USE IN STOCKFEEDING OF SUBSTANCES HAVING
A HORMONAL OR THYROSTATIC ACTION AND BETA-AGONISTS
(a)
(21460)
10060/00
COM(00) 320
|
Draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfeeding of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists.
|
(b)
(22317)
6976/01
COM(01) 131
|
Amended draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfeeding of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 152(4)(b) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| (b) 6 March 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| (b) 7 March 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (b) 20 April 2001 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| (Both) EM of 30 April 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 23-xxix (1999-2000), paragraph 8 (15 November 2000) and HC 28-v (2000-01), paragraph 6 (7 February 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date known |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| (Both) Cleared |
Background
10.1 Council Directive 96/22/EC[13]
regulates the use in stockfeeding within the Community of certain
substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic[14]
action and beta-agonists,[15]
and the main effect of the complex series of provisions described
in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of our Report of 15 November 2000 is
to ban the use of hormone growth promoters in food-producing animals,
and hence in meat, except for therapeutic purposes or zootechnical
treatment.[16]
Paragraphs 8.4-8.7 of that Report set out the background to the
Commission's proposal (in document (a)) which would, among other
things, have banned one such substance, oestradiol 17 (and its
derivatives), in food-producing animals, and allowed its use in
non-food-producing animals only where there was no alternative
treatment.
10.2 A number of issues arising on this
— including a clear difference of view between the relevant
Commission committee on the one hand, and the UK's Veterinary
Products Committee on the other — were pursued further in
our Report of 7 February 2001, at the end of which we simply noted
the relative weight which the Government had attached to these
respective opinions. However, we also expressed concern that the
Commission had yet to come forward with details of alternative
treatments, and the suggestion in the Regulatory Impact Assessment
provided by the Government that these details might not become
available until the Directive had been transposed into national
legislation. We said that, whatever view might be taken of the
basic case for banning oestradiol 17, it seemed essential that
the practical implications of any decision to do so were clearly
understood, and that we would therefore like to know whether the
Government would be pressing the Commission to provide information
on alternative treatments before the proposal was agreed.
In the meantime, we were not clearing the proposal.
Explanatory Memorandum of 30 April 2001
10.3 We have now received a further Explanatory
Memorandum of 30 April 2001 from the Minister of State at the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman).
First, this deals with an amended proposal (document (b)) which
the Commission has recently put forward in the light of the changes
proposed by the European Parliament at its first reading on 1
February 2001. However, those amendments which the Commission
is prepared to accept make only minor changes to the original
proposal. Secondly, the Minister also seeks to address our earlier
concern about the lack of alternatives to oestradiol 17, where
she says a paper on the subject was circulated to a working group
meeting held on 2 April 2001, at which Member States were asked
by the Commission to identify products containing oestradiol 17
which were considered indispensable, and to estimate what timescale
might be needed to replace them with suitable alternatives. The
Minister adds that it is still not possible to estimate accurately
the costs involved, though she reiterates that these are not likely
to be substantial.
Conclusion
10.4 We are grateful to the Minister
for this further information, from which we note that, while the
position as regards suitable alternatives to oestradiol 17 has
moved on, it is nevertheless still somewhat unclear. However,
in the light of her further assurance that the costs are unlikely
to be great, we do not intend to pursue the point further, and
we are now clearing both the original document and the latest
one incorporating those amendments of the European Parliament
which the Commission is prepared to accept.
13 OJ No. L 125, 23.5.96, p.3. Back
14
Thyrostatic substances reduce the activity of the thyroid gland,
which affects metabolism. A decrease in metabolic rate manifests
in a number of ways, including an increase in body weight. Back
15
Beta-agonists give a positive response when combined with a specific
receptor site in the body, and can also promote the production
of lean meat in treated animals. Back
16
Zootechnical treatment means administering to a farm animal a
substance for synchronizing oestrus and preparing donors and recipients
for the implantation of embryos. Back
|
