WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1112/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. EU import ban on beef
Date: 1998-04-08
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: beef, cattle, health risk, hormone, import restriction, public health, scientific research

C 31/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.2.1999

2.
The evaluation by an external organisation followed specific terms of reference and did not overlap with
other activities. The Commission(cid:146)s report was produced in the light of the external evaluation and benefited from
close cooperation with the external evaluation team.

The support of an external contractor was sought in particular to procure sufficient resources (staff, time,

3.
administrative capacity) in order to carry out a comprehensive study during the given period of time.

4.
As already stated, the Commission did not have the appropriate resources to complete such an evaluation
study in the given time-scale. In its report the Commission(cid:146)s own observations in particular with respect to the
European training foundation(cid:146)s future focus, draw largely on the evaluators(cid:146) main recommendations.

5.

The cost of the external evaluation was ECU 223 296.

(1) OJ L 131, 23.5.1990., as amended by Regulation (EC) 2063/94 (1) no L 216, 20.8.1994.
(2) COM(97) 379 final.

(1999/C 31/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: EU import ban on beef

1.
Do the EU(cid:146)s arguments for the import ban on meat from hormone-treated cattle relate only to the evidence
of residues of the hormones used which are detrimental to health? If additional arguments are put forward, can the
Commission specify what they are?

2. Which qualified and respected scientists are working in what areas on the EU(cid:146)s arguments in this case?

The SPS measures relate almost exclusively to the avoidance of health risks. Does the Commission make

3.
any additional demands? If so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

1.
The ban on the use of certain oestrogenic, androgenic and gestagenic hormones in livestock farming within
the Community, and the import ban on meat from bovine animals treated with these growth hormones, are based
on the potential risk presented for the consumer by the residues of these hormones in the meat. When these
measures were adopted Parliament considered that scientific information about these substances was far from
complete and that considerable doubt therefore existed about the desirability of their use and their effect on
human health. The Appellate Body, although recognising that
the scientific evidence presented by the
Community was relevant, nevertheless indicated that this scientific evidence was not sufficiently specific to
the case at hand, i.e. not focused enough on the genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of the hormones in question
when used specifically for growth promotion purposes, in particular the potential effects arising from the
presence in meat of hormone residues.

Taking account of the conclusions of the Appellate Body, the Commission has started work on generating
2.
the scientific data required for a risk assessment linked more specifically to the residues from these six hormones
and their metabolites in meat when used for animal growth promotion. In this context, the Commission has freed
financial resources to request internationally recognised scientists to produce the missing data.

3.
As the Honourable Member notes, the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures concern exclusively the
human, animal or plant health risks, and the import ban on meat from animals treated with the hormones comes
completely within the scope of these measures.