing with WTO
In response to the EC’s explicit prohibition of these four PRTs and the importation of poultry
treated with such substances, the United States requested WTO consultations in January 2009.
The outgoing Bush Administration expressed its frustration with the EU’s decision not to allow
U.S. poultry processed using these PRTs, given what it characterized as several favorable
European scientific opinions that PRTs pose no risk to human health. The Bush Administration
expressed concern that even the rejected changes represented a “heavily conditioned” proposal,
including requirements for labeling, a limitation on PRT use to carcasses, not parts, and a
limitation to use of a single PRT (not a combination of them) to be followed by potable water
rinses. USTR concluded that this issue could not be resolved through further negotiation and
initiated its request to establish a WTO panel to determine whether the EU is acting consistently
with its WTO obligations.14 The U.S. poultry industry supported the WTO filing by the USTR
9
Scientific Option of the Panel on Biological Hazards on a Request from DG SANCO on the assessment of the
possible effect of the four antimicrobial treatment substances on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, EFSA
Journal (2008) 659, 1-26.
10
The European Commission (EC) represents the interests of the EU, and is responsible for proposing and applying
laws, implementing regulations and other decision, and other activities within the EU.
11
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks and Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly
Identified Health Risks, scientific opinion on the environmental impact and effect on antimicrobial resistance of four
substances used for the removal of microbial surface contamination of poultry carcasses, April 2008.
12
Council Decision 2009/121/EC of 18 December 2008 rejecting the proposal from the Commission for a Council
Regulation implementing Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the
use of antimicrobial substances to remove surface contamination from poultry carcasses, 2009/121/EC.
13
“Parliament opposes sale of chlorinated chicken in EU,” June 19, 2008. Earlier, in June 2008, the European
Parliament, which has a more limited role in this phase of the process, had approved a resolution urging the
Commission to reject the food hygiene changes (526-27, with 11 abstentions).
14
USTR, “U.S. Files WTO Case Challenging EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” January 16, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
and encouraged the Obama Administration to continue to pursue the case. The United States and
the EU continued to hold consultations starting again in February 2009.
The U.S. request for WTO consultations on the poultry matter was filed on January 16, 2009.15 It
states that the EU ban on PRTs in poultry processing violates the EU’s WTO obligations under
both the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs). (For more information on these two
agreements, see text box on next page.) Specifically, the U.S. filing states that the ban by the EU
on PRTs for poultry appears to violate the following WTO obligations:
•
Article 2.2 of the SPS agreement, which permits only those measures necessary
to protect human, animal, and plant life or health and that are based on scientific
principles;
•
SPS Article 5, which governs risk assessment and determination of the
appropriate level of SPS protection, with the objective of minimizing trade
impacts;
•
SPS Article 8, on control, inspection, and approval procedures, which are aimed
at treating imports no less favorably than domestic products; and
•
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, which is intended to assure that TBT measures
do not discriminate against imports or create unjustified barriers to trade.
In October 2009, despite initial consultations between the United States and the EU, the USTR
asked the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel regarding the EU’s restrictions on imports
of U.S. poultry. The United States has asked the panel to review whether the EU’s ban on the
import and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with PRTs violates the
EU’s WTO obligations. USTR and the U.S. poultry industry remain actively engaged in this case.
A panel was established in November 2009, and USTR and poultry industry officials remain
interested in moving forward.
Formal WTO cases can take many years to be resolved to the satisfaction of either party. A case in
point is the long-running U.S.-EU dispute over the use of hormones in beef, which the EU
prohibits and which has kept beef from the United States, where they are used, out of the EU
market for many years.16 Several WTO dispute panel rulings concluded that the EU hormone ban
is scientifically unjustified and inconsistent with WTO rules, and the United States imposed
WTO-approved retaliatory tariffs on some EU imports. However, the EU continued to enforce the
hormone ban. Decades later, the United States and the EU signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) implementing an agreement that could eventually resolve this longstanding dispute. Meanwhile, as EU officials have pointed out, the United States is permitted to,
and does, export hormone-free beef to the EU; likewise, U.S. poultry meat not treated with PRTs
likely would be accepted.
15
WTO, European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products from the
United States—Request for Consultations by the United States (WT/DS389/1, January 20, 2009. The document and
current status of the dispute is available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds389_e.htm.
