Poultry imports frozen as discussions over antibiotics drag on
Fearing that Ukraine’s road to membership in the World Trade Organization might be blocked by a chicken, the government has ended its 15‑month long ban on poultry imported from the United States.
But ending the formal ban doesn’t mean that U.S.‑grown chicken meat will flood Ukrainian markets anytime soon. While most concerns raised by the nation’s veterinary inspectors have been resolved, antibiotics used by the United States’ poultry industry continue to impede the sale of American chickens in Ukraine.
While domestic poultry producers worry that lifting the ban would mean the return of stiff competition from U.S. imports, government officials are concerned that the U.S. could use the issue to refuse to support Ukraine in its WTO membership bid.
Agreement reached
During meetings in Washington in late March, representatives of the two governments signed a temporary certificate permitting the import of U.S. poultry, ending the ban.
“The signing of the U.S.‑Ukraine veterinary protocol effectively ends the ban on U.S. poultry exports to Ukraine, implemented January 1, 2002,” read a statement released by the U.S. Embassy’s agricultural attache.
Petro Verbitsky, head of the Agriculture Ministry’s State Veterinary Medicine department, said that the agreement signals significant progress on the chicken issue.
Economy Minister Valery Khoroshkovsky called the “poultry problem” one of the main barriers between reaching a U.S.‑Ukraine bilateral agreement on Ukraine’s WTO membership.
Despite last month’s agreement lifting the specific import ban, Ukraine continues to restrict the importation of poultry that has been treated with antibiotics. Since U.S. farmers routinely add antibiotics to feed, the blockade effectively remains in place.
“The new poultry meat import certificate entirely meets the position of the Ukrainian side with relation to the use of conserving agents, colorants, aromatic substances, ionizing or ultraviolet radiation, and synthetic and hormonal substances in the process of breeding and slaughtering poultry,” Verbitsky said.
“We had many concerns about U.S. chicken before, but now only one remains unsettled. This concerns the use of antibiotics to stimulate growth and productivity,” he said.
Battle over antibiotics
Whether U.S. poultry is permitted in Ukraine or not may depend on the reason why growers give antibiotic feed supplements to animals. While adding antibiotics to “stimulate growth and productivity” is forbidden, adding the drugs to ensure health may not be.
The revised poultry certificate states that “[m]eat was derived from birds that were not treated with antibiotics for the purpose of accelerating growth and increasing productivity, as attested to by a USDA accredited veterinarian.”
In the agreement, the U.S. and Ukraine also agreed to address differences on the safe use of antibiotics by conducting joint scientific research on antibiotic residue in meat. The agreement also revised disease declarations and storage and handling requirements, and mandated new tamper‑resistant packaging and labeling.
The U.S. government said that Ukraine’s legislative limitations regarding the use of antibiotics had not been substantiated and did not take into account the risks of individual treatment.
Waiting for the Rada
U.S. officials cited scientific research to back the claim that chickens that are given antibiotics properly do not pose a health threat to humans. Ukrainian veterinary specialists cited conflicting data gathered by American and European scientists.
“We cannot change the law administratively,” Verbitsky said. “We asked U.S. officials to provide us with evidence that it is safe to give chickens growth‑accelerating antibiotics. As soon as we receive this information, it will be considered by parliament.”
“If parliament changes the law, the temporary certificate will be changed accordingly,” he said.
Meanwhile, “the prohibition still exists,” said Agriculture Ministry press secretary Natalya Chereshynska. “The Ukrainian side has defended its position.”
“We met with representatives of U.S. poultry producers,” Verbitsky said. “They’re concerned that there haven’t been exports to Ukraine for more than a year. They want to resume trade.”
The U.S. government sees Ukraine’s poultry market expanding, and wants its producers to be allowed access to it.
“Given Ukrainians’ low level of protein consumption relative to that of Western Europeans, as disposable incomes rise in Ukraine, we can expect total poultry meat consumption to increase considerably. Animal protein consumption within Ukraine remains 50 percent below Soviet‑era animal protein consumption,” the statement by the U.S. Embassy’s agricultural attache read.
Domestic sales unaffected
If the country begins importing large quantities of U.S. poultry in the near future, Verbisky believes that the domestic market will not be significantly affected.
“The ban on U.S. poultry didn’t lead to a decrease of imports from abroad. Imports remained at the same level, the only difference being that suppliers from Europe and Brazil replaced the U.S.,” he said.
Domestic producers say that they doubt that progress in bilateral talks will increase chicken imports.
“Ukraine never prohibited importation of [organic] poultry from the U.S.,” said Mironivsky Hliboproduct Chairman Yury Kosyuk. “But there are only a few farmers in the U.S. who do not use antibiotics. Their production is very expensive and can’t compete on our market.”
“Signing the temporary certificate will not change anything,” he said.
Kosyuk said that he doubted whether parliament would vote to change the law, clearing the path for renewed poultry trade.
“Our veterinary legislation is harmonized with European laws that also prohibit the use of most medications,” he said. “If Ukraine permits the use of antibiotics, it will take a step back.”
“In addition, Ukraine will be deprived the chance to supply Europe with meat later on,” Kosyuk said. “I don’t see any motivation that could convince parliament to change the law.”
Poultry politics
Ukraine banned U.S. chicken imports after amendments to the law on veterinary medicine were adopted by parliament in November 2001. The law prohibited the use of biological stimulants, antibiotics and hormones used to accelerate the growth and productivity of animals.
“American laws do not forbid poultry farmers from giving antibiotics to their chickens,” Verbitsky said. “We considered this unsafe for consumers’ health and reason enough to implement the ban.”
Ukraine’s ban was unilateral. Under international trade law, one side must warn the other of the introduction of a ban in advance. When the U.S. government protested, Ukraine continued to allow the importation of U.S. poultry ordered before the ban until February 15, 2001. After the official ban was implemented on January 1, 2002, imports stopped completely.
U.S. imports decline
During 2002, poultry imports declined dramatically. In 2001, Ukraine imported 69,000 tons of poultry, 90 percent of which was produced in the U.S. In 2002 Ukraine imported 73,000 tons of poultry, but the U.S.‑grown share had dropped to 10,000 tons.
The U.S. annually exports more than 1 million tons of poultry to Russia. Before trade problems with Russia arose last year, the U.S. poultry industry was selling poultry valued at $640 million, or about 1.1 million tons, to Russia a year. According to the USDA, sales from Oct. 2002 to Jan. 2003 were down 62 percent from the same period a year before.
In 2002, Ukraine produced 136,000 tons of poultry, a 170 percent increase over 2001. The Agriculture Ministry predicts that poultry production will rise to 200,000 tons in 2003.
