WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1785/97 by Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA to the Commission. Overturning of the ban on the import of hormone- treated meat and its effects on EU consumers' health and on their right to refuse to eat such meat
Date: 1997-05-16
Institutions: ANTTILA, European Parliament
Subjects: Canada, United States, World Trade Organisation, consumer information, consumer protection, hormone, import (EU), international sanctions, meat, public health













EUR-Lex - 91997E1785 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1785

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1785/97 by Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA to the Commission. Overturning of the ban on the import of hormone- treated meat and its effects on EU consumers' health and on their right to refuse to eat such meat  


Official Journal C 060 , 25/02/1998 P. 0043 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1785/97 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission (16 May 1997)Subject: Overturning of the ban on the import of hormone-treated meat and its effects on EU consumers' health and on their right to refuse to eat such meatAccording to information published in Finland, the EU is losing its fight in the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body to maintain the ban on hormone-treated meat which it imposed on health grounds. If it loses, it will mean dismantling the legislation banning, on health grounds, the import of such meat.The use of hormones to promote meat production is customary in the USA, whereas in the EU it is prohibited by legislation precisely on the grounds of these hormones' effect on health.There is not enough scientifically obtained evidence that hormones, particularly those used in meat production, are harmless to consumers. If the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body now decides otherwise, it will be disregarding the protection of consumers' health and showing that commercial interests have a greater influence on their decision.EU consumers cannot be forced to eat meat produced with hormones as a result of a DSB decision! It is thus vitally important that EU consumers should always have the right to all essential information about the ethics of food production and the composition of in foodstuffs in terms of raw ingredients, including the use of hormones and genetically altered material.The protection of consumers' rights and the guarantee of adequate information must also be included on the agenda for the Amsterdam summit.The Member States, including Finland, have placed consumer policy, and in particular the improvement of consumers' rights, on the agenda for the IGC. EU consumers' confidence in meat has already taken a battering as a result of the BSE crisis. The EU cannot therefore afford any kind of new hysteria or uncertainty about meat.What measures are the Commissioner responsible for consumer affairs and the relevant Commision officials prepared to take to protect consumers' rights if the DSB should overturn the EU's hormone ban imposed on health grounds?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)The World trade organisation (WTO) panel on the complaints brought by the United States and Canada, against Community legislation concerning the import of meat and meat products derived from animals to which hormones have been administered for growth promotion, has issued its interim findings.The Commission considers that these interim findings contain significant errors and has asked for them to be reviewed. As the dispute settlement procedure, including the appeals procedure, has yet to be completed, the Commission is not in a position to predict the outcome.The Honourable Member is correct in stating that Community consumers cannot be forced to eat meat produced with hormones as a result of a WTO decision. Whatever the outcome of the dispute settlement procedure in these cases, the Commission will not make any proposal which would result in a lowering of the high level of consumer protection which obtains in the Community.