WRITTEN QUESTION E-1195/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Non-vaccination policy on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, foot-and-mouth disease, slaughter of animals, vaccination, veterinary legislation

C 364 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1195/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR)
and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Non-vaccination policy on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)

As the Commission is aware, there is concern throughout Europe at the large-scale killing of animