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 base | Article 152(4)(b)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 11 August 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 8 September 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 18 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council | Shortly
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
|
