Animal Disease Outbreaks and South Korea's
Meat Trade
South Korea's World Trade Organization Cases
Shelf Life
Distilled Spirits
Import Clearance Procedures
Treatment of Imported
Beef
Animal Disease Outbreaks
and South Korea's Meat Trade
One of the world's major meat importing countries, South Korea
also has hoped to export pork and poultry meat. However, animal
disease outbreaks beginning early in 2000 have seriously disrupted
trade, production, and consumption of meat in South Korea.
U.S. beef and poultry meat exports to South Korea, the third largest
foreign market for U.S. meat, have been heavily affected by outbreaks
of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow" disease)
and Avian Influenza. ERS provides information about the effects
of BSE on U.S. markets and trade and is conducting research
on the growing effects
of several animal diseases on meat markets. The Foreign
Agricultural Service's Agricultural
Trade Office in Seoul provides further BSE
information on its website.
Beef imports, the most important part of South Korea's
meat trade, were disrupted by South Korea's ban on imports from
the United States, its largest supplier, in late December 2003.
South Korea banned U.S. imports of beef meat and offals because
of the discovery of one case of BSE in Washington State. The import
ban remains in effect.
The largest component of South Korea's imports from the United
States was frozen beef. Analysis of the trade in 2000 by the U.S.
Meat Export Federation showed that over half of this beef was from
two cuts, the short rib and chuck roll. Aided by the successful
resolution of several World Trade Organization (WTO) cases (see below),
imports of chilled beef became feasible and showed rapid growth
in 2001-03. South Korea has been one of the most important U.S.
markets for beef offal, with import value reaching $73 million
in 2003. In general, South Korea imports beef cuts and organs that
its consumers have a higher preference for than U.S. consumers
do. Therefore, U.S. producers can sell these parts to South Korea
for a higher price than they would get if they remained in the
U.S. market. The closure of South Korea's market reduces the value
of beef animals to U.S. producers.
South Korea: Imports of bovine products from
the United States
Calendar
year |
Product |
Unit |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
Chilled beef |
Million US$ |
18 |
17 |
39 |
85 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
1,000 metric tons |
5 |
4 |
9 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Frozen beef |
Million US$ |
474 |
303 |
553 |
728 |
95 |
4 |
0 |
80 |
1,000 metric tons |
128 |
99 |
192 |
208 |
25 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
Beef offals |
Million US$ |
41 |
41 |
64 |
73 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1,000 metric tons |
13 |
15 |
27 |
25 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Meat extracts |
Million US$ |
8 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1,000 metric tons |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total |
Million US$ |
542 |
368 |
663 |
893 |
103 |
4 |
0 |
94 |
1,000 metric tons |
148 |
119 |
229 |
250 |
28 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
Source: World Trade Atlas, using official
Korean import statistics.
Note: imports in 2004 and 2005 represent products that had
cleared health inspection but not customs inspection prior
to the date the import ban was imposed, December 24, 2003. |
Imports from New Zealand and Australia increased in 2004 and
2005 above 2003 levels, but replaced only a fraction of the 2003
volume of imported U.S. beef. Total imports of frozen beef fell
by one half, chilled beef imports declined by over 40 percent
in 2004 before rebounding in 2005, and beef offal imports fell
by over 50 percent. South Korean beef consumption fell by 23
percent in 2004 in response to reduced demand caused by consumer
concerns and reduced supply as a result of the import ban, and
fell even more in 2005.
South Korea: Beef imports by country
Country |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
|
United States |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
0 |
14 |
Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
126 |
163 |
161 |
New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
45 |
40 |
Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
Others |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
5 |
4 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
213 |
220 |
Source: World Trade Atlas, using
official Korean import statistics for fresh, chilled,
and frozen beef from HS codes 0201 and 0202.
Note: Imports from
the United States in 2004 and 2005 represent products that
had cleared health inspection but not customs inspection
prior to the date the ban was imposed, December 24, 2003. |
Poultry meat imports by South Korea were disrupted in
2004 by bans imposed because of outbreaks of Avian Influenza in
several exporting countries. South Korea banned imports from Thailand
and China in January 2004, and imports from the United States in
February 2004. At the same time, South Korea's own poultry flock
was devastated by an outbreak of Avian Influenza, and South Korea's
small export trade to Japan was banned by Japan.
South Korea reopened trade in heated chicken meat products in
July 2004—influenza viruses are killed by exposure to high
temperatures. In May 2005, South Korea lifted its ban on imports
of fresh, chilled, and frozen chicken meat from the United States.
Bans on unheated poultry meat from China and Thailand remain in
place.
Because South Korea had not finished the process of certifying
Brazilian broiler slaughter and processing facilities for imports
by South Korea, the Avian Influenza bans meant that only parts
of Europe could feasibly export poultry meat to South Korea in
2004. South Korea's consumption of broiler meat fell by 13 percent
in 2004. Four Brazilian plants became eligible to export poultry
meat to South Korea in early 2005.