16
For more information on this case, see CRS Report R40449, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
Role of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Multilateral trade rules allow governments to adopt measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health,
provided that they do not discriminate or use them as disguised protectionism. This principle was clarified in 1994
by WTO members’ approval, along with the other so-called Uruguay Round Agreements, of the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures (“SPS Agreement”). A separate accord, the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs, the “TBT Agreement”) covers other government measures (including but not
limited to food and agriculture) to regulate markets and protect consumers and the environment.
Both the United States and the EU are parties to these WTO agreements.
SPS Agreement
The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures (or “SPS Agreement”) prescribes rules requiring a
scientific basis for measures that restrict imports on the basis of health or safety concerns, and sets out the basic
rules for ensuring that each country’s food safety and animal and plant health laws and regulations are transparent,
scientifically defensible, and fair. The agreement was entered into force on January 1, 1995, as one of the
agreements in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the multilateral trade
negotiations administered by the WTO. It is designed to protect animals and plants from diseases and pests, and
to protect humans from animal- and plant-borne diseases and pests, and foodborne risks. Examples include
specific product or processing standards, requirements for products to be produced in disease-free areas,
quarantine and inspection procedures, sampling and testing requirements, residue limits for pesticides and drugs in
foods, and prohibitions on certain food additives. The SPS Agreement provides that dispute settlement
procedures under the WTO apply also to disputes about food safety and health measures.
TBT Agreement
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”) addresses the growing number of technical
regulations and standards adopted by countries that might restrict trade. The agreement resulted from the
Tokyo Round in 1979, when members signed a so-called Standards Code. The agreement sets down rules for
regulations and standards concerning specific characteristics of a product such as its size, shape, design, functions
and performance, or the manner in which a product is labeled or packaged. The TBT Agreement covers the
preparation, adoption, and application of technical regulations, product standards, and conformity assessment
procedures, as well as environmental regulations and voluntary procedures relating to health, sanitary concerns,
and animal welfare. Examples include trademarks and patents, geographical indications (GIs), labeling and
packaging requirements, certification and inspection procedures, product specifications, and approval and
marketing of biotechnology. The TBT Agreement also provides for WTO dispute settlement procedures.
For more information, see the WTO’s website, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm, and also
CRS Report RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural Trade.
Current Status and Issues
The United States and the EU maintain widely divergent views not only on the poultry issue but
on some aspects of their basic approach to food safety regulation. A widely held European view
appears to be that the U.S. use of these treatments compensates for poor sanitary standards earlier
in the production process. European poultry producers assert that they follow much stricter
production and processing rules that are more successful in reducing microbiological
contamination than simply washing products at the end of the process.
In its June 2008 resolution, the European Parliament claimed that the European industry had
made “considerable investments ... in accordance with Community legislation, with a view to
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs)
reducing pathogen contamination by implementing a total food chain approach.”17 The resolution
also argued, among other things, that to allow the use of PRTs given the lack of evidence
supporting their safety “is out of step with both the European public’s food safety and hygiene
expectations and the demand for production models—both within and outside Europe—which
ensure that high hygiene standards are maintained throughout the production and distribution
process,” and would likely “undermine European consumer confidence in foodstuffs sold within
the European Union, which remains fragile following the food safety problems that have arisen
within the Union over recent years.”18
Nevertheless, a 2012 scientific opinion by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends
changes to the EU’s own meat inspection procedures, criticizing its efforts for detecting and
controlling Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat. Regarding chemical intervention, the
opinion further states that “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or
acute health risk for consumers.”19
This followed the release of 2011 guidelines issued by the international food safety organization
Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) for the control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in
chicken meat.20 These Codex guidelines cover, among other types of production controls, the use
of certain hazard-based control measures, including acidified sodium chlorite and trisodium
phosphate, among other antimicrobial rinses and oxidants. Some believe the Codex guidelines
might effectively resolve concerns about the use of these substances in poultry processing.21
The USTR and the U.S. poultry industry remain actively engaged in this case.
Author Contact Information
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
17
“European Parliament resolution of 19 June 2008 on imports of poultry carcasses,” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0307+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.
18
Ibid.
19
EFSA, “Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (poultry),” Appendix B,
EFSA Journal 10(6):2741, 2012, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2741.htm.
20
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, “Guideline for the Control of
Camplyobacter and Salmonella spp. in Chicken Meat,” CAC/GL 78-2011, http://www.codexalimentarius.org/.
21
D. Pisanello, “Happy end for US-EC dispute on poultry SPS measures,” Lex Alimentaria, August 24, 2011,
http://www.lexalimentaria.eu/ing/news/46-happy-end-for-us-ec-dispute-on-poultry-sps-measures.html.
Congressional Research Service
6