ANALYSIS-U.S. ban on EU meat could be trade time bomb BRUSSELS, March 15 (Reuters) - A U.S. ban on European Union meat over foot-and-mouth disease may be an understandable short-term reaction but if it persists, it risks escalating into a new transatlantic trade row, analysts said on Thursday. The temporary embargo, sparked by the spread of the foot-and-mouth virus from Britain to France, would then join other lingering EU-U.S. disputes over bananas, hormone-treated beef, gene-altered crops and U.S. export taxes. ``The key thing here is whether the ban is temporary or not. At the moment it's too early to tell but if it was continued it would be a problem,'' Paul Brenton, a trade economist at the Centre for European Policy Studies, told Reuters. ``It will be interesting to see how the United States authorities respond in two or three weeks' time if the disease has died down here.'' Under international trade rules, governments can take short-term action such as blocking imports if they believe public or animal health is at risk. Difficulties arise when such temporary measures slide into more permanent territory, although lawyers agree the issue is still a legal grey area. The EU was taken to the World Trade Organisation over its decade-old ban on U.S. hormone-treated beef. The WTO ruled that such a permanent curb had to be justified by scientific evidence and could not simply be based on a perception of risk. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said on Tuesday she would do everything to prevent the entry of foot-and-mouth, a virus that can spread through a country's cattle, sheep, pig and goat population like wildfire, ruining meat production. It is not harmful to humans. EU PLAYS DOWN TRADE WAR FEARS EU Food Safety Commissioner David Byrne on Wednesday called the U.S. measures ``excessive and unjustified'' and threatened to go to the WTO if they remained. ``We will, of course, be explaining the measures already in place which ensure that such restrictions are not necessary. If necessary we will make full use of our bilateral contacts and our WTO trade arrangements to have these restrictions lifted,'' he told the European Parliament on Wednesday. But EU officials played down Byrne's remarks on Thursday, saying he had received assurances from Veneman that the import curbs would be reviewed at the earliest opportunity. ``This is not about a new EU-U.S. trade dispute, this is a veterinary and sanitary issue...and at this stage we are certainly not seeking recourse to the WTO,'' Anthony Gooch, spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, told reporters. Lawyers said the U.S. action was justifiable in the short term given the devastating effect foot-and-mouth has had on Britain's countryside and farming community. ``The U.S. action is consistent with the mechanisms the EU has in place internally to restrict exports of meat and livestock,'' Craig Pouncy at Brussels law firm Herbert Smith told Reuters. ``If the U.S. move goes beyond the temporary, then there may be a problem but as it stands it's an entirely understandable short-term reaction,'' he said. But others said Washington may have been a little heavy-handed in applying a ban to all 15 EU countries when foot-and-mouth was confined to Britain and one French region. ``It wasn't the most subtle response. They certainly didn't worry about over-reacting,'' Brenton said. ``It's difficult to see why Scandinavian products, for example, should be affected.'' Beate Gminder, spokeswoman for EU Commissioner Byrne, said the EU had expected a more ``proportional'' ban. ``The common approach laid down in international standards to eradicate an animal disease is to restrict exports from the affected region,'' she said. ``This principle of regionalisation has always been applied by the EU.''
