Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-Third Report


24 Use in stockfeeding of substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists

(24844)

12173/03

COM(03) 489

Amended draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists.

Legal baseArticle 152(4)(b)EC; co-decision; QMV
Document originated11 August 2003
Deposited in Parliament8 September 2003
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationEM of 18 September 2003
Previous Committee ReportNone, but see footnote
To be discussed in CouncilShortly
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

24.1 Council Directive 96/22/EC[45] regulates the use in stockfeeding within the Community of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic[46] action and beta-agonists,[47] and the main effect of the complex series of provisions described in our predecessors 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.[48] That Report set out the background to a Commission proposal[49] 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.

24.2 A number of issues arising on this — including a clear difference of view between the Commission's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (SCVPH) on the one hand, and bodies such as the UKs Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) on the other — were pursued further by our predecessors on 7 February 2001, at the end of which they simply noted the relative weight which the Government had attached to these respective opinions. They also dealt on 2 May 2001 with the need for alternative treatments to be clearly defined before any ban on oestradiol 17 was implemented, following which they cleared the proposal and an amended proposal[50] which the Commission had put forward in the light of the changes proposed by the European Parliament at its first reading in February 2001.

24.3 We ourselves considered on 24 April 2002 a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, indicating that the then Danish Presidency had put forward a compromise, which addressed some of the UKs previous concerns, though without resolving the difference in scientific opinion. It would thus allow the continued use of oestradiol 17 and its derivatives for therapeutic purposes, with maximum residue levels being set, but require alternative products to be found for zootechnical uses. Since the loss of zootechnical uses would still have posed problems for veterinarians for whom the alternatives are less effective, the UK's preference was to defer a decision until the outcome of new studies by the SCVPH, which was expected in the summer.

24.4 In noting this, we also took the view that, since the proposal would narrow the terms of the ban somewhat as compared with the original proposal which had been cleared, there was no reason, on the basis of the further information supplied, for us to take a different view. Likewise, on 20 November 2002, we cleared without a Report a further supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, indicating that the Danish Presidency had further narrowed the scope of the ban by authorising the use of oestradiol 17 for oestrus induction in cattle, horses, sheep and goats, and for the treatment of foetus maceration or mummification,[51] and pyometra[52] in cattle. This compromise was subsequently adopted by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in February 2003.

The current proposal

24.5 The current proposal reflects amendments to that agreement put forward by the European Parliament at its second reading in July 2003. These would limit the use of oestradial 17 for oestrus induction to a three-year period after the amendment comes into force, and ask the Commission to present a report within two years on the availability of alternative veterinary products for the treatment of foetal mummification and pyometra.

The Government's view

24.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 18 September 2003, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Commons) at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) says that, in so far as it is likely that the Commission's report will recommend that alternatives are used for other treatments, the European Parliament's amendments effectively aim to eliminate all use of oestradiol 17 for the treatment of farm animals within five years, and would thus in effect involve reverting to the original Commission proposal for a definitive ban. He also says that the Council Secretariat was able to secure agreement to the Parliament's amendments from all Member States, except the UK, Spain and Portugal, and that the revised proposal was adopted as an A point at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in July 2003.

24.7 In commenting on these developments, the Minister recalls that the UK has consistently voted against a ban on hormonal growth promoters on the grounds that it could not be justified scientifically. He points out that the further studies by the SCVPH (see paragraph 24.3 above) are now complete, and that it has maintained its earlier concerns about the carcinogenicity of small amounts of oestradiol 17 in food. He also says that the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) has referred this new opinion to its Safety Working Group for evaluation, but that this is unlikely to be ready until next spring at the earliest. In the meantime, the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) in the UK has set up a working group to examine the scientific evidence supporting the new SCVPH opinion, and he says that, when this is available at the end of the year, it will inform the Government's thinking. He also says that he hopes that both the VPC and CVMP views will be available well before the two-year deadline for the Commission to produce its report on alternatives to oestradiol 17, though he notes that in the past the Commission has followed the opinions of the SCVPH.

Conclusion

24.8 As with the original Commission proposal, the key issue remains the apparent difference in the views taken by various expert committees on the risks posed by oestradiol, and the relative weight placed on these in the development of Community policy in this area. Since the latest information on these matters is still being examined at a technical level, there is little further that can be done at this stage, given also that the approach advocated by the European Parliament in this document has been agreed by the Council, and will presumably come into force once the text has been published as a Directive in the Official Journal. We are, however, drawing these latest developments to the attention of the House.


45   OJ No. L 125, 23.5.96, p.3. Back

46   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

47   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

48   Zootechnical treatment means administering to a farm animal a substance for synchronizing oestrus and preparing donors and recipients for the implantation of embryos. Back

49   (21460) 10060/00; see HC 23-xxix (1999-2000), paragraph 8 (15 November 2000), HC 28-v (2000-01), paragraph 6 (7 February 2001), HC 28-xiii (2000-01), paragraph 10 (2 May 2001) and HC 152-xxvi (2001-02), paragraph 8 (24 April 2002). Back

50   (22317) 6976/01; see HC 28-xiii (2000-1), paragraph 10 (2 May 2001) and HC 152-xxvi (2001-02), paragraph 8 (24 April 2002). Back

51   Arising when natural abortion does not occur after the death of a foetus. Back

52   An infection of the uterus. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 30 October 2003