Given the size of the European and American economies and the volume of trade between them, it is inevitable that disputes will arise. I will focus on the ongoing conflict over the EU ban on hormone-treated beef and the recent dispute over US steel safeguards. These two trade disputes represent different types and different problems within trade relations, although both highlight weaknesses in the WTO system. The bovine hormone dispute represents a new type of ideologically driven trade dispute that is becoming increasingly common. Hormone-treated beef was first banned in 1989 by the European Community, and in 1995 the bovine hormones case was one of the first cases brought before the new World Trade Organization (WTO). The United States claimed that the ban on hormone-treated beef was inconsistent with the new Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Trade Round . This agreement established rules governing food safety regulations, stipulating that these regulations must be supported by scientific risk assessment. A WTO dispute settlement panel ruled in favor of the United States, finding that the EU's use of the precautionary principle (which justified the ban due to scientific uncertainty about the hormones' effects on health) could not exceed the terms of the SPS agreement. The EU did not change its regulations, prompting the United States to impose tariffs on $116.8 million worth of European goods, mostly luxury items from France, Germany and from Italy, the country that the United States considered to be the strongest supporters of the ban. These tariffs remained in place for years amid repeated attempts to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations...... middle of article ......he Global Economy, edited by Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, xi, 354 p. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Pollack, Mark A. and Gregory C. Shaffer. “The challenge of reconciling regulatory differences: food safety and GMOs in the transatlantic relationship.” In Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy, edited by Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, xi, 354 p. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. “Questions and Answers: Steel Dispute between the United States and the European Union.” BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/3291675.stm.Raymond J. Ahearn, John W. Fischer, Charles B. Goldfarb, Charles E. Hanrahan, Walter W. Eubanks, Janice E. Rubin. “Trade and investment relations between the European Union and the United States: key issues.” In CRS Report for Congress, 35 pages: Congressional Research Service, 2008. “Special Report: Dangerous Activities – Trade Disputes.” The Economist 363, no. 8272 (2002): 92.