歐洲共同體對美國及加拿大之含有荷爾蒙的牛肉之進口限制，使世貿組織（WTO）有機會檢驗會員國為了保護國民健康而制訂的貿易限制措施，於何限度下可為WTO新定的「動植物檢疫協定（簡稱SPS協定）」所容認。此外更引人注意者，為本案中歐體提出了在環境法律與政策中愈形重要的預防原則，一則為貿易限制措施辯護，二則欲將舉證責任轉諸美、加承擔。儘管預防原則適用於具體個案時，其法律意涵難免不確定，但WTO處理該原則之適用的方式似乏說服力。即然WTO認定該爭端涉及環境與公眾健康的議題，即有義務考量超乎純粹的貿易法規之外的相關規則。本案中，WTO直接以預防原則在國際環境法之地位未臻明確而拒絕適用，卻未討論預防原則與本案爭點的相關性。事實上，此論理方式也與維也納條約法公約的相關規定不盡相符。相反地，在小蝦案裡，WTO則妥適地援引、解釋了其他法律地位尚非確定的環境規則。為了贏得全球支持，WTO的判決理應順應一些重要的環境原則，只要其具相當的關連性且有助於案件之順利解決。

　　　　　The European Communities' import ban on beef products with hormones from the U.S. and Canada provided a chance for the WTO to examine to what extent a trade restriction designed to protect national health may be justified by the newly-created WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement, namely the SPS Agreement. In addition, the EC invoke the precautionary principle that has become an increasingly significant rule in environmental law and policies in order to vindicate the trade ban on one band and shift the burden of proof to these North American nations on the other. Despite the inherent uncertainty of the legal implications of the precautionary principle in concrete cases, the way the WTO dealt with the application of the principle seems unsatisfactory. As the WTO judges disputes involving environmental and public health issues, it is bound to examine those relevant rules beyond pure trade rules. In this case, instead of examining the relevance of these rules to the case, the WTO simply rejected the application of this rule on the grounds that the precautionary principle's status in international environmental law remains imprecise. Actually, the approach was at odds with the principle of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In contrast, other environmental rules have been properly referred and interpreted in the Shrimp case, irrespective of its legal status. In order to win global support, the WTO judgment should accept some essential environmental principles as long as they may be relatively pertinent and help solve the dispute.