Josh:
This trade dispute has provided lots of fun headlines, but FP should get the facts right. This is supposed to be an in-the-know site, not a tabloid. So from the frontlines of the Roquefort defense, please note that the Spanish ham duty hike is not a new addition to the Roquefort struggle, but part and parcel of a Revised Trade Action in the Beef Hormone dispute. Products from 26 EU member states are included, so there will be lots of menu items to blog about as these duties come into effect. (We have already read articles and posts about fatty livers of ducks and geese, but not yet much about sparkling Italian water, oatmeal or frozen bovine tongues. ) For the full list see:
USTR Notice

The important and overlooked point in the press is that this dispute has been ongoing and is the result of the EU shutting its market to American beef for the last twenty years. While few American ranchers are likely to buy much foie gras, there are plenty of Europeans who would be customers for an American steak or burger. The latest list of goods included in the Trade Action is a modification of the duties that have been imposed for the last nine years, since retaliation was authorized by the WTO, but which have not yet brought a solution. This new list has gotten a lot of attention and maybe it will open up a negotiated solution. American farmers and ranchers deserve a fair shot at the European market and if getting to the negotiating table takes a WTO-legal ham and cheese blockade, well c'est la vie.

One answer to question 1) in post number 2 is that the nations mentioned block access of U.S. agricultural products at least partly in order to add another layer of protection to their already heavily subsidized agricultural sector. Yes, I know we also protect and subsidize our own farmers.

I am inclined to think that another reason for EU resistance to "unnatural" agricultural products such as beef raised on growth hormones and various kinds of genetically-modified organisms is garden variety Ludditism. "Report after report . . . proving the harm" might sway me in another direction -- can you cite your sources?

I second the call for actual evidence. Not something ginned up by the agricultural department of a country like France, where protecting agriculture is national policy. I want to see a reputable scientific study showing that the use of hormones to increase meat production is harmful to humans. Claiming that studies have shown something to be true is a tried and true way to pretend that you have evidence without actually producing any.

Until we get to that, I find the notion that European consumers are agricultural Luddites the more convincing argument.

We are the fattest and most heart-disease prone country in the world (not to mention a whole host of other health issues that Americans excel at). What other evidence do you need that our culture of mass production and profit maximization — of which hormone-injected beef is one manifestation — is harmful. If you start injecting my food with substances with names like estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, melengesterol acetate, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol, you better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not harmful before I let it into my body.