COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 167 final 
Brussels, 21 ApriI 1993 
Communication from the Commission to the Council 
and to the European Parliament on control of residues in meat. 
Hormones - Beta-Agonists - Other Substances 
PRELIMINARY REMARK 
1. This communication relates to control of residues, especially of 
hormones and beta-agonists, in fresh meat. Against the background 
of an exhaustive enquiry into the situation in the Member States, 
the communication proposes a series of measures, including new 
legislation, in order to better combat the illegal use of 
anabolic* substances (hormones and beta-agonists ), as well as 
the improper use of authorised veterinary medicinal products. 
EXISTING COMMUNITY LEGISLATION*** 
HORMONES 
2. The initial Council Directives (81/602/EEC and 85/358/EEC) 
prohibited the use of certain hormones (stilbenes and 
thyreostatics) for fattening purposes, but left open the option 
for Member States to authorise the use of other hormones. 
This situation continued until 1 January 1988 when a total 
prohibition (Directive 88/146/EEC) was introduced on the use of 
any hormone for fattening purposes. Naturally occurring hormones 
could continue to be authorised for therapeutic or zootechnical 
purposes. 
These requirements have applied also to third countries which 
export live animals and meat to the Community. The rules came 
into effect from 1 January 1989 in the case of six suppliers which 
authorise the use of hormones (South Africa, Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, New Zealand, and the United States). Third countries are 
obliged to put in place systems which guarantee that meat sent to 
the European Community originates in animals never treated with 
hormones. 
It should be noted that beta-agonists (clenbuterol and its 
derivatives), while chemically speaking are not hormones, also 
exercise an anabolic function; beta-agonists are not however 
covered by Community legislation on hormones. 
CONTROL OF RESIDUES 
3. Council Directive 86/469/EEC harmonises controls on residues in 
live animals and fresh meat, both within the Community and in 
third countries which export to the Community. 
In 1987 all Member States presented to the Commission for the 
first time a plan to identify illegal use of hormones; in 1988 
they presented a plan for the identification of other substances 
(antibiotics, sulphonamides, pesticides, heavy metals). Third 
* designed to increase feed conversion efficiency, yield or lean 
content, and growth rate. 
** referred to also as repartitioning agents; effect on carcase is to 
increase protein (muscle) while reducing fat. 
*** see Annex 1 for details of the relevant Council and Commission 
texts. 
countries are required to present comparable plans. These plans 
are updated each year in the light of experience - positive results 
in previous year, search for new substances, improvements in 
laboratory techniques, etc. 
Community residue controls apply to slaughter animals only 
(bovines, pigs, sheep, goats and horses). Poultry and other 
products (fish, milk products, eggs, honey) are governed by 
national requirements, since the rules are not harmonised. The 
proposed new legislation would cover these products. 
ENQUIRY IN THE MEMBER STATES 
4. Following the request of the Parliament, the Commission decided in 
1990 to initiate a comprehensive enquiry in the Member States on 
the difficulties of applying Community legislation on residues in 
fresh meat. This decision was motivated by several factors:-
- the obligation on the Commission to check the transposition and 
application of the Directives 
the Pimenta Report to the European Parliament (March 1989) 
- public allegations about illegal use of hormones. 
The scope of the enquiry, which lasted from May 1990 to January 
1992,covered slaughter animals only. The enquiry was comprehensive 
- an average of 4 weeks was spent investigating the situation in 
each Member State. 
The Commission officials received full cooperation in their 
contacts with the branches of the national administrations 
concerned (Agriculture, Public Health, Customs, Justice). There 
was a general welcome for the enquiry. 
In each Member State also, the enquiry teams took the opportunity 
of hearing the views of the various interest groups involved 
(farmers, butchers, veterinarians, pharmacists, the pharmaceutical 
industry, importers of chemicals and medicines) as well as of 
consumer associations. 
5. The results of the enquiry showed that 
anabolic substances (hormones and beta-agonists) were generally 
available, leading to illegal use. 
- antibiotic and sulphonamide residues were frequently found in 
meat, especially in the case of intensive livestock rearing 
systems (veal calves, young fattening bovines, and fattening 
pigs); 
- other residues were detected occasionally (heavy metals 
including cadmium, pesticides, antiparisitic substances). 
At Member State level, serious weaknesses were identified in 
several key areas, for example, in the transposition of directives, 
in detecting frauds, in the equipment and performance of 
laboratories, in controls on raw chemical substances. It was 
evident also that coordination between the various national 
services concerned was unsatisfactory. The absence of effective 
dissuasive measures, the slowness of the judicial system, and in 
some cases a lack of clarity about the willingness at the highest 
levels to provide the necessary resources, were added difficulties. 
6. The lack of effective organisational arrangements and doubts about 
the real commitment to tackle the problems, were seen as important 
démotivâting factors for the controllers on the ground, who found 
themselves faced with a difficult and at times dangerous task in 
their pursuit of irregularities. 
7. It has to be acknowledged also that the Community texts were not 
altogether conducive to an efficient control system. Different 
interpretations were possible on some important aspects, with the 
result that plans which concentrated on getting through a certain 
volume of testing rather than focussing on risk areas, could be 
justified without difficulty having regard to the texts of the 
Directives. It was considered also that the carcase classification 
scheme, an integral part of the Community's beef regime, was a 
factor influencing farmers to use illegal substances with a view to 
achieving better gradings and thereby greater returns. The 
slowness in bringing into operation the Community reference 
laboratories was an important factor also in delaying a more 
effective control programme in the Member States. 
FOLLOW UP TO ENQUIRY 
8. Following the enquiry in each Member State, the Commission sent a 
detailed communication to the competent authorities setting out the 
deficiencies that had come to light, and requesting that the 
necessary measures be taken to remedy the situation. All Member 
States have now replied setting out the progress made and measures 
in hand. The Commission has also been in continual contact with 
Member States in order to follow closely the measures taken. 
The latest (March 1993) indications suggest a general improvement 
in the situation, especially as regards the transposing of 
directives, the execution of control plans and sampling 
arrangements, the contribution of laboratories due largely to the 
purchase of high performance testing material, coordination of the 
internal services, identification of farms of origin, increase in 
judicial sanctions, and in some instances use of administrative 
penalties. Other important changes in procedures and in 
legislation are being prepared in the Member States. 
9. There has been useful progress also at the Community level. 
Initial financing problems of the four Community reference 
laboratories should be resolved shortly. This will allow them to 
fulfil their role of coordinating and improving the performance of 
national laboratories. Directive 92/102/EEC on the identification 
and recording of animals, which came into operation from 1 April 
1993 in the case of bovine animals, will be an important help also 
in tracing positive carcases to the farm of origin. As regards 
administrative sanctions, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 
June 1992 provides that where the rules on illegal use of hormones 
are infringed the animal concerned is not eligible for beef 
premiums. 
PRESENT SITUATION 
10. The Commission's overall assessment of the situation is that there 
is now a greater awareness among Member States about the need to 
take effective measures to combat the use of illegal substances, to 
commit additional resources to the campaign, and to introduce more 
effective dissuasive measures. There is support also for changes 
in Community legislation that will facilitate the task. 
11. The extent to which awareness has been translated into fully 
effective measures to control the situation is more difficult to 
say. Whatever improvements are made in legislation and in 
procedures, the campaign against use of unauthorised substances 
will have to be unrelenting. More sophisticated illegal products 
are under continual development, there is now widespread 
availability and misuse of beta-agonists, the network for the 
distribution of illegal substances is well developed, and securing 
convictions through the Courts is time-consuming and problematic. 
The profit motive will continue to provide a powerful incentive to 
continued use of these substances. It is estimated, for example, 
that a beef producer could stand to gain between 100 ECU and 
200 ECU per animal from their use. Substantial profits are 
available also to distributers, to unscrupulous feed manufacturers, 
and to agents who supply animals for slaughter. An effective 
campaign against prohibited substances will reduce substantially 
the income now available to these interests. They can be expected 
to use all possible means to preserve their illicit trade. 
12. It is clear that the public health risks involved require further 
action by the Community and by the Member States. But before 
going on to outline a framework that might be the basis for 
improving the situation, it is necessary to indicate the limits of 
the possibilities available to the Commission. 
The Commission will continue to be active in monitoring the 
situation in the Member States, in carrying out special 
investigations where necessary, and in taking proceedings where 
Community legislation is not being implemented correctly. 
But the Commission cannot assume the responsibilities of the 
Member States or other competent authorities, in the control of 
illegal substances. It is for the competent authority in each 
Member State to take effective measures to ensure that conditions 
are such that the objectives of the Directives can be attained. In 
particular they must ensure that legal procedures are in place to 
facilitate prompt convictions and that the penalties are 
dissuasive, that the necessary resources in manpower and materials 
are available, that there is full coordination between the national 
services involved, and that those charged with what is a 
disagreeable and at times dangerous task, ie the controllers on the 
ground, are adequately remunerated and protected. It is for the 
Member State also to influence public opinion to take a greater 
interest in this issue and to encourage wholesale and retail 
outlets to insist that supplying abattoirs provide effective 
guarantees on the safety of meat. They can exercise an important 
role also in controlling the network of distribution of 
pharmaceutical products and raw materials. Use of unsafe products 
could be discouraged also by competitive prices for authorised 
veterinary medicinal products. This could be brought about as a 
result of wholesalers and retailers applying more reasonable 
margins on sale. 
13. Neither can the Commission exercise the role of the international 
policeman in the campaign against the distribution of these 
substances, which often takes on a transnational dimension. This 
is an aspect that falls within the scope of other international 
arrangements. But the Commission is well placed to bring together 
representatives of the Member States on a regular basis, in order 
to exchange information on their experiences, on points of 
difficulty with the rules, on the emergence of new illegal 
practices and strategies by manufacturers and distributers, and on 
the measures that should be taken at Community level to deal with 
the situation. The Commission is prepared to provide for a more 
flexible approach on this front, for example through workshops, 
seminars and by bringing together representatives of Member States 
in less formal settings. The Commission attaches special 
importance to flexibility and rapidity of reaction. The proposed 
new legislation should be framed in a way that will allow for rapid 
adaptation of the control arrangements to deal with problems 
emerging in the light of experience, and to forestall other 
dangerous developments. 
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 
14. In considering how the control arrangements might be improved, the 
Commission's objective has been to identify measures that will be 
of practical benefit to those immediately charged with the task of 
combatting the use of prohibited substances. These measures should 
also allow the Member states to use existing resources more 
effectively. The measures focus on the principal parties 
concerned, above all on the producer and the meat supplier, who 
share a singular responsibility to produce a safe, healthy, product 
for human consumption. 
15. In a normal situation it might be expected that all producers 
would recognise their overwhelming interest to supply a guaranteed 
product, not least since most meats are in surplus and the consumer 
is becoming more and more demanding as regards guarantees of safety 
and quality. If it were only a question of the market, there 
would be argument for leaving it to the producer to satisfy the 
consumer without any intervention by a regulatory authority. But 
the serious public health dimension of the current situation 
requires active involvement by the responsible authorities, 
including the Commission. There is also the competition aspect 
which requires that the great majority of producers who observe the 
rules be guaranteed that their competitive position is not eroded 
by others who profit from illegal substances. 
16. The Commission believes that the primary focus of attention must be 
the producer. It is he or she who must accept primary 
responsibility for the safety of his or her product. That 
responsibility could in future be reflected in a formal written 
guarantee on the non-use of anabolic substances and an assurance 
that the withdrawal period in the case of authorised veterinary 
medicinal products, will be observed. This undertaking could be 
part of the producer's application for all Community-financed 
(wholly or partially) aids under the Common Agricultural Policy. 
It would involve a corresponding acceptance that, in the event of 
the producer declaration not being respected, ie as a result of 
the discovery of prohibited substances, the producer's entitlement 
to aid in the product sector concerned would be automatically 
forfeit. Forfeiture of aids in whole or in part for a single year 
might be envisaged for an initial infringement, and debarment from 
Community aids for a period to be defined, in the case of a 
subsequent infringement. The present rules which provide for loss 
of beef premium on a single animal found to have been treated with 
illegal substances are an insufficient deterrent. 
Failure to cooperate with the investigating authorities, for 
example, by refusing to give information or to provide facilities 
on the farm, by obstruction, etc, would be a valid reason for 
disallowing aids. 
In the case of animals delivered for slaughter, it could be a 
requirement also that they be accompanied by a similar written 
guarantee. This would heighten the sense of responsibility of the 
supplier and would provide a basis also for effective sanctions 
where the undertaking proved to be false. The sanction in the case 
of the non-producer supplier could be, for example^ to place any 
further supplies from him in a "suspect" category, thereby 
requiring systematic checking at his own expense. The sanction for 
a producer supplier could be forfeiture of aids as already 
indicated. This would be in addition to the judicial penalties 
decided by the Member State. 
In the same vein the intention would be that the producer should 
bear the cost of follow-up analyses on suspect animals at the farm 
of origin, where samples taken at the slaughterhouse prove 
positive. 
The destruction of animals, in a rendering plant, would be an 
automatic consequence of discovery of illegal substances on the 
farm or at slaughter, or of failure to observe the necessary 
withdrawal period in the case of an authorised medicine. The 
only exception to this would be duly notified urgent slaughterings 
where destruction of the carcase would apply only where residues 
were still present following analysis. 
17. The need to increase awareness of these problems raises the 
question of the value of publishing in local newspapers, 
agricultural journals, as well as displaying prominently in 
public offices, the names and addresses of those convicted of 
offences. A coordinated publicity campaign at Community level with 
the emphasis on the producer's role would be essential also. The 
Commission would support this campaign. 
18. This series of measures is designed to bring home to producers the 
seriousness of the use of prohibited substances and the misuse of 
other products. The measures would make an important contribution 
to control of the problem at the operational level. 
The measures indicated would give rise to no difficulty for the 
vast majority of law abiding farmers. Indeed responsible producers 
would benefit as the threat to their livelihoods from the 
unscrupulous minority which insist on using prohibited products 
would be diminished. 
19. On a more positive note, the Commission wishes to encourage the 
emergence of producer groups which would develop auto-control 
systems to guarantee hormone-free beef. This will be an important 
element in the financing, by the promotion fund (10 MECU in 1993), 
of measures to increase beef consumption as agreed as part of the 
reform of the Common Agricultural Policy last year. The 
Commission remains committed to supporting this programme on a 
multiannual basis. 
THE ROLE OF THE ABATTOIR 
20. Apart from the producer, the most valuable source of information 
and dissuasion also when it comes to use of illegal substances is 
the owner and management of the abattoir. The abattoir is the point 
at which the animals can be most easily inspected, both in live 
and in carcase form, and where full information is available about 
their origin. Experience to date suggests that the level of 
cooperation from some abattoirs, and their willingness to 
discourage use of prohibited substances, is unsatisfactory. This 
may be due to a perception that an abattoir which discourages 
illegal substances will put itself at a commercial disadvantage due 
to the deflection of supplies to more "accommodating" premises. 
This is a perverse situation in that the abattoir should have an 
overwhelming commercial interest to supply a safe, quality, 
product for consumption. 
21. Against this background measures are necessary to improve 
cooperation by abattoirs. It could be a condition of continued 
authorisation of a slaughtering premises that its owners and 
employees cooperate fully in the identification and tracing of 
illegal substances. Where this is not the case Member States 
should be in a position to suspend authorisation. Furthermore 
where there is evidence of non-cooperation, entitlement to 
Community or national aids could be withdrawn. This would be apart 
from the judicial penalties decided by the Member state. 
22. The Commission believes also that there should be an opportunity 
for slaughtering establishments which are prepared to introduce 
autocontrol systems to be granted special recognition. Wholesale 
and retail outlets should be encouraged to give priority to 
supplies from such establishments and Member States could introduce 
approved systems based on strict specifications. 
Publicity should be given also to establishments operating approved 
autocontrol systems. 
23. The influence of the abattoir is often a factor in the temptation 
for producers to use hormones and beta-agonists to obtain the 
highest grading level on the beef carcase classification grid. The 
grid is part of the beef market organisation for price reporting 
purposes and for determining buying in prices of cattle accepted 
into intervention. 
The Commission considers that a recasting of the present grid, with 
the object of removing the incentive to artifically well formed 
carcases could have an important impact in discouraging the use of 
prohibited substances, especially of beta-agonists (authorised at 
present for therapeutic purposes only). This would not prevent 
purchasers and sellers of beef from putting in place a grading 
system on a voluntary basis. From the financial viewpoint alone it 
could be argued that the present high level of intervention stocks 
(over 1 million tonnes) and the substantial loss on sale of product 
sold from intervention requires a review of the present grading 
system in any event. 
The limit on carcase weights for beef accepted into intervention 
will have an important beneficial impact also in discouraging the 
use of prohibited substances in parts of the Community. 
OTHER INTERESTS 
24. In identifying the producer and the abattoir as key influences in 
discouraging use of illegal substances the Commission is not 
implying that other parties for example pharmacists, veterinary 
practitioners, manufacturers and importers of veterinary medicines, 
etc do not have an important role. The Commission would stress in 
particular the responsibility of manufacturers of feedingstuffs 
which are well placed to prevent misuse of feed products. At the 
level of the Member State it will be necessary to provide for 
effective sanctions where irregularities are committed. The 
Commission would review also the conditions for approval of 
manufacturers of feedingstuffs and would make proposals to the 
Council on this aspect. 
CONTROL MEASURES 
25. In its review of existing control measures the Commission has come 
to two main conclusions:-
(i) it is no longer appropriate to apply a control system for the 
detection of prohibited substances based on random sampling; 
future arrangements have to be focussed on risk situations, for 
example in terms of type of farming eg fattening units or 
previous histories of fraud. 
(ii) the focus of targetted investigations must be at the level of 
the farm rather than that of the abattoir. This is because of 
the growing development of sophisticated substances and the 
careful timing of administration to animals so that they cannot 
be easily detected on laboratory analysis when sampled at the 
slaughterhouse. 
26. These basic conclusions could be reflected in proposals for 
legislative changes along the following lines 
a common requirement for targetted investigations for 
prohibited substances covering a minimum of 0.1% of all 
fattening animals (bovines) on farms and 0.05% of such animals 
at the abattoir. [The present arrangements provide for the 
reverse proportion, that is 0.1% in slaughterhouses and 0.05% 
on farms.] 
the rules to be followed in case of on farm investigations 
following a positive sample at the slaughterhouse, will be 
clarified; an analysis of feedingstuffs and drinking water - a 
source especially of beta-agonists - as well as of animals 
will be required; a minimum percentage of animals (say 30%) 
would have to be tested in the case of suspect farms. 
The farm/abattoir proportion could be reviewed in the event of the 
emergence of proven and practical methods for more effective 
identification of positive samples. 
27. In the case of authorised substances (largely antibiotics) used 
incorrectly, the approach would be based on a minimum number of 
samples at the abattoir for all such substances, with greater 
flexibility for Member States to deal with individual problematic 
substances at national level. In these cases also, the focus 
would be on a biased sampling approach, except in the case of 
environmental contamination where problems are likely to be more 
random. 
RESEARCH 
28. The Commission attaches special importance to the Community and 
national reference laboratories exercising fully the role for which 
they are intended. These laboratories play a key role in 
developing effective testing methods in diffusing information to 
other laboratories, and in ensuring a uniformly high level of 
testing throughout the Community. This key role has been built up 
and strengthened via several Community research projects. These 
projects are providing the necessary tools such as certified 
reference materials, reference compounds and a reference manual to 
develop, improve and validate current and new methodologies. In 
addition a special project is in train to help identify beta-
agonists in animal feed. The laboratories have not been able to 
exercise their coordination role because of problems with Community 
financing. These problems are expected to be resolved shortly and 
the Commission will keep under constant review their functioning 
and performance. Likewise, the Commission will pay special 
attention to the search for new and more effective methods for the 
precise identification of prohibited substances. It would be 
especially important in this context to develop methods that would 
allow for easier detection both in the case of samples at the farm 
and at the abattoir. The Commission envisages the financing of a 
pilot project that may yield significant results in this sector. 
FINANCIAL ASPECT 
29. The arrangements for charging the minimum fee for the examination 
of residues at the abattoir ie 1.35 ECU per tonne need to be 
reviewed especially since the focus of enquiry in the case of 
prohibited substances will be at farm level. Apart from the 
actual rate of fee, the more important aspect relates to the use of 
the income deriving from the fees charged, and its specific 
attribution to the costs of national anti-hormone campaigns. 
Apart from the competition aspect, the revenue from fees provides 
an important opportunity for Member States to finance their 
campaigns adequately. It is essential also that the rules on fees 
be implemented fully and in a transparent way. 
BETA-AGONISTS 
30. Apart from the question of illegal hormones, there is a growing 
concern about the use of beta-agonists, sometimes in conjunction 
with hormones, for the improvement of carcase conformation. As 
already shown in the Community misuse of beta-agonists can be a 
serious risk to health. This is a question on which the views of 
the competent scientific bodies can be sought. 
Beta-agonists are currently authorised for therapeutic reasons in 
most Member States (except DK and Greece) and by several third 
countries also, but authorisation is not allowed as a feed 
additive. 
The question arises as to whether control of the misuse of beta-
agonists would be substantially improved by their total 
prohibition, including for therapeutic uses. The broad consensus 
among those charged with control in the Member States is that the 
misuse of beta-agonists has become a serious problem and that a 
prohibition would greatly ease the difficulty of proving illegal 
intent. While normally reluctant to propose removal from the 
market of a product with therapeutic uses, the Commission considers 
that a total ban on beta-agonists, except for the therapeutic 
treatment of horses and pet animals, would be a significant help to 
control. In taking this view the Commission is influenced also by 
indications that replacement products are generally available for 
therapeutic purposes. 
31. The question arises whether the Community can require that third 
countries apply a similar prohibition as a pre-condition for 
exporting live animals and meat to the Community. This is a 
difficult issue that must be influenced on the one hand by the 
competition aspect and the need to protect the Community against a 
similar trend towards mis-use of beta-agonists which may well 
develop in third countries also. On the other hand, it may be 
difficult for the Community to insist on a corresponding 
prohibition where there is no evidence at present of significant 
misuse of beta-agonists in third countries. Any measure affecting 
the position of third countries would require consultations with 
our trading partners and that account be taken also of the 
principle of non-discrimination. 
CONCLUSIONS 
32. Despite recent improvements in awareness and actions of the Member 
States in controlling the use of prohibited substances, the 
Community is faced with a determined, flexible, and organised 
network which is likely to continue to make these substances 
available at considerable profit to users and distributors. This 
is a situation which poses a serious risk to public health. The 
inability of national legal systems to apply effective and rapid 
sanctions in cases of infringements and the lack of resources 
currently available in the Member States are likely to be ongoing 
difficulties in dealing with the problem. 
