The document summarizes key trade relationships and disputes between the United States, European Union, and United Kingdom. It discusses the large bilateral trade between the US and EU, worth over $1 trillion annually. It also outlines several major trade disputes over issues like bananas, genetically modified organisms, beef hormones, poultry processing, and government subsidies. Finally, it provides background on Brexit and analyzes potential impacts to trade relations as the UK exits the EU.

1. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND EXIM
TOPIC: USA AND EUROPE TRADE UNION
DISPUTES
A Group 12 Presentation

2. INTRODUCTION
•The European Union and the United States have the
largest bilateral trade and investment relationship.
•2016- U.S. goods and services trade with the EU = $1.1
trillion; Exports =$501 billion, Imports =$592 billion.
•This trade relation supported 2.6 million jobs. (2015)

3. •EU ranks 1st
as an export market for US.
•US exports to the EU accounted for 18.6% of
overall US exports.
•5 largest country markets: United Kingdom,
Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and France.
•Top export categories: Aircraft, Machinery,
Pharmaceutical Products, Optic & Medical
Instruments, and Electrical Machinery.
•Agricultural products leading categories: tree
nuts, soybeans, wine and beer, and prepared
food.
•Top service sectors: professional and
management services (Intellectual property
and travel)
EXPORTS IMPORTS
•EU ranks 2nd largest supplier of imports to
US.
•US imports from the EU accounted for 19.0%
of overall US imports.
•5 largest country suppliers: Germany, United
Kingdom, France, Ireland, and Italy.
•Top import categories: Machinery,
Pharmaceuticals Products, Vehicles, Optic and
Medical Equipment, and Electrical Machinery.
•Agricultural products leading categories:
wine and beer, essential oils, snack foods
(including chocolate), vegetable oils, and
processed fruits and vegetables.
•Top service sectors: travel (including
education), transport .

4. TRADE BALANCE
•The United States goods trade deficit with the EU was
$146.8 billion (2016).
•The United States had a services trade surplus of $54.8
billion with the EU (2016).

5. Lorem Ipsum
Lorem IpsumLorem Ipsum
Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum
US-EU TRADE
DISPUTES
SETTLED
DISPUTES
ONGOING
DISPUTES
AIR -BUS AND
BOEING AEROPLANE
DISPUTE
GMO DISPUTE BANANA DISPUTE

6. 1. TRADE DISPUTE OVER BANANA: USA → EU
Countries Involved:
1. European Union
2. Latin America
3. USA
4. Caribbean
5. Africa
6. Pacific States
IMPORTANCE OF BANANAS TO THE CARIBBEAN:
1. Caribbean banana producers could not
compete on price with the Latin American
production.
2. The export earnings of the Caribbean came
from 4% of the sale of the 3 largest
companies- Dole, Chiquita and DelMonte.
This makes the Caribbean states uniquely
dependent on Bananas for Economic Survival.

7. THE EU CREATED “NEW BANANA REGIME 1993”
- Common Market Organization for Bananas
One Single European Market:
Common market organization for Bananas is a single
system policy to benefit domestic producers and
consumers of Bananas within the EU borders.
KEY POINT:
The new banana regime allows tariff free banana imports
from the EU colonies.

8. EU DUTY CHARGES ON BANANAS:
ACP COUNTRIES:
ACP Bananas have duty-free up to €857 thousand tonnes and
subjected to €750 per metric tonne above that amount.
LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES:
Latin American Countries are subjected to €100 per metric tonne
on imports of upto 2 million metric tonnes and €850 on imports
above that amount.
KEY POINT:
Banana tariffs are unfair and breach free trade rules.

9. UNITED STATES INVOLVED:
The largest banana producer in Latin America are operated by US
companies and therefore involving the United States.
The barriers from free trade with ACP were costing US markets
estimated $520 million loses per year, which was a loss for US firms
resulting from EU banana import policy.
TOP BANANA COMPANY GLOBAL
1. Dole 19% [USA]
2. Chiquita 17% [USA]
3. Del Monte 17% [USA]

10. Countries
complain to WTO
1996
WTO Rules in
favour of USA
1999
New deal
presented by EU
considered illegal
by WTO
2005
EU trade
commissioner
realises global
trade deals at risk
2008
Geneva
agreement signed
2009
TIMELINE
EU imposes
tariffs on Bananas
1993

11. 1998
● The EU deal was agreed in the Council of Ministers on 22/26 June 1998.
● Under the revised arrangements
○ Traditional ACP suppliers would be able to send up to 857,000 tonnes of bananas a year at a
zero tariff. Beyond that 537 Euros for ACP suppliers.
○ Other suppliers would pay a tariff of 75 Euros a tonne on imports of up to 2.553m tonnes under
tariff quotas. Beyond that 737 Euros for Latin American suppliers.
● The ceilings have different effects, however. The 2.553m tonnes is only just above the typical level
of EU imports of non-ACP bananas, so that no room was offered for expansion of this trade.
● The ACP ceiling of 857,000 tonnes was 100,000 to 150,000 tonnes above the typical level of ACP
imports into the EU, leaving room for expansion.
USA dissatisfied with changes intend to charge import duties on products from Europe.

12. 1999
WTO ruled in favour of USA.
Allowed them to charge import duties on European products upto
$191 million.
Goods charged with import duty:
● French handbags
● British Bed-linen
● Other EU products

13. The EU shall maintain a MFN tariff-only regime for the importation of bananas
Period EUR/mt
From 15 December 2009 until 31
December 2010
148
-1 January 2011 143
-1 January 2012 136
-1 January 2013 132
-1 January 2014 127
-1 January 2015 122
-1 January 2016 117
-1 January 2017 114
Geneva Agreement on trade in Bananas (2009)

14. ● What are Genetically Modified Organisms?
● Ethical Concerns of Genetically Modified
Organisms?
● Different views of the US and EU on
Genetically Modified Organisms.
2. TRADE DISPUTE OVER GMO’s : USA → EU

15. ● The EU adopted new regulations on GM products in 2001 and 2003, but did not start considering
new approvals because public opposition to GM foods remained strong.
● US firms and food distributors, who believed strongly that their products were both safe and
beneficial, were irritated by what they saw as an effort to keep the moratorium on new GM food
products in place even though new policies had been adopted.
● Many of them also thought that the EU was using public opinion as a smokescreen for policies
actually meant to protect European seed companies, farmers, and food wholesalers from foreign
competition.
● Such suspicion was not entirely unreasonable; the EU has a long record of maintaining high trade
barriers against foreign agricultural and food products.
GMO

16. Current process for GMO to enter EU:
● Step 1: the application, including data from the biotech company, is sent to EFSA.
● Step 2: EFSA conducts a risk assessment report, based on the company data and peer- reviewed
literature.25
● Step 3: national representatives and the European Commission consider EFSA’s opinion and can take
other aspects into consideration before deciding on authorisation, including societal, ethical and
environmental factors as well as citizens’ expectations.
US complains that the regulatory framework for GMO import is too rigorous.
GMO

17. The WTO found that Europe had imposed a de facto ban on GM food imports for six years from 1998
which violated trade agreements, and that Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg also
had no legal grounds to impose their own unilateral import bans.
The US negotiators’ objectives for the talks were:
● Better market access for US biotech products
● A faster EU authorisation process for GM crops
● The removal of various ‘trade barriers’ which limit imports of GM crops to the EU
● A streamlined process between authorities on both sides of the Atlantic
New regulations allow individual countries in the EU to set-up their own rules and regulations for the use
of importing and/or cultivation GMO plants.
GMO

18. Lorem Ipsum
Lorem IpsumLorem Ipsum
Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum
EU-US TRADE
DISPUTES
ONGOING
DISPUTES
SETTLED
DISPUTES
BEEF-HORMONE BYRD AMENDMENT POULTRY DISPUTE

19. ● EU has banned imports of hormone-treated meat.
● Growth-promoting hormones are used widely in beef production in the United States and in other
meat-exporting countries.
● Growth-promoting hormones include compounds that either naturally occur in an animal’s body or
mimic naturally occurring compounds.
● Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone (three natural hormones), and zeranol and trenbolone
acetate (two synthetic hormones), may be used as an implant on the animal’s ear.
3. TRADE DISPUTE OVER BEEF IMPORT EU → USA

20. ● The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
cooperate in regulating growth promotants for
livestock.
● Both of these agencies maintain that hormones in
beef from an implanted animal have no
physiological significance for humans.
● In addition to the United States, other countries that
have approved the use of growth-promoting
hormones in beef production are Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Chile, and
Japan, among other countries.
● The use of hormones in beef production, however, is
not allowed in the European Union, or in other
European countries that assume many of the rights
and obligations of the EU single market.

