No C 339/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) introducing Community measures 
for the control of Newcastle disease (7) 
(91/C 339/07) 
On 30 May 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 September 1991. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Georges Proumens. 
At its 289th plenary session (meeting of 25 September 1991) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
The Committee has taken note of the proposal. Even 
though it welcomes Community measures to check or 
eradicate Newcastle disease, the Committee thinks that 
the proposed provisions are insufficient, if not inappro­
priate. 
1. General comments 
1.1. Newcastle disease, which affects birds, is an 
extremely contagious viral disease. The present pro­
posal relates to the effect of the disease on poultry 
(hens, chickens, turkeys, geese, etc.). 
1.2. The main carriers of the virus, apart from 
poultry, are wild birds; these are of course not subject 
to control. Hence, despite the steps taken in establishing 
protection and surveillance zones, the virus can spread 
in particular in areas where poultry is reared in the 
open air. 
1.3. In 10 Member States vaccination is considered 
the best way to check the spread of the disease. 
1.4. It should be noted however that two Member 
States, Denmark and Ireland, as well as Northern Ire­
land, do not carry out vaccination, except on racing 
pigeons. 
1.4.1. The measures proposed by the Commission 
constitute another way of containing the disease. 
1.5. But the Committee has also discovered that these 
two Member States do not allow the importation of 
vaccinated poultry from other Member States. 
This distortion of the Treaty's rules is apparently the 
result of fears that the disease could be spread by the 
live vaccines used in the other 10 Member States. 
(J) OJ No C 146, 5. 6. 1991, p. 12. 1.6. It should be noted that two kinds of vaccine can 
be used: live vaccines and inactivated vaccines; the 
latter do not pose the potential threat referred to in 
point 1.5 above. 
1.7. Moreover, the inactivated vaccine is used for 
racing pigeons. However, whilst the live vaccine costs 
something of the order of 100th of an ECU per bird, 
the inactivated vaccine costs ECU 0,34. 
1.8. Whilst the high value of competition racing 
pigeons could justify use of the much more expensive 
inactivated vaccine, it is difficult to imagine this being 
systematically used for other poultry. 
1.9. As retaliation by the other 10 Member States 
against the Member States refusing conventional vacci­
nation is out of the question, it needs to be established 
whether Denmark, Ireland and Northern Ireland would 
authorize the import of poultry inoculated with the 
inactivated vaccine. If so, accompanying financial 
measures would be needed to cover the additional cost 
of the vaccines used. 
1.10. The Committee is convinced that this divergent 
vaccination policy is behind the proposal which, 
although concerned with the health of poultry, is mainly 
economic in intention. 
2. Specific considerations 
2.1. The proposal endorses all non-vaccination 
measures. These measures may go as far as the destruc­
tion of the entire flock of a holding after an outbreak 
there. 
2.2. The virus's virulence justifies the adoption of 
complementary measures in protection and surveillance 
zones. These measures will be binding on national 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/15 
authorities and will involve Member States in high 
costs. 
2.3. As soon as the disease is suspected, the com­
petent authority must be notified. This supposes that 
farmers comply with the measures in full and have their 
flocks slaughtered ('stamped out'). 
2.4. There is no procedure for providing compen­
sation in such cases, though this does not rule out 
spontaneous help from a Member State for its nationals, 
with the financial support of the Commission (see docu­
ment of 18 July 1991 (!). 
2.5. Compensation, which would be legitimate a 
priori and would also have to be paid by the Member 
States, could also deter farmers from failing to notify 
an outbreak. 
2.6. There should be provision for penalizing 
businesses which knowingly and improperly put infect­
ed poultry on the Community market. The same should 
apply to exports to third countries of infected poultry 
in the form of fresh or deep-frozen poultry meat. 
2.7. The question of what is to be done about a 
slaughterhouse located in a protection or surveillance 
zone has been raised. The slaughterhouse should shut 
down, but no provision has been made to compensate 
the slaughterhouse's owners or staff for this enforced 
stoppage. Once again, this compensation would have 
to be paid by the Member States. 
(J) OJ No L 231, 20. 8. 1991, p. 21. 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1991. 3. Specific comments 
3.1. The Committee considered the effect which con­
taminated poultry could have on consumers' health. 
3.2. Newcastle disease cannot be transmitted to 
humans. 
3.2.1. However, heavily infected poultry could cause 
serious health problems and consumers are therefore 
strongly advised not to eat them. 
3.3. Article 4(2)(c) provides that eggs from farms 
under surveillance may be consumed after disinfection 
by an approved method. The Committee suggests that 
in such cases the eggs should be marked to ensure that 
consumers are fully aware what they are buying. 
3.4. The Committee feels that in the definition of 
Newcastle disease the intercerebral pathogenicity index 
should be greater than 1,3 (and not 0,7). 
3.5. In cases of slaughter of all the poultry on a 
holding, as provided for in Article 5, it should be 
permissible, subject to stringent precautions, to leave 
alive unaffected birds belonging to outstanding species 
which could otherwise die out. 
3.6. The Committee fails to understand why a list 
of the disinfectants referred in Article 11 (even if non-
exhaustive) has not been appended to the proposal. 
3.7. The provisions of Article 19 relating to swill for 
poultry feed entail numerous checks. 
3.8. On this point as on many others, the Committee 
wonders to what extent and how effectively the Mem­
ber States will be able to carry out these provisions, as 
doing so would require considerable manpower and 
entail heavy costs. 
3.9. The date for entry into force, 1 July 1991, has 
already passed and should be amended. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN