6 Use in stockfeeding of substances having
a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists
| (28700)
10585/07
+ ADD 1
COM(07) 292
| Draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfeeding of certain substances having a hormonal or thyreostatic action and of beta-agonists
|
| Legal base | Article 152(4)(b)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 4 June 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 14 June 2007
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 9 July 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 25
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 Council Directive 96/22/EC[21]
regulates the use in stockfeeding within the Community of certain
substances having a hormonal or thyreostatic[22]
action and beta-agonists[23],
and its main effect has been to ban the use of hormone growth
promoters in food-producing animals, and hence in meat, except
for therapeutic purposes or zootechnical treatment.[24]
Council Directive 2003/74/EC amended that measure to limit the
use in food-producing animals of one such substance, oestradiol
17 (and its derivatives), to certain therapeutic applications
(such as foetus maceration and mummification), on the grounds
that it is carcinogenic.[25]
The current document
6.2 This proposal would make two further changes. First, in the
light of a study which concluded that there were alternative products
available in most Member States, it would remove the remaining
therapeutic uses of oestradiol. It also identifies a number of
other hormonally active substances, which are provisionally banned
at present (apart from some scientific uses under veterinary supervision),
in order to gather further information on whether there is a case
for bringing forward proposals for a full ban.
6.3 Secondly, Council Directive 96/22/EC currently
imposes a ban on administering these various substances to all
animals, on the grounds that this helps to prevent misuse. However,
as a consequence, any prohibition extends to non-food animals
such as cats and dogs, and, since it would not be economically
attractive to use on cattle a product which has been authorised
for such animals, it is now proposed that the prohibition should
not in future apply to them.
The Government's view
6.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 9 July 2007,
the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) says that
the UK does not believe that the Community hormones ban can be
justified scientifically, but that it nevertheless implements
and enforces the current restrictions. He also points out that
the ban is currently the subject of a dispute between the Community
and the United States and Canada within the World Trade Organisation.
On the other hand, he recognises that the vast majority of other
Member States are in favour of phasing out the remaining uses
of oestradiol, and he says that the effect of this within the
UK would be small, since the one product for food producing animals
which contains it has now been re-formulated without the substance.
6.5 As to the other elements in the document, the
Minister welcomes the proposal to allow some substances to be
used for pet animals, but says that officials will follow closely
the position on the Commission's exercise to gather information
on certain hormonally active substances, some of which are active
ingredients in veterinary medicines currently authorised in the
UK.
Conclusion
6.6 The original proposal leading to the restrictions
imposed on the use of oestradial 17 by Council Directive 2003/74/EC
was the subject of extensive scrutiny by an earlier Committee,
and, as is evident from the present Minister's comments, the UK
does not believe that the restrictions in question are scientifically
justified. To that extent, the main proposal in the current document
appears to raise similar issues, and, for that reason, we think
it right to draw it to the attention of the House. However, as
the Commission's rationale for bringing forward the proposal remains
unchanged, and has thus also been extensively considered at an
earlier stage, we see no reason to withhold clearance, bearing
in mind that the change now proposed will have minimal practical
impact in the UK.
6.7 The other aspects of the proposal do not seem
to us to give rise to any immediate concerns, given in particular
that any question of imposing a full ban following an examination
of the position of those active substances provisionally banned
at present would be the subject of a further proposal.
21 OJ No. L 125, 23.5.96, p.3. Back
22
Thyreostatic 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
23
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
24
Zootechnical treatment means administering to a farm animal a
substance for synchronizing oestrus and preparing donors and recipients
for the implantation of embryos. Back
25
(21460) 10060/00: see HC 23-xxix (1999-2000), para 8 (15 November
2000), HC 28-v (2000-01), para 6 (7 February 2001), HC 28-xiii
(2000-1), para 10 (2 May 2001) and HC 152-xxvi (2001-02), para
8 (24 April 2002).
Back
|
