WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation of alternative and supplementary measures to bring to a rapid end the foot-and-mouth epidemic

1. Is the Commission able to demonstrate the inaccuracy of rumours to the effect that vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) which are regarded as illegal have been distributed in other Member States, including France, and are being used to prevent any further spread of the disease?

2. Does the Commission consider it possible that the use of illegal vaccines helps to prevent the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease to areas which might otherwise have been affected but that the vaccine is not detected in the course of meat inspections since screening for FMD antibodies is not carried out in non-infected and in areas not considered to be suspect?

3. Can the Commission confirm the information contained in an article in the Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad of Thursday, 16 April 2001 to the effect that the United Kingdom is no longer slaughtering healthy cattle in the vicinity of FMD outbreaks and that animals are only being slaughtered after testing for the virus?

4. To what extent and under what conditions are vaccinations now being carried out in the United Kingdom? Do the rules applicable differ from those applicable in the Netherlands? If so why?

5. If a Member State is exempted from the slaughtering requirement or if failure to slaughter is tolerated in practice, how does this affect the obligations of other Member States? In the Commission's view, does the existence of different obligations in different countries constitute legal inequality?

6. How long will it be before use of a marker vaccine will make it possible for inspectors to distinguish between infected and vaccinated meat?

7. What is the reason for the continued delay regarding preventive vaccination (called for by Parliament in paragraph 2.3. of its resolution of 4 April 2001) of artiodactyls in zoological gardens susceptible to FMD infection and herds of rare animals threatened with extinction whose meat is neither exported or consumed? When can preventive vaccination be carried out on these animals at least?

8. What does the Commission think of the recommendation from the International Office of Epizootics (IOE) in Paris that a distinction be made between FMD-free and FMD infection-free status so that only infection with a virus and not antibodies from vaccination would constitute a reason to refuse products for import?

9. In this context, what is the role of the Animal Health Code 2000, which was most recently brought into line with the most up-to-date scientific information in 1997 and was endorsed by all 157 IOE member countries, including all European Union Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

No, it is technically impossible to demonstrate that none of the almost 300 million FMD susceptible animals living in FMD non-infected or non-suspected areas of the Community have been vaccinated.

However, the Commission can state that:

- it is not aware of any factual information concerning any illegal use of FMD vaccine in France or in any other Member State;

- unconfirmed rumours on illegal vaccination cannot be the basis for any action or decision by the Commission;

- it is regrettable that such rumours have been amplified in such a way that they generate distrust and discredit the efforts made by the agricultural sector, the Member States and the Community Institutions to cope with the difficult problems related to the FMD epidemic, without providing any useful contribution to the perfectly legitimate on-going debate on the Community policy on FMD.

The Commission has been informed by the British authorities in the framework of the Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) that the national guidelines on the preventive slaughtering of suspected cattle in the vicinity of an outbreak have been revised in the light of the evolution of the epidemiological situation. However, these guidelines are not in conflict with Community legislation on the control of FMD.

Commission Decision 2001/257/EC of 30 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC(1), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/326/EC of 24 April 2001(2) establishes the rules under which protective vaccination may be applied in certain areas of the United Kingdom. However, the competent authorities in the United Kingdom have so far decided not to apply vaccination.

Commission Decision 2001/257/EC reflects Commission Decision 2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001 amending Decision 2001/246/EC laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC(3) on protective vaccination in certain areas of the Netherlands. However, the Commission also adopted Commission Decision 2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC(4), which establishes the conditions under which suppressive vaccination may be applied in the Netherlands.

Basically, the rules on suppressive vaccination differ from the ones on protective vaccination as in the first instance vaccinated animals must be slaughtered as soon as possible after vaccination. In this way the risk that vaccinated animals spread the disease further is prevented and the measures restricting movements and trade in live animals and their products from the vaccination area may be lifted more quickly.

Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease(5) introduces Community measures for the control of FMD and is equally applicable in all Member States. It includes compulsory provisions on slaughtering of FMD infected animals, while other provisions, such as the ones concerning the slaughtering of FMD suspected animals, include elements of flexibility, in order that the Member States may apply the best possible disease control measures, taking into account the local epidemiological situation.

No Member State has been exempted from any requirements on slaughtering of FMD infected animals and the Commission has no factual information that failure to slaughter these animals has been tolerated in any Member State.

Several groups of scientists are currently working on the development of reliable tests able to discriminate between vaccinated animals and infected ones. However, it cannot be predicted when this work will be finalised.

On 11 April 2001, six days after the resolution of the Parliament on FMD, the Commission adopted Commission Decision 2001/303/EC of 11 April 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in endangered species in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC(6), which establishes the conditions under which vaccination might be applied in endangered FMD-susceptible species, such as some species kept in parks or zoos. Since that date vaccination may be applied, but no Member State has so far decided to vaccinate.

The World Organisation for Animal Health's Office International des Epizooties (OIE) is the international organization designated under the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures as responsible for the establishment of international animal health rules and guidelines for trade in animals and animal products. These rules are published in the International Animal Health Code, which is reviewed annually.

On 30 May 2001 the General Assembly of the OIE approved Resolution No XIV, concerning certain amendments to the Chapter on FMD of the above Code. However, these modifications do not concern the international trade in vaccinated animals or their products, but the requirements to demonstrate freedom from FMD, as the OIE has not issued any recommendation or resolution such as the one indicated by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 91, 31.3.2001.

(2) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001.

(3) OJ L 96, 6.4.2001.

(4) OJ L 88, 28.3.2001.

(5) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985.

(6) OJ L 104, 13.4.2001.