South Korea: imports of poultry meat and offals
by country
Country |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
|
United States |
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
43 |
24 |
Thailand |
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
3 |
4 |
China |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
12 |
13 |
European Union-27 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
5 |
2 |
Brazil |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
16 |
23 |
Others |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Total |
78 |
95 |
102 |
96 |
34 |
62 |
79 |
66 |
Source: World Trade Atlas, using official Korean
import statistics. Note: includes fresh, chilled, and frozen
products (HS 0207), which may be subject to an import ban because
of avian influenza, and prepared meat (HS 160231, 160232, and
160239), which is not banned. |
Pork exports by South Korea to Japan ended in March 2000
because of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). While Japan
has subsequently recognized that South Korea is again FMD free,
an outbreak of classical swine fever in South Korea in October
2002 triggered a second ban on exports to Japan, before the FMD
ban had expired. The Korean island province of Cheju may be cleared
for exports to Japan in the last half of 2005. For the rest of
South Korea, the possibility of exports to Japan is foreclosed
until 1 year after the last vaccination against classical swine
fever occurs.
References
Methodology
and Results of the Value of Beef Exports Analysis, U.S. Meat
Export Federation, 2002.
Structure of the
Global Markets for Trade, USDA, Economic Research Service, September 2003.
Top of page
South Korea's World
Trade Organization Cases
The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) set new rules
for trade. Among the first cases before the WTO were complaints
that South Korean import restrictions violated these rules. The
United States challenged South Korea's restrictions in four agriculture-related
WTO cases, and the outcomes reformed South Korea's treatment
of food and beverage imports.
Shelf Life
Distilled Spirits
Import Clearance Procedures
Treatment of Imported Beef
Shelf Life
The United States and South Korea reached a settlement on shelf
life in July 1995. South Korea agreed to phase out its government-mandated
expiration dates and, similar to most other countries, allow
manufacturers to set their own "use-by" dates. Effective on July
1, 1996, the new system applied to chilled, vacuum-packed pork
and beef and all frozen food, including beef, pork, and poultry.
For all dried, packaged, canned, or bottled products, the manufacturer's
use-by system went into effect on October 1, 1995. The 1995 agreement
also covered other concerns raised in the petition, such as pork
tendering procedures and temperature requirements.
South Korea's shelf-life issue was a precedent-setting case
for settling disputes on trade barriers couched as food safety
regulations under WTO Article XXII. "Shelf life" of a product
means the period between the date of manufacture of the product
and the date by which a product must be sold at the retail level.
South Korea imposed an official shelf-life requirement on imported
foods while most countries in the world relied on manufacturer
determined "use-by" dates to control food safety
quality. In particular, South Korea's government-mandated shelf-life
requirements effectively prohibited imports because the expiration
dates on the products were so short that, by the time a product
cleared South Korean customs inspections and reached the shops,
the dates were close to expiration or had already expired.
The issue ignited in February 1994 when South Korea suddenly
enforced a 30-day shelf life for imported U.S. sausages. The
dispute over U.S. sausage shelf life also expanded to other meat
imports and then to a wide variety of food, including canned
and frozen foods, bottled water, and dried and packaged products.
South Korea ultimately reversed itself and extended the shelf
life for sausages to 90 days in January 1995, but not until the
U.S. meat industry filed a Section 301 petition. In November
1994, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) accepted a Section
301 petition filed by the U.S. meat industry (the National Cattlemen's
Association, the National Pork Producers' Council, and the American
Meat Institute). In its investigation, USTR found that South
Korean shelf-life standards were not supported by scientific
studies and were applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
The bilateral consultations between the United States and South
Korea, however, broke down at the end of April 1995, and the
United States requested WTO consultations on May 3.
Informal consultations organized by the Chairman of the WTO
Committee on Agriculture obtained a favorable settlement without
proceeding all the way through the dispute settlement panel process.
South Korea, however, continues to maintain government-mandated
shelf-life requirements for sterilized milk products such as
ultra heat-treated milk and for bottled water. The United States
reserves the right to use WTO dispute settlement procedures to
address these restrictions.
Distilled Spirits
South Korea's liquor taxes favored soju, a traditional drink,
and discriminated against whisky and other Western-type distilled
spirits. A WTO panel ruled against South Korea in a complaint
filed by the European Union (EU) and the United States, and a
subsequent appeal also failed in January 1999. After arbitration
about the length of time in which compliance was required, South
Korea harmonized its taxes on imported and domestically produced
liquor on January 1, 2000.
South Korea assessed significantly higher excise taxes on imported
and domestic Western-style distilled spirits than on soju. Soju
was taxed at 35 percent, but whisky and brandy were taxed at
100 percent, other distilled spirits at 80 percent, and liquors
at 50 percent. South Korea's education tax further compounded
the discrimination between imported and domestic distilled spirits.
