July 14, 1999

The National Pork Producers Council has asked President Clinton to concentrate on pork when implementing retaliation against the European Union. "Not only do we want to stay on the list, we want to comprise the entire list," says NPPC President John McNutt. To that, beef and meat industry officials say, no way.

"Rather than spreading out the retaliation over many industries with no result, why not help an industry that is suffering from abysmally low prices and that has tried for years to get into the EU market?" McNutt said. "Hog producers have sustained losses of almost $4 billion during the past 20 months. Any price relief that we can get, including through reduced imports of pork from the EU, will make the difference for some producers staying in or being forced out of business."

He said the EU exports no chicken or beef to the United States, and to keep the retaliation in the agricultural sector where it belongs, U.S. officials should concentrate on pork.

Commenting on the NPPC letter at a news conference on U.S. retaliation held on Tuesday, both Chandler Keys, vice president, public policy, NCBA, and AMI Vice President of International Trade Len Condon opposed that approach.

A question at the news conference concerned whether the NPPC approach would be effective. Condon said it would not be effective. In 1989, the United States retaliated against Italy, "and the other EU members just wrote Italy off. If we retaliate on pork, we retaliate against Denmark, and the other EU members will write Denmark off as quickly as you can blink your eyes. They'll all breathe a sigh of relief and say their problems are over. Let the Danes eat it."

In his letter to Clinton, McNutt argued that putting all pork on the final retaliation list will help beef and poultry more than putting any other products on the list. "To the extent that our producer prices rise, cattle and poultry prices are indirectly strengthened," he said.