VZCZCXRO9520
OO RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHC #4882/01 0162244
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 162234Z JAN 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 STATE 004882 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD EUN EAGR
SUBJECT: USTR FILES FOR WTO CONSULTATIONS WITH EU ON 
POULTRY TREATED WITH PRTS 
 
1 
 
¶1.    (U) Summary:  On January 16, 2009, the United States 
Trade Representative (USTR) announced that the United States 
is seeking World Trade Organization (WTO) consultations 
regarding the EU,s prohibition on the import of poultry meat 
and poultry meat products that have been processed with 
pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs).  PRTs are used to 
reduce the amount of pathogenic microorganisms on poultry 
meat.  Post may use the following talking points and Q and As 
to respond to inquiries on this decision.  End summary. 
 
¶2.    (U) On January 16, 2009, USTR announced that the United 
States is seeking WTO consultations regarding the EU,s 
prohibition on the import of poultry meat and poultry meat 
products that have been processed with pathogen reduction 
treatments.  PRTs are used to reduce the amount of pathogenic 
microorganisms on poultry meat.  In the event consultations 
do not resolve the issue, the Administration will decide 
what, if any, further steps to take. 
 
¶3.    (U) In 1997, the EU prohibited the use of PRTs to treat 
poultry sold in the EU, effectively prohibiting the shipment 
of virtually all U.S. poultry to the EU.  Since 1997, only 
small quantities of organic and processed poultry products 
have been exported from the United States to the EU. 
 
¶4.    (U) PRTs have been approved for use by the FDA and USDA 
on poultry in the United States, as they are safe and 
effective at reducing levels of salmonella and other 
pathogens that may be present on poultry.  PRTs are commonly 
used in the United States and in countries outside the EU. 
In addition, at least one of the PRTs banned for use on 
poultry in the EU are permitted for use in the EU in 
preparation of other food products. 
 
¶5.    (U) On December 18, 2008, the European Agriculture and 
Fisheries Council, comprised of the agriculture ministers of 
all EU Member States, rejected a European Commission proposal 
to allow the use of four PRTs, despite the fact that the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that 
poultry treated with any of these four PRT poses no health 
risk to consumers.  Given the data available on the safety of 
PRTs, including the EFSA scientific reports, the EU,s 
maintenance of its import ban against poultry treated with 
PRTs appears to be inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement 
and the GATT 1994.  In view of the lack of a scientific basis 
for continuation of the EU,s ban on imports of poultry 
treated with any of the four PRTs, and after consulting with 
the U.S. poultry industry, the USG determined that it would 
be helpful to seek WTO consultations on this matter. 
 
¶6.    (U) Following are talking points and Q and As on U.S. 
poultry consultations.  Questions on this issue should be 
referred to David Weiner (202-395-9679, 
david weiner@ustr.eop.gov) or J. Sloane Strickler 
(202-395-6164, John Strickler@ustr.eop.gov) at USTR; to Ann 
Ryan, Office of Agricultural Trade, at State (202-647-3424, 
RyanAM@state.gov); or to Tanya Menchi at USDA (202-720-6777, 
Tanya.menchi@fas.usda.gov). 
 
¶6.    (U) All of the talking points and Q&A that follow may 
be used to respond to inquiries regarding WTO consultations 
on the use of PRTs.  The Q&A should be used only on an "if 
asked" basis, however.  In addition, all press inquiries 
should be directed to USTR. 
 
BEGIN TALKING POINTS: 
 
     On January 16, 2009, the United States requested WTO 
dispute settlement consultations with the EU regarding the 
EU,s prohibition on the import of poultry meat and poultry 
meat products that have been processed with pathogen 
reduction treatments, or PRTs.  PRTs are used to reduce the 
amount of pathogenic microorganisms on the surface of poultry 
meat. 
 
     In 1997, the EU prohibited the use of PRTs to treat 
poultry sold in the EU, effectively prohibiting the shipment 
of virtually all U.S. poultry to the EU.  Since 1997, only 
small quantities of organic and processed poultry products 
have been exported from the United States to the EU. 
 
     In 2002, USDA requested that the EU approve the use of 
four PRTs in the production of poultry intended for export to 
the EU.  Those four PRTs are chlorine dioxide, acidified 
sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate, and peroxyacids. 
 
 
STATE 00004882  002 OF 005 
 
 
     Since 2002, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 
among other EU bodies, has produced several scientific 
studies regarding the safety, efficacy, and environmental 
aspects of the use of these four PRTs.  None of the seven 
reports support the import ban, and several explicitly find 
that the use of these PRTs does not pose a risk to human 
health. 
 
     In May 2008, the European Commission proposed approval 
of the use of the four PRTs in the processing of poultry meat 
subject to certain requirements.  On December 18, 2008, the 
European Agriculture and Fisheries Council rejected the 
Commission,s proposal. 
 
     Because we have been unable to resolve our differences 
since 1997, we believe WTO dispute settlement consultations 
are the appropriate next step to address the matter. 
 