A 30-percent education tax was imposed on distilled spirits whose
excise tax was 80 percent or higher, but the tax was only 10
percent on spirits, such as soju, whose excise tax was under
80 percent. South Korea's discriminatory tax on distilled spirits
had the effect of sharply raising their prices, which significantly
diminished competitiveness. These tax measures were similar to
the Japanese tax measures on alcoholic beverages that were found
to be inconsistent with WTO rules in December 1997.
USTR raised the distilled spirits issue with South Korea in
October 1996 and sought a timetable for the reduction of taxes
on Western-style spirits. On April 2, 1997, the EU, the principal
supplier to the South Korean market, requested consultations
under WTO dispute settlement procedures. The United States participated
in these consultations as an interested third party.
Import Clearance Procedures
For years, South Korea's burdensome, slow, import-clearance process—frequently
out-of-step with international norms—was one of the most
cited trade barriers to U.S. agricultural exports. After two rounds
of talks, South Korea revised its procedures to allow fresh produce
to clear customs within 5 working days. Since then, the consultations
between the two countries have continued concerning other issues
of import clearance process.
In April 1995, the United States requested consultations under
the WTO dispute settlement procedures after U.S. exporters complained
that grapefruit and orange shipments were detained at the port
for up to 3 weeks, causing catastrophic levels of decay.
Consultations between the United States and South Korea since
1995 resulted in certain changes in South Korean procedures, including:
- establishment of expedited (5 working days) clearance procedures
for fresh produce;
- development of a new sampling system to replace 100 percent
sampling;
- abolition of sorting requirements for horticultural products;
- elimination of mandatory incubation testing for California
fruit;
- development of a quarantine pest list to determine fumigation
requirements;
- revision of some of the South Korean food additive standards
to bring them into closer conformity with the standards of the
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization Codex Alimentarius Commission; and
- elimination of the requirement for manufacturing process information
and ingredient listing by percentage for all ingredients.
South Korea's import clearance procedures remain problematic.
Imports of new food products into South Korea reportedly take considerably
longer to clear the port than similar products in other Asian countries.
Treatment of Imported
Beef
Except for rice, beef was the last major commodity liberalized
by South Korea. The liberalization process began in 1988, first
under the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
and, from 1995 on, under the auspices of the WTO.
Under a record of understanding between the United States and
South Korea signed in July 1993, and extended in December 1993,
South Korea agreed to import certain quantities of beef each year—establishing
minimum import quotas (see policy).
The size of the quotas would rise through 2000, and the quota system
would disappear in 2001. Although the record of understanding spelled
out rules that encouraged fair marketing of the imported beef,
South Korea's government discriminated against imported beef in
several ways:
- When domestic beef cattle prices were weak, the Government
failed to import the agreed-on minimum amounts (in 1997, 1998,
and 1999).
- Beef imports had to be designated in advance to go into certain
marketing channels and could not be shifted among them if market
conditions changed.
- Retail shops had to register as sales points for domestic or
imported beef, but not both. This naturally limited retail interest
in selling imported beef.
The system as applied inhibited efforts to market U.S. beef directly
to consumers. The market for chilled—as opposed to frozen—beef
imports, for example, was slow to develop, compared to the results
in nearby Japan.
Consultations held in March 1999 failed to achieve an agreement,
and a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) was formed in May 1999. In
July 1999, an Australian case against South Korea's beef import
regime was added to the U.S. case before the same DSB.
In its case, the United States complained that:
"South Korea has established a regulatory scheme that discriminates
against imported beef by confining sales…to specialized
stores, limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise constraining
the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. In addition to
the regulatory scheme…Korea imposes a markup on sales of
imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called supergroups
and the Livestock Producers Marketing Organization, and provides
domestic support to the cattle industry…in amounts that
cause Korea to exceed its aggregate measure of support as reflected
in Korea's WTO schedule." U.S. Trade Representative, Highlights
in U.S. International Trade Dispute Settlement, October 25,
2000.
The DSB issued a final report on July 31, 2000, upholding the
United States, finding that South Korea's retail distribution system
for beef was discriminatory and that South Korea must include certain
payments to the beef sector in computing its Aggregate Measurement
of Support. South Korea appealed the result, but the appeal failed
and the DSB adopted the appeal panel's decision on January 10,
2001. South Korea must now bring its measures into compliance with
the WTO rules within a "reasonable" period of time.
References
Trade Policy Agenda and National Trade Estimate Report
on Foreign Trade Barriers, U.S.
Trade Representative.
Agricultural
Trade Office of USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) in Seoul, South Korea.
South
Korea: Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and Standards,
FAS, August 2005.
Top of page
|