• The United States has reviewed the communication that the EC has placed on the agenda of this meeting and has listened to the statement that the EC just made. The United States fails to see how the revised EC measure could be considered to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter.
  
  
• For nearly 15 years, the EC has banned the importation of nearly all meat and meat products from the United States. The purported basis of the EC ban is that the consumption of meat from cattle raised in the United States with growth-promoting hormones poses a risk to human health.
  
  
• $ It is a bedrock principle of the SPS Agreement, however, that banning a product for purported health reasons must be based on science. The EC measure is not based on science. To the contrary, after repeated study, no increased health risk has ever been associated with the consumption of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones.
  
  
• The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives found that there was a wide margin of safety for these products. For example, it determined that consumption of beef from treated animals results in amounts of estradiol that are 300 times lower than the acceptable daily intake level.
  
  
• Moreover, hormones such as estradiol are already produced in abundance by both the human body and cattle, and are naturally present in many everyday foods. For example:

-- Due to high levels of naturally-occurring hormones in cattle, it is not even possible to distinguish any residues of such hormones administered for purposes of growth promotion.

-- A single chicken egg contains many times more estradiol equivalents than the estradiol contained in a 250 gram serving of meat from a treated animal.

-- A liter of milk from an untreated cow contains approximately 18 times as much estradiol as a 250 gram serving of meat from a treated animal.

• In February 1998, the DSB adopted findings that the EC ban was not based on an appropriate risk assessment, as required by Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, and recommended that the EC bring its measure into compliance with its WTO obligations.
  
  
• Near the conclusion of the 15-month compliance period, on April 30, 1999, the EC issued a report by an EC veterinary committee claiming increased health risks from the use of growth-promoting hormones. However, this claim was not based on science. Just like the reports relied upon by the EC before the panel and the Appellate Body, the April 1999 report consisted of general discussions of types of risks, but never actually assessed or found any increased risk from the consumption of meat from animals produced with growth-promoting hormones.
  
  
• And, indeed, the EC had never, until now, claimed to the DSB that the April 1999 report was an appropriate basis for adopting a ban on U.S. beef. To the contrary, during the arbitration under Article 22.6 on the level of nullification and impairment suffered by the United States, the EC acknowledged that - even after the issuance of the April 1999 report - it had not implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. For example, in its opening submission filed on June 11, 1999, the EC wrote that it "accepts that it has not taken the required measures to comply with the DSB recommendations."
  
  
• In July 1999, the DSB authorized the United States and Canada to suspend concessions. Again, the EC never claimed that its April 1999 report served as an appropriate basis for its ban on meat from treated animals.
  
  
• Today, the EC presents Directive 2003/74 to the DSB, and claims that this directive implements the DSB recommendations and rulings. The directive, however, neither removes the EC's unjustified ban on U.S. beef, nor presents an appropriate risk assessment as a basis for the ban.
  
  
• Further, aside from the ban on estradiol, the directive relabels its ban on the other 5 growth-promoting hormones covered in this matter as "provisional measures". A decision by the EC to relabel its measures, however, cannot bring it into compliance with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.
  
  
• Nearly 6 years have passed since the DSB recommended that the EC bring its ban on U.S. beef into compliance with its obligations. The United States, however, cannot understand how this new directive presented today could amount to implementation of the DSB recommendation.

• Mr. Chairman, as discussed at the DSB meeting held on October 2, the United States is concerned that Mexico's definitive antidumping measure on long-grain white rice from the United States, published in the Diario Oficial on June 5, 2002, is inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement.
  
  
• The United States is also concerned that certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act, and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure, are inconsistent with the AD Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
  
  
• Therefore, for the reasons discussed at the October 2 meeting, the United States again requests that the DSB establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, with standard terms of reference, to examine the matters set forth in the U.S. panel request.
  
  
• In renewing this request, we recall certain comments that Mexico made when this item was discussed at the October 2 DSB meeting. I would like to address briefly two erroneous statements that Mexico made during that meeting.

• More generally, Mexico made various statements at the October 2 meeting that questioned the adequacy of the U.S. panel request. The United States considers that our request in fact complies fully with the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. In light of the detailed nature of the request and the two days of detailed consultations that we held on these topics, Mexico should fully understand the basis for our claims.

• Mr. Chairman, the United States would like to thank you and the other members of the Selection Committee for your hard work and recommendation which has aided the DSB in taking its decision today. We also want to thank all delegations who took the time to meet with the candidates and to express their views to the Committee, and we would like to express our appreciation for the efforts of the Secretariat throughout the selection process.
  
  
• Today's decision will contribute to the continuing effectiveness of the Appellate Body as it plays its vital role in the WTO system. The United States appreciates the significant contributions which Messrs. Taniguchi, Abi-Saab and Ganesan have made to the work of the Appellate Body during their service to date, and we welcome today's decision of the Members to reappoint them so that we may continue to have the benefit of their learning and wisdom.
  
  
• We also welcome the appointment of Professor Merit Janow to take the seat soon to be vacated by Mr. James Bacchus. As Members are aware, Professor Janow has had a distinguished career in both the practical and academic side of trade law and policy. She has been serving for several years as a professor at Columbia University in New York, where she has been actively involved in issues relating to international trade, business and antitrust law. Previously, she worked as a trade negotiator and as a practicing trade lawyer. We believe that the depth and breadth of experience she will bring to her work on the Appellate Body will allow her to make a significant and positive contribution.
  
  
• $ We know that the Appellate Body will be facing many complex and important issues, and we know that these individuals will all rise to the many challenges presented. We look forward to working with them as their new terms begin.
  
  
• Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the extraordinary work done by Mr. Bacchus since the inception of the Appellate Body. He has played a critical role in shaping the Appellate Body into the respected institution it has become, and he has done so with intelligence, diligence, and wit. The foundations he helped to lay will support the successful operation of the Appellate Body for years to come.