website title

Students Zone - Answers to Case Study Questions

<< back to students home

3.3 BEEF HORMONES

  • The European Union claims there is still a potential risk but has little scientific proof – does it have the right therefore to protect its consumers in this way? Should the consumer have the right to choose (ie if the beef was labelled)?

Answer

Science is in debate still. The EU feels potential risk but no proof (or should the US provide the proof. What scientific evidence is necessary? What degree of risk is allowable? The EU feel there should be no risk allowable. Also the threat of destabilizing the market is very real – if the newspapers found US beef hormone treated beef was being sold in the country, there would soon be a scare and little to no beef sold? (or would this happen? – something for discussion) Labelling was suggested but the US felt it would be like labelling the beef as“risky” “don’t eat me”. However some labels are ignored eg does it stop smokers to label packets in the way they do!

 

  • Is this really a means of protecting the EU farmer?

Answer

US – reason = consumer pressure and Euro politics. Also the fact EU consumer has no confidence in food authorities is part of the problem – the EU should deal with this rather than ban the beef. US consumers have no problem eating the beef because they trust their regulators. EU should have independent regulators with transparent procedures. (But are US as aware as EU?)

 

  • Ultimately, what is the dispute really about?

Answer

Ultimately – isn’t this a fight between two of the major lobbying groups in the US/EU ? The US farmers v the EU farmers - but in the EU there is another increasing power group – the consumer. Other questions raised are: what scientific proof is needed to ban a product? Is it right to impose further sanctions on un-related farmers to put this right? Are there other ways?

 

Other chapter answers >>

 

Img

Site Links

Jacket
Companion Website
 

Lecturers Zone

 

Students Zone

 

 

Other