WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3726/97 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. Increasing the defence of public health in agricultural policy
Date: 1997-11-21
Institutions: BONDE, European Parliament
Subjects: common agricultural policy, food additive, food contamination, food hygiene, food inspection, foodstuff, health policy, public health, public hygiene, toxic substance













EUR-Lex - 91997E3726 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3726

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3726/97 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. Increasing the defence of public health in agricultural policy  


Official Journal C 223 , 17/07/1998 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3726/97 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 November 1997)Subject: Increasing the defence of public health in agricultural policyThe EU has an expensive system food production which leads to surpluses in spite of 15% of land being set aside. At the same time the reduction of nitrate and chemical pollution in agricultural production is proceeding very slowly, and many consumers are becoming increasingly concerned at one-sidedly productivity-oriented livestock rearing systems which do not take into account either the environment or the animals' natural behaviour. It is now not just the countryside or clean drinking water that are in conflict with intensive agriculture. As was demonstrated by the BSE (Mad Cow Disease) problem, there is now a direct confrontation between livestock and people. All slaughterhouses now have to have to remove brains, spinal column and other parts from the animals and it costs DKR 300 per animal to destroy these organs. Here the Commission seems to be over-reacting, while it is too passive in other important areas. Here is one topical example:The Danish Agriculture Ministry's 'Paragraph 2 Committee' has expressed concern at the proposal to amend Directive 70/524 ((OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1. )) concerning additives in animal feedingstuffs - presumably because it will reduce the level of protection by permitting a number of antibiotics: avilamycin, virginamycian and zincbacitracin as well as the cooidiostatic diclazuril, and this at a time when the Danish Government has just succeeded in adopting a ban on the antibiotic avoparcin because it may transmit resistance to glycopeptides in medicines for humans.When will the Commission start to take greater account of public health in its agriculture policy?Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)The Commission has always attached importance to protection of public health in its agricultural policy proposals. The numerous health and safety regulations for food products it has initiated bear witness to this ongoing concern.Animal feed additives are a perfect illustration of the Commission's approach. As far back as 1970 the Commission had a Directive adopted by the Council the purpose of which was to ensure that no animal feed could contain additives presenting a danger to animal or human health or the environment. The substances to which the Honourable Member refers were authorised at Community level and thus satisfy the safety criteria of Directive 70/524/EEC. A reassessment of the authorisations given is envisaged except in the case of avoparcin, which as a precautionary measure was in 1996 banned throughout the Community. Since 1970, 15 antibiotics have been banned under the 'precautionary principle'.The Commission's communication on consumer health and food safety (1) and the green paper on the general principles of food law in the European Union ((COM(97) 176 final. )) testify to the importance that the Commission will always attach to protection of human health. Awareness of its importance is also reflected in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )). It should be possible in the reform of agricultural policy for an approach to be taken that maintains a proper balance between agriculture, consumer expectations on food quality and safety and environmental protection requirements.