Q&A on the U.S. Request for WTO Consultations on 
EU Restrictions on Imports of PRT Poultry 
 
¶Q. What is this case about? 
 
¶A. The European Union (EU) prohibits the import of poultry 
meat and poultry meat products (primarily chicken and turkey) 
that have been processed with chemical treatments designed to 
reduce harmful microorganisms on the surface of the poultry 
meat, unless each such pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) has 
been specifically approved by the EU.  The EU further 
maintains a measure regarding the marketing standards for 
poultry meat, which excludes from the definition of "poultry 
meat" meat processed with PRTs. 
 
In 2002, the United States requested the approval by the EU 
of four PRTs that are used by U.S. processors:  chlorine 
dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate, and 
peroxyacids.  The FDA and USDA have approved each PRT for use 
in the processing of poultry.  In December 2008, the EU 
formally rejected the request for permission to use any of 
these four PRTs, despite the fact that EU scientists have 
repeatedly concluded that poultry treated with any of the 
four substances poses no health risk to consumers.  Given the 
scientific record, the EU,s maintenance of a ban on imports 
of poultry processed with these four PRTs appears to be 
inconsistent with, at least, the WTO Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 
Agreement) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 (GATT 1994). 
 
 
¶Q. Has the United States attempted to address the issue 
without resort to dispute settlement? 
 
¶A. Yes.  The United States has attempted ) without success 
) to resolve this issue without resorting to litigation for 
more than 11 years. 
 
After several years of discussions, U.S. and EU leaders 
agreed to "work to expeditiously resolve" regulatory issues 
hindering U.S.-EU trade, including trade in poultry, in the 
"Positive Economic Agenda" that was adopted during the May 
2002 U.S.-EU summit. 
 
Five years later, with the issue still unresolved, the United 
States and EU added poultry to the agenda of the 
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), holding discussions on 
the issue during the TEC meetings in November 2007 and May 
and December 2008.  Although the European Commission 
committed in the TEC to resolve the issue, it informed the 
United States at the December 2008 TEC meeting that it would 
not be taking any further steps in this regard, 
notwithstanding the fact that the EU measures remained 
unchanged.  Shortly after the TEC meeting, EU agriculture 
ministers unanimously rejected a proposal to approve the four 
PRTs. 
 
Accordingly, the United States does not believe this issue 
can be resolved through further bilateral dialogue at this 
time. 
 
 
¶Q. Why is the United States bringing this case now? 
 
¶A. On December 18, 2008, EU agriculture ministers rejected a 
deeply flawed European Commission proposal to approve of the 
import of poultry treated with these four PRTs, bringing to a 
close U.S. efforts to obtain EU approval for these four PRTs. 
 Based on this vote, as well as discussions with EU 
officials, the United States has concluded that this issue 
cannot be resolved through further negotiation at this time. 
 
 
¶Q. Does the U.S. action violate the G20 pledge to "refrain 
 
STATE 00004882  003 OF 005 
 
 
from raising new barriers to trade?" 
 
¶A. No.  The United States is turning to the dispute 
settlement mechanism of the WTO in order to resolve a trade 
matter between the United States and the EU.  Having recourse 
to that mechanism in no way implicates the G20 pledge. 
Indeed, far from raising a new barrier to trade, the U.S. 
action seeks to eliminate a long-standing barrier ) that is, 
the EU,s ban. 
 
 
¶Q. What will happen to this case when the Obama 
Administration comes into office? 
 
¶A. As we have said, at this point we are only seeking 
consultations to try to resolve our differences.  In the 
event we cannot resolve the issue at this stage in the 
dispute settlement process, it will be up to the incoming 
Administration to decide what to do next. 
 
 
¶Q. Why does the United States insist on obtaining access to 
the EU market for PRT poultry? 
 
¶A. The EU currently imports large amounts of poultry every 
year from Brazil, Thailand, and other countries.  The U.S. 
poultry industry is competitive internationally, and its 
high-quality products would do well in the EU market.  This 
ban unfairly denies U.S. poultry producers access to that 
market. 
 
U.S. poultry is required to meet some of the strictest 
sanitary standards in the world.  The use of PRTs, applied in 
combination with other methods and in compliance with U.S. 
regulations, is a safe and effective way of meeting such 
standards.  USDA standards apply to all poultry produced in 
the United States, whether for domestic consumption or export. 
 
 
¶Q. How much market access does the United States expect to 
get as a result of this case? 
 
¶A. It is not possible to estimate with any precision the 
amount of market access that the United States would achieve 
if it were to initiate panel proceedings and then succeed on 
the merits of the case. 
 
With annual poultry imports of $1.7 billion, the EU 
represents a potentially large market for U.S. exporters. 
The United States will export more than $4 billion worth of 
poultry globally in 2008. 
 
 
¶Q. Why does the United States consultation request not cover 
chlorine, which is used by many U.S. poultry processors? 
 
¶A. EU law prohibits the import of poultry processed with PRTs 
unless the PRTs have been approved.  In 2002, the United 
States submitted a formal request for approval for four 
specific PRTs (chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, 
trisodium phosphate, and peroxyacids).  The EU has now 
refused to approve those four PRTs, without an apparent basis 
in science.  This failure to approve those four treatments is 
the reason why the United States has chosen to request WTO 
dispute settlement consultations at this point, and that does 
not relate to the U.S. industry,s use of chlorine. 
 
 
¶Q. How will this case affect our ongoing relationship with 
the EU on other important issues? 
 
¶A. The United States has decided to request WTO consultations 
in order to try to resolve a trade matter with the EU.  We 
will now have an opportunity to address U.S. concerns with 
these specific EU measures against the backdrop of the EU,s 
WTO commitments. 
 
Recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is a routine 
part of the U.S.-EU economic relationship.  We are confident 
that we will be able to sustain the good working relationship 
we have with the EU on a wide range of bilateral and 
multilateral issues of common concern.  The United States and 
the EU have each challenged measures of the other in the WTO 
on a number of occasions, and those disputes have not 
prevented us from cooperating in many other areas.  It is 
also important to recall that transatlantic trade and 
investment flows are enormous, and the overwhelming majority 
of this commerce proceeds without conflict. 
 
 
¶Q. Do other countries have access to the EU poultry market? 
 
¶A. Yes, but under EU law, only those poultry processors that 
 
STATE 00004882  004 OF 005 
 
 
do not use PRTs and that are otherwise approved to ship to 
the EU may export poultry to the EU. 
 
 
¶Q. If Brazilian and other producers can meet EU standards, 
why can,t U.S. producers? 
 
¶A. The issue is not whether producers would be able to meet 
EU standards.  The issue is whether trade rules permit a WTO 
member to ban particular production processes when there is 
no scientific basis for doing so.  The rules do not permit 
such action. 
 
 
¶Q. Does the United States expect support from other WTO 
Members? 
 
¶A. We cannot speak for other WTO Members, although we suspect 
that this case may be of interest to a number of other 
Members. 
 
 
¶Q. What are the next steps in this dispute? 
 
¶A. The first step in WTO proceedings is a period of formal 
consultations.  If after 60 days the United States and the EU 
are unable to resolve the matter, the United States has the 
right to request that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 
establish a panel to make findings on whether the EU,s 
measures are inconsistent with WTO rules. 
 
 
¶Q. How long would a WTO case take? 
 
¶A. If the United States chose to request a panel, it could 
take approximately one year to complete the panel process; 18 
months if there is an appeal. 
 
 
¶Q. Why did the outgoing Administration decide to take action 
in two disputes with the EU in its final days?  Why didn,t 
the Administration leave decisions on these issues to the 
incoming Administration? 
 
¶A. The focus should not be on when these decisions were made, 
but on the extraordinarily long period of time during which 
the United States sought to resolve these issues through 
dialogue. 
 
In the case of poultry, a ban on PRTs that the EU,s own 
scientific authorities have found to be safe has locked U.S. 
poultry out of the EU market for 11 years.  In December, EU 
Member States rejected a proposal to approve PRTs, and the 
European Commission essentially told us it had taken the 
issue as far as it could go. 
 
With respect to beef hormones, the EU,s unjustified ban has 
kept U.S. beef out of the EU market for almost two decades. 
WTO-authorized import duties had been in place for nine 
years, without modification, and the United States had tried 
for several years to achieve a negotiated solution to this 
dispute.  But the talks stalled last year after the EU 
refused to negotiate a market access figure even for 
so-called "hormone-free" beef. 
 
These decisions will in any case position the new 
Administration well to resolve both disputes.  Each decision 
has given the incoming team additional tools with which to 
promote an amicable solution. 
 
¶Q. If needed (beef hormones): 
 
¶A. The timing of the beef announcement was also influenced by 
factors unrelated to our frustration with the EU,s 
decades-long ban and its recent refusal to negotiate a market 
access solution. 
 
USTR announced the initiation of the review on October 31, 
shortly after the WTO Appellate Body, on October 16, 
confirmed that the U.S. authorization to impose duties in the 
beef hormones dispute remained in effect.  Upon initiating 
the review, we said we hoped to complete the process by the 
end of the year.  We missed that target by two weeks because 
of the large number of comments we received (over 600). 
 
The timing was also influenced by a domestic court 
proceeding.  On October 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of 
International Trade ordered the USTR to conduct a review of 
the effectiveness of the current list.  USTR was required to 
report the results of its review to the court on January 14, 
¶2009. 
 
 
 
STATE 00004882  005 OF 005 
 
 
¶Q. Did the outgoing Administration discuss these decisions 
with the incoming Administration? 
 
¶A. USTR Schwab and USTR-designate Kirk have spoken a number 
of times, but they have not discussed any specific cases or 
potential cases. 
RICE