WTO/DS389 Dispute: EC Poultry SPS

Ms. Carmen Suro-Bredie Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee Office of the United States Trade Representative 600 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20208 RE:Comments of the National Association of Manufacturers on the WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding the European Communities – Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products from the United States (Docket No. WTO/DS389) Dear Ms. Suro-Bredie: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) represents the U.S. manufacturing industry and is comprised of thousands of firms of all sizes, in all manufacturing sectors and in all 50 states. We are pleased to have the opportunity to share the NAM's views with regards to the October 23 announcement by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on the request for a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel with respect to certain measures of the European Communities (EC) affecting the import and marketing of poultry products from the United States. The NAM strongly supports the filing of this request for a WTO dispute settlement panel. We regret that EC intransigence on the issue of poultry standards and more broadly on food safety issues generally has left the U.S. Government no alternative. WTO dispute settlement has never been the preferred path for either the NAM or the U.S. Government to resolve trade disputes, especially with an important trading partner such as the European Union. The EC's poultry regime is, however, clearly discriminatory, protectionist, and without scientific merit. The NAM is well aware of, and has long supported, the efforts of USTR and other U.S. Government agencies to negotiate settlement of this decade-long dispute. However, it is time to aggressively pursue the dispute settlement option and to secure a clear WTO judgment against the EC's poultry import regime and their failure to base their regulatory regime on sound science. The NAM's interest in this WTO case is not only in the specific poultry problem but also reflects our important broader concerns that if this case, where the EC's own food safety authorities acknowledged there is no scientific evidence of a food safety problem, is allowed to stand, this precedent could endanger broad sectors of American manufacturing. If the EC or other trading partners were allowed to invoke unjustified, non-scientific standards and regulations to block market access, the fundamental tenets of the WTO system would be at risk. Ms. Carmen Suro-Bredie January 8, 2010 Page 2 This particular dispute over EC poultry standards traces its roots back at least a dozen years. But the antecedents to this dispute go much further back through a series of U.S.-EC poultry disputes covering almost 50 years, over a series of European protectionist measures to unfairly restrict U.S. access to the European poultry markets. The economic fundamentals are as clear today as in the U.S.-EC "poultry wars" of the 1960s that the European poultry industry, like so many other food and agriculture products in Europe, remains uncompetitive with U.S. and international competitors. The approach of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative through multiple administrations in confronting European agricultural protectionism has been correct. While never the first option, access to the WTO dispute settlement system must remain a key tool when we are confronted by EC protectionism and intransigence. European Commission and European Union officials have on multiple occasions and at very high levels committed to work with the U.S. government to find solutions to this long-running poultry standards issue. In at least two formal U.S-EU summit meetings, once with President Clinton and again five years later under President George W. Bush, European leaders committed in the formal summit declarations to resolve the poultry issue. Similar commitments have been made over the years bilaterally to U.S. Cabinet members and other senior officials…