33. The Commission is prepared to bring forward several proposals to 
remedy the principal defects in the control arrangements and to 
make producers and suppliers of cattle realise the consequences of 
failure to observe the regulations. 
But for this initiative to succeed, there will have to be a more 
determined effort by the competent authorities in the Member States 
to increase and to coordinate resources, and to develop more 
effective legal sanctions. It will require also active support 
and cooperation on the part of owners and managers of 
slaughterhouses, of manufacturers of feedingstuffs, and above all 
of producers themselves. Apart from their primary responsibility 
to make available a product which is safe, producers and sellers of 
meat have an over-riding interest in maintaining the confidence of 
the consumer. While important improvements can be made in the 
control arrangements, in the last analysis the whole-hearted 
commitment of producers is essential to success. So too is the 
political will to make the campaign against prohibited substances a 
national priority, with a clear willingness in all Member States to 
take difficult measures to redress the situation . 
ANNEX 
EXISTING COMMUNITY LEGISLATION 
I. HORMONES 
Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 concerning the 
prohibition of certain substances having a hormonal action and 
of any substances having a thyrostatic action. 
Council Directive 85/358/EEC of 16 July 1985 supplementing 
Directive 81/602/EEC concerning the prohibition of certain 
substances having a hormonal action and of any substances 
having a thyrostatic action. 
Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting the 
use in livestock farming of certain substances having a 
hormonal action. 
Council Directive 88/299/EEC of 17 May 1988 on trade in animals 
treated with certain substances having a hormonal action and 
their meat, as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 
88/146/EEC. 
Commission Decision 87/410/EEC of 14 July 1987 laying down the 
methods to be used for detecting residues of substances having 
a hormonal action and of substances having a thyrostatic action 
(this Decision will shortly be amended). 
Council Decision 87/561/EEC of 18 November 1987 on transitional 
measures concerning the prohibition on administration to farm 
animals of certain substances having hormonal action. 
Commission Decision 89/358/EEC of 23 May 1989 laying down 
measures for the application of Article 8 of Council Directive 
85/358/EEC. 
II. RESIDUE MONITORING 
Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning 
the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of 
residues. 
Council Directive 86/363/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of 
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on foodstuffs of 
animal origin. 
Commission Decision 89/153/EEC of 13 February 1989 concerning 
the correlation of samples taken for residue examination with 
animals and their farms of origin. 
Council Decision 89/187/EEC of 6 March 1989 determining the 
powers and conditions of operation of the Community reference 
laboratories provided by for Directive 86/469/EEC concerning 
the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of 
residues. 
Commission Decision 89/610/EEC of 14 November 1989 laying down 
the reference methods and the list of national reference 
laboratories for detecting residues (this Decision will shortly 
be amended). 
Commission Decision 90/515/EEC of 26 September 1990 laying down 
the reference methods of detecting residues of heavy metals and 
arsenic. 
Council Decision 91/664/EEC of 11 December 1991 designating the 
Community reference laboratories for testing certain substances 
for residues. 
Commission Regulation (EEC) 675/92 of 18 March 1992 amending 
Annexes I and III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying 
down the Community procedure for the establishment of maximum 
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs 
of animal origin. 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3093/92 of 27 October 1992 
amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 
laying down the Community procedure for the establishment of 
maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in 
foodstuffs of animal origin. 
Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1979 drawing up a 
list of third countries from which the Members States authorize 
imports of bovine animals, swine, and equidae, fresh meat and 
meat products (as last amended by Commission Decision No 
3/100/EEC of 19 January 1993). 
EN ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 167 final 
DOCUMENTS 
03 10 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-199-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55078-3 
Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 
1^2985 Luxembourg