21. TIMELINE
1988
EU BAN THE WTO RESULT
1998
US IMPOSING
AD-VALOREM
1999
MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
2009
WORLD TRADE
ORGANISATION
1996

25. CURRENT SITUATION
Talking about the very recent situation of this dispute the conflict is on the
verge of a major comeback after the US meat industry pushed for a change
in the EU’s beef import rules.
But it seems like a farfetched motive as both countries are very egoistic and
divergent in this area which in result is causing a lot of troubles for retailers,
farmers in the US and also manufacturers and exporters in Europe
Countries like Brazil and Uruguay are now fighting for a part in the beef
importing quota in E.U. thus USA fears competition and wants the E.U. to
bring in some new implementations.

26. ● The EU began to prohibit the use of PRTs(pathogen reduction
treatments) for both domestic and imported poultry in 1997.
● 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).
4. TRADE DISPUTE OVER POULTRY IMPORT EU → USA

27. 1997-2018
US requested the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel, claiming
that the EU measures were not based on scientific principles. The panel has
been formally established, but wasn’t in work till 2013 and this dispute is
still ongoing and unresolved.

28. 5. TRADE DISPUTE OVER BYRD AMENDMENT
Complaining Bodies:
1. European Union
2. Australia
3. India
4. Thailand
5. Brazil
6. Chile
7. Indonesia
8. Japan
9. South Korea
BRYD AMENDMENT:
● Briefly, the Amendment requires anti-dumping tariffs
collected by the US Customs to be turned over to the
petitioning companies instead of being credited to the
Treasury as government revenues.
● In the first instance, the US companies petition and seek
tariff protection. When the tariff is imposed, the Byrd
Amendment stipulates that the monies so collected be
handed over to the petitioning companies.

29. TIMELINE
● October 2000- Signed into law by president Bill Clinton
● July, 2001 - European Commission and other countries filled a formal protest
with WTO.
● In 2002 - The WTO ruled the BYRD amendment illegal
● April 2005 - European Union announced plans to implement sanctions
● May 2005 - Canada imposed a 15% surtax sanction
● September 2005 - Japanese government introduced 15% duty on steel
imports.

30. BACKGROUND:
23RD
June 2016 marked the day that changed the
face of trade relations all over the world.
52% of British voters opted to leave the European
Union (EU) following a referendum, thus ending
the relation between the 2nd
largest trading
partners in the world.
The EU-US partnership, which prospered for more
than 6 decades, is anticipated to end officially on
the 31st
of March 2019.

31. TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE EU AND US
The EU countries together, would rank 1st
as an export
market for the United States as of 2016.
Similarly the EU countries, rank as the 2nd
largest
supplier of imports to the United States in 2016.
With the Brexit in motion, US is keen to establish a
method to continue facilitating smooth trade with the
European Union, through the following ways:
1. Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
2. US has enhanced defense cooperation with
continental European countries, following Britain’s
departure to maintain unity and potency of the
NATO alliance.

32. TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE US AND UK
USA accounts for 25% of British exports and 20% of the country’s imports.US businesses are heavily invested
in UK.
The US invested $588 billion and employed more than a million people to use UK as a gateway to free trade
with 28 EU nations.
The major impact that Brexit can have is the loss of 2 million US employees stationed in the UK.
BREXIT
HARD
BREXIT
SOFT
BREXIT

33. TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EU AND UK
Advantages of the Brexit:
1. The UK can impose taxes without the
rigid EU norms.
2. UK can prohibit free flow of people-
Concerns about the increasing
refugees from the Middle East..
3. UK does not need to pay the high
price of EU’s fees.
Disadvantages of Brexit:
1. Higher tariffs will increase the cost of imports
for the UK, thus creating inflation and
decreasing the standard of living.
2. UK will no longer be a base for countries to
trade with EU, thus causing it to lose out on
trade relations with a large number of nations.
3. UK will lose the EU state-of art technology.
UK losing its free trade agreement with the EU, it would either be complied to
WTO policies, or would pay tariffs on goods and services exported to the EU
at most favored nation rates.

34. RECOMMENDATIONS

35. THANK YOU