Mr President, Commissioner, we have just concluded a debate on the problems involving BSE – problems connected with food production in which profit interests may be very important and drive production tremendously hard. We must remember that, in a globalised food market, there is a requirement for political limits upon how food is produced so that other social objectives are not forgotten. Within the European Union, we have had rules about not using hormones to promote growth. We have had complaints about this, mainly from the United States, and a WTO panel has been set up which has said that our proofs are inadequate. This was the background to the Commission’s having an assessment made of those hormones which have been used. There are six of these. According to that assessment, there were different levels of risk factor. All the hormones involve certain risks. Above all, they are carcinogenic. One hormone, oestradiol 17ß, was worse than the others. The Commission is therefore now proposing a change to the legislation so that oestradiol 17ß in particular is completely banned – both for use in feed or as a growth promoter, and for therapeutic purposes. Where the other five hormones are concerned, an extension is proposed to the provisional, temporary ban that applies. I and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy fully support the Commission’s positions. It is extremely urgent to take this matter further. Naturally, it is also important to continue investigating the other five hormones to see how hazardous they may be, but it is constructive that oestradiol 17ß is now banned once and for all. With this investigation, we have therefore obtained clearer arguments which hopefully mean that those who hold other views will respect our position, our ban and the import ban that at present applies. There is something of a variety of arguments, and I should like here to discuss a number of arguments which I have contributed to the report and which have been approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. It may be that, from a legal point of view, they do not carry much weight, but they carry a great deal of weight politically. Firstly, there is the environmental argument. It is dangerous to use hormones in this way. In the United States, where they are used, it has been discovered that they are disseminated in the environment beyond the confines of animal production. Secondly, there is the argument on the grounds of animal protection. We must consider whether it is reasonable to give animals feed supplements which cause abnormal growth. Does that not cause them stress of a kind which creates a conflict for us when it comes to caring for animals and our ambition to treat animals well? In the light of such considerations, there is a general obligation to make an ethical assessment. This will be all the more important in a society in which knowledge is increasing and in which science is discovering more and more about different production methods. We must therefore reflect upon whether hormone use accords with the basic ethical rules we human beings have. The issue is, of course, that of whether change as far-reaching as this means that the very conditions of life for human beings or other biological creatures are being transformed. We should probably have no right to effect such a transformation. I support the changes that have been made. At the same time, I want to emphasise that there is a crucial difference between the committee’s and the Commission's proposals, for we in the committee do not wish to apply the committee procedure proposed by the Commission but want to arrange for any amendments to go back to Parliament for approval because there is so much by way of politics – and not only of science – in all of this.

Political group: ELDR