---------------------------------
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints
    on issues in international trade.
    ---------------------------------
 
  * As Backlash Looms, French Would Be Wise To Accept
    Safety Panel's Support For British Beef
 
 
    By David Walker, agricultural economist
    Bridge News 
    NORWICH, England--The European Union's Scientific Steering Committee last 
week issued an unusually clear statement on the safety of British beef. It 
might be assumed that this signals the end, or at least the beginning of the 
end, of the trade dispute between Britain and France over an illegal French 
embargo on imports of British beef.
 
    Politics often count for more in Europe than science, as the dispute on 
growth hormone-fed beef between the EU and the United States and Canada well 
illustrates. Even on the political front, however, Britain may hold the cards.
 
    In June, the EU named Aug. 1 as the date it would lift the 
three-and-half-year-old ban on British beef exports, a ban prompted by fears 
of mad cow disease (or BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy). A recently 
established French food safety agency then claimed fresh evidence indicated 
British beef was still not safe.
 
    Last week's science statement unanimously debunked this claim. It also 
went on to recommend the use across Europe of recently evaluated procedures 
to test for pre-clinical BSE. Reading between the lines, the scientists 
appear to be concerned that there is more BSE in Europe than is reported.
 
    But this alone may not be enough to move the French government.
 
    The procedures for enforcing a member state's commitment to the Treaty of 
Rome -- the EU's constitution -- are time-consuming and political. The 
European Court of Justice can impose fines on member states, but only after 
the European Commission has delivered a reasoned opinion. The commission has 
three months to do this from the time it receives a request from an offended 
member state. After the three months, the offended member state may take its 
case directly to the European Court.
 
    The judgment whether the member state is offending is made by the court. 
If the member state persists in offending after the ruling, the commission 
gives it time to make excuses before returning the issue to the court with 
recommendations for a penalty. Only then does the court impose the penalty.
 
    This would, of course, take years rather than weeks or months.
 
    The decision to lift the ban on British beef exports is not a simple one 
for the French. Besides the matter of the credibility of its new food safety 
agency, it has political challenges.
 
    The Greens, a junior partner in the French government coalition, have 
already stated that they oppose the lifting of the ban. And, as always with 
French politics, the farm lobby will be listened to. The decline in demand 
for beef and associated loss of income to beef producers was as dramatic on 
the Continent as it was in Britain.
 
    Germany, which has been taking a ''me, too'' stance, has a different 
challenge. Food safety is an issue for state governments, seven of which are 
reported to be opposed to lifting of the ban.
 
    In politics, however, it is usually the strength of opinion that counts. 
If the reaction in Britain over the last few weeks is any indication, it will 
not be in France's best interests to delay unduly. The British tabloids 
appear to have done an exceptional job whipping up anti-French feeling on 
this rather limited issue.
 
    A MORI opinion poll taken in Britain last week found that 51 percent of 
those surveyed would vote to leave the EU if a referendum was held. This is 
apparently the first such majority opinion on the issue since 1983, when 
Britain was the only EU member state experiencing a recession. Currently, 
Britain is one of the few European economies doing well.
 
    While the British government has been careful not to fuel the fire, it 
has been equally quick to offer what support it can to Britain's beef 
farmers, within the confines of the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
 
    Prime Minister Tony Blair was reported to be delighted by the EU 
Scientific Steering Committee's findings, and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook 
pledged to keep up the heat on the French government. Blair also has 
announced plans to host a strategy session with the industry on the promotion 
of the quality of British beef.
 
    The EU's diplomatic solution will undoubtedly be to find some 
accommodation for the French. The scientific findings may limit what can be 
done on the narrow issue of beef safety.
 
    With the tabloids and farm activists sensing the kill, the diplomats do 
not have much time to find a solution. And with the recent exposure of 
instances of French farmers feeding sewage sludge to livestock, it would 
require exceptional confidence not to put the issue to rest promptly.
 
    The final irony is that, back in 1996, the same tabloids destroyed the 
credibility of British beef. There is perhaps some justice that they are now 
rebuilding its image.
 
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London 
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of 
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. His views are not necessarily those 
of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/.
 
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
 
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  End
 
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400)
 
[SLUG: BRITISH-FRENCH-BEEF-WAR:BN _ op-ed]