HORMONES IN STOCK FARMING (12173/03)
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
I wrote to you on 18 September 2003,[89]
17 October 2003[90]
and 21 September 2005 explaining the latest developments in the
passage of a proposal to amend Council Directive 96/22/EC prohibiting
the use in stock farming of certain substances having a hormonal
or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists. This proposal became
Council Directive 2003/74/EC.
That letter also updated you on the progress
of the Working Group of the UK's independent Veterinary Products
Committee (VPC), which was set up late in 2002 to examine the
latest scientific evidence underpinning the EU ban. This, as you
know, is a matter of contention between the EU and US/Canada and
is currently being considered by a WTO Hormones Panel. Their report
is now expected in spring 2007.
Since my last letter there have been a number
of developments and this letter outlines the latest position.
I explained that I had agreed that officials
should hold a consultation exercise on a draft GB Statutory instrument
amending the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues
and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997 to reflect the requirements
of Council Directive 2003/74/EC. (This, in effect, extends the
EU's ban on the use of hormonal growth promoters in food-producing
animals by placing prohibitions on some of the uses of 17ß-oestradiol
and its ester-like derivatives.) Following consideration of the
relatively few responses I gave agreement to the SI coming into
effect on 6 April 2006 (SI 2006/755).
You will recall that the Council Directive also
contained provisions for a study to be carried out into alternatives
to products containing 17ß-oestradiol, which was underway
when I wrote last September. This has now been completed and presented
to the Commission and European Parliament. The outcome was described
in Explanatory Memorandum 13556/05 of 16 January 2006. Although
the UK Government had expressed concerns over the loss of existing
17ß-oestradiol products, particularly for therapeutic purposes,
this concern was not reflected in the responses received from
the majority of other Member States' Regulatory Authorities that
replied, or independent veterinary surgeons. They considered that
acceptable alternatives, such as prostaglandins, were available
and in use. The report therefore concluded that the unavailability
of 17ß-oestradiol would have minimum adverse economic and
animal welfare effects overall. It is expected that EU proposals
will be put forward shortly to phase out the remaining permitted
therapeutic uses of 17ß-oestradiol products. I will keep
you informed of developments.
Last September I also enclosed the draft report
from the Working Group set up by the independent Veterinary Products
Committee on the Risks Associated with the Use of Hormonal Substances
in Food-Producing Animals, which was also out to consultation
at the time. You will recall that this Working Group was set up
to consider the latest scientific evidence in this area, including
the outcome of the studies used by the European Commission to
underpin the EU ban. Seventeen responses were received to this
consultation, which were circulated to all members of the Working
Group with an invitation to comment on their contents. In addition
the Chairman of the Working Group produced a commentary on the
responses, which was also seen by all Working Group members.
The Working Group saw no need to amend the draft
report in the light of the consultation responses. Accordingly,
the draft report, the consultation responses and the commentary
on the responses were submitted to the VPC's meeting in January
2006. The meeting agreed that all of the documents should be submitted
to Defra Ministers with the recommendation that they should be
published.
I should draw to your attention that one member
of the Working Group, Mr John Verrall, who is also a member of
the VPC, indicated at that point that he was minded to dissociate
himself from the Report. This is in spite of the fact that he
signed up in May 2005 to the Report going out to consultation
in the same form as it is now. Although he agrees with much that
is in the body of the report he is concerned that the conclusions
and recommendations do not reflect his concerns sufficiently.
From the perspective of the Working Group and the VPC, the report
sufficiently reflects Mr Verrall's minority views about the carcinogenicity
of 17ß oestradiol, However, the Working Group and the VPC
took the view that accepting all of the changes he wished to make
would have distorted the views of the other fully independent
members, thereby upsetting the balance of the report and affecting
its integrity.
The matter was discussed further at the March
meeting of the VPC, where Mr Verrall produced a document setting
out his minority views and received some support from one other
VPC member—Professor Diana Anderson. The VPC agreed by a
large majority not to accept Mr Verrall's paper, which some members
intimated was a "cherry-picked" selection of quotes
from papers which supported his views rather than a logically
argued scientific paper. At the May 2006 meeting the report was
approved and recommended again for publication. Mr Verrall and
Professor Diana Anderson did not approve all of the conclusions
of the Report but the VPC re-confirmed its belief that their minority
views, expressed in relation to the precautionary principle being
applied where the scientific data are incomplete and the conclusions
of the SCVPH, are included in the Report.
Mr Verrall chose to send his document to me
anyaway. I have responded to Mr Verrall stating that I have accepted
the VPC's report as a thorough, well researched and balanced document,
which also, very valuably, sets out clearly the further work needed
to increase our knowledge of this complex and emotive area. My
officials will encourage the Agencies with responsibility for
commissioning research and development spanning the VPC's recommendations
to look into progressing this work where it is not already being
progressed, and if other priorities allow this. Mr Verrall has
indicated that he intends to publish his minority views and intimated
that he may resign from the VPC. You will wish to note that if
this happens there may be particular media interest in his views.
I have agreed to the VPC's recommendation that
its final report, consultation responses and the VPC's commentary
should be published and placed in the Defra main library, and
in the library of the House. I have enclosed the consultation
responses and VPC commentary on them for your information. I have
also enclosed a copy of the Defra News Release announcing the
publication of the Report from which you will see the combined
expertise of the Working Group members advising on this issue.
In respect of the long running trade dispute
between the US/Canada and the EU, my last letter noted that a
WTO Hormones Panel has been set up to consider an offensive case
launched by the EU against the US/Canada's continued retaliation
to the EU's ban. The panel met in November 2005, but I understand
that the planned timetable has been delayed whilst further scientific
evidence is sought by the Panel. It is thought that the Panel
will issue its report later this year. Again, I will continue
to keep your Committee appraised of significant developments in
this sensitive area.
Finally, I wish to confirm categorically that
whilst our independent scientific advice does not support the
EU hormones ban, we nevertheless implement it. As matters stand
there is no question of the EU or the UK Government authorising
hormonal substances for the purposes of growth promotion in food
producing animals.
30 June 2006
89 Correspondence with Ministers, 10th Report of
Session 2003-04, HL Paper 71, p 190. Back
90
Correspondence with Ministers, 10th Report of Session 2003-04,
HL Paper 71, p 190. Back
| 
