USE OF BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN (BST)
(20654)
12458/99
COM(99) 544
|
Draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotropin (BST) and repealing Council Decision 90/218/EEC.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 37 EC; consultation; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 14 December 1999
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 2 (1 December 1999)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 17 December 1999 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
12.1 Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a hormone
produced naturally by all cows, and is necessary to stimulate
milk production. Since the early 1980s, it has proved possible
to manufacture it, the manufactured form being known as recombinant
bovine somatotropin (rBST). However, because the various effects
of using it were thought to be not sufficiently clear, Council
Decision 90/218/EEC[42]
introduced a moratorium on the placing on the market and administration
of rBST, whilst allowing the continuation of scientific research
and tests and production for export to Third Countries. Council
Decision 94/936/EC[43]
extended these arrangements until 31 December 1999.
The current proposal
12.2 As we noted in our Report of 1 December
1999, the current proposal would permanently prohibit the use
and marketing of rBST in the Community, following advice from
the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare (SCAHAW). We also noted that, whereas the UK had previously
opposed a ban, it now intended — in the light of advice
from the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) and the Farm Animal
Welfare Council — to support the current proposal. We commented
that we recognised that the Commission's justification for a ban
was now based much more firmly on scientific considerations, and
that consequently we did not see the UK's approach as being
inconsistent with the approach previously adopted. However,
before considering clearance, we said there were three points
on which we would like the Minister's comments.
12.3 First, we asked whether she was convinced
that the weight of evidence against the use of rBST justifies
a permanent ban, which would shift future burden of proof from
those wishing to impose a ban to those seeking to lift it. Secondly,
we asked the Minister to provide an assessment of the threat such
a permanent ban might pose to the competitive position of European
dairy products on world markets, and to indicate the weight she
gave to that factor when deciding to support such a course. Thirdly,
we noted that the proposal would not affect imports of milk and
milk products sourced from rBST-treated cows, and that there are
no Community provisions requiring such imports to be labelled.
We therefore asked whether in practice the Government saw this
as likely to be a problem, and whether, in that event, there were
any ways, such as by appropriate labelling, in which such a problem
might be addressed.
Minister's letter of 14 December 1999
12.4 In her letter of 14 December, the Minister
of State (Lords) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (Baroness Hayman) stresses that reports of the SCAHAW and
VPC are quite clear that the use of rBST causes serious welfare
concerns such as lameness and an increased risk of mastitis —
a view with which the Farm Animal Welfare Council concurs —
and that she is convinced that these concerns alone are enough
to warrant a permanent ban. She adds that the VPC considers that
an increased risk of colonic cancer from drinking milk from rBST
treated cows, though likely to be extremely small, cannot be ruled
out without further studies.
12.5 As regards the possible effect of the
ban on the competitive position of Community dairy exports, she
says that she understands that concern, but considers that "the
clear risk to animal welfare must override economic considerations".
12.6 Finally, she addresses the question
of imports from countries where rBST may be used, where she suggests
there could be two problem areas. One is the effect on human health,
where she says the evidence is very weak (in this connection,
she recalls that the Commission proposal is based entirely on
animal welfare grounds). She goes on to refer to the relevant
report from the VPC, which she says makes it clear that the use
of rBST does not increase the level of BST found naturally in
milk, but that there is a 2-5 fold increase in the level of insulin-like
growth factor (IGF-1), which may be implicated in the occurrence
of colonic cancer. However, she contrasts the daily intake of
10 grams of IGF-1 which would result from a consumption of one
litre of milk with the 380 grams which she says is naturally secreted
into the gut by all adult humans; and she reiterates the VPC's
view that the risk to human health was likely to be extremely
small.
12.7 The other point which the Minister
addresses on imports is the possible effect on trade with Third
Countries, whose produce would not be affected by the Commission's
proposal. However, she suggests that there is very little milk
or milk products imported into the UK from countries where it
is believed rBST is authorised for use. For example, she points
out that imports from the Community accounted for 89% of milk
or milk products imports, as compared with 0.3% from the United
States, and 0.01% from South Africa (the next largest supplier
where rBST is authorised).
Conclusion
12.8 We are grateful to the Minister
for this further information, and, whilst it does not wholly allay
some of our concerns, we are now content to clear the document.
42 OJ No. L 116, 8.5.90, p.27. Back
43
OJ No. L 366, 31.12.94, p.19. Back
|
