# CE2004084EN.01014801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/148

---

(2004/C 84 E/0186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Lower levels of protection against BSE infection in beef from America in the EU compared with Japan, Russia and other countries

Subject:

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that of the 500 000 tonnes of beef imported into the EU each year 800 tonnes come from the United States and Canada and that these imports are restricted to beef from cattle not contaminated with growth hormones? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that of the 500 000 tonnes of beef imported into the EU each year 800 tonnes come from the United States and Canada and that these imports are restricted to beef from cattle not contaminated with growth hormones?

| 2. | Does the Commission anticipate that imports of US and Canadian beef into the EU will rise sharply once beef is guaranteed hormone-free, or is this unlikely because of price and quality considerations or other factors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission anticipate that imports of US and Canadian beef into the EU will rise sharply once beef is guaranteed hormone-free, or is this unlikely because of price and quality considerations or other factors?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE) in Washington state has prompted Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and other countries to impose a blanket import ban on US beef? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE) in Washington state has prompted Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and other countries to impose a blanket import ban on US beef?

| 4. | Why have the EU's BSE prevention measures been restricted since 1999 to a ban on the import of brains and spinal columns of cattle slaughtered in the United States and why has the EU not yet introduced the more far-reaching measures in force in other countries? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why have the EU's BSE prevention measures been restricted since 1999 to a ban on the import of brains and spinal columns of cattle slaughtered in the United States and why has the EU not yet introduced the more far-reaching measures in force in other countries?

| 5. | Has the EU particular reasons for taking such a conciliatory attitude to the United States on export requirements, for example to allow the resumption of European steel exports to the US? Is it possible that because of economic considerations greater risks are being taken with food safety than would otherwise be the case? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the EU particular reasons for taking such a conciliatory attitude to the United States on export requirements, for example to allow the resumption of European steel exports to the US? Is it possible that because of economic considerations greater risks are being taken with food safety than would otherwise be the case?

| 6. | Under what circumstances and/or on what timescale will the EU import ban be extended in line with the measures taken by those non-EU countries that believe more stringent measures are required? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Under what circumstances and/or on what timescale will the EU import ban be extended in line with the measures taken by those non-EU countries that believe more stringent measures are required?

Source: De Volkskrant, 27.12.2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

(24 February 2004)

| 1. and 2. | According to the Commission's information, in the year 2002, 250 tonnes of beef have been imported from the United States and 350 tonnes from Canada.
  Most of the beef of these countries is produced with the help of growth promoting hormones and can, therefore, not be imported to the Community.
  Import from the United States is, however, allowed according to the Non Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Programme. Under this programme cattle from specifically approved farms/feedlots are delivered to the slaughterhouse with an affidavit from the grower attesting that the animals have not been treated with growth promoting hormones. Animals or meat are segregated at the abattoir and handled in a way that ensures that they are not comingled with other cattle or beef. Moreover, tissue samples are collected at slaughter and analyzed in an agreed laboratory before the United States Government provides export certification for this product.
  Against this background and despite the 11 500 tonnes preferential import quota of high quality beef granted to United States and Canada under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) schedule, the Commission does not expect imports of beef from those two countries to rise sharply in the future. But clearly, this also depends on currency factors and other commercial considerations, which are prone to change. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

According to the Commission's information, in the year 2002, 250 tonnes of beef have been imported from the United States and 350 tonnes from Canada.

Most of the beef of these countries is produced with the help of growth promoting hormones and can, therefore, not be imported to the Community.

Import from the United States is, however, allowed according to the Non Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Programme. Under this programme cattle from specifically approved farms/feedlots are delivered to the slaughterhouse with an affidavit from the grower attesting that the animals have not been treated with growth promoting hormones. Animals or meat are segregated at the abattoir and handled in a way that ensures that they are not comingled with other cattle or beef. Moreover, tissue samples are collected at slaughter and analyzed in an agreed laboratory before the United States Government provides export certification for this product.

Against this background and despite the 11 500 tonnes preferential import quota of high quality beef granted to United States and Canada under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) schedule, the Commission does not expect imports of beef from those two countries to rise sharply in the future. But clearly, this also depends on currency factors and other commercial considerations, which are prone to change.

| 3. | The Commission reacted promptly to the discovery of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case in the United States, and has expeditiously started and maintained a regular information flow with the United States authorities in close co-operation with the Member States' competent authorities. This included awareness of the measures adopted by other trade partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission reacted promptly to the discovery of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case in the United States, and has expeditiously started and maintained a regular information flow with the United States authorities in close co-operation with the Member States' competent authorities. This included awareness of the measures adopted by other trade partners.

| 4. | Since April 2001, the Union has in place a number of protective measures to ensure that bovine material at risk of carrying BSE is not imported from the United States. These measures are a result of a scientific risk assessment procedure, which identified the United States, among many other countries, as a country at risk of BSE outbreak. Such risk assessments have been carried out for a number of major exporters and have been shown to be correct in predicting the existence of BSE in countries that previously had no native cases, i.e. Canada and Japan.
  Currently, the BSE related import conditions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1). The conditions are similar for countries with a BSE risk and those which have already declared a BSE outbreak. Therefore, there is no need for additional sanitary import conditions following the declaration of the first BSE case in United States.
  The import conditions prescribe that imported products shall not contain nor be derived from certain bovine materials considered to present a potential risk of BSE. The list is not limited to brains and spinal columns but includes a variety of other parts of bovine animals.
  These measures follow the principles of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organisation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Since April 2001, the Union has in place a number of protective measures to ensure that bovine material at risk of carrying BSE is not imported from the United States. These measures are a result of a scientific risk assessment procedure, which identified the United States, among many other countries, as a country at risk of BSE outbreak. Such risk assessments have been carried out for a number of major exporters and have been shown to be correct in predicting the existence of BSE in countries that previously had no native cases, i.e. Canada and Japan.

Currently, the BSE related import conditions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1). The conditions are similar for countries with a BSE risk and those which have already declared a BSE outbreak. Therefore, there is no need for additional sanitary import conditions following the declaration of the first BSE case in United States.

1

The import conditions prescribe that imported products shall not contain nor be derived from certain bovine materials considered to present a potential risk of BSE. The list is not limited to brains and spinal columns but includes a variety of other parts of bovine animals.

These measures follow the principles of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organisation;

| 5. | The BSE related import conditions applied to the United States are identical to import conditions applied to other third countries with BSE cases or a BSE risk. Third countries in which the BSE risk is considered negligible according to a scientific assessment are exempted from those import conditions. Collateral trade issues do not play a role in influencing the measures concerning consumer safety, public and/or animal health. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The BSE related import conditions applied to the United States are identical to import conditions applied to other third countries with BSE cases or a BSE risk. Third countries in which the BSE risk is considered negligible according to a scientific assessment are exempted from those import conditions. Collateral trade issues do not play a role in influencing the measures concerning consumer safety, public and/or animal health.

| 6. | The Commission is monitoring regularly the situation in North America as in any other part of the world with respect to BSE and will take timely protective measures if and when warranted. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission is monitoring regularly the situation in North America as in any other part of the world with respect to BSE and will take timely protective measures if and when warranted.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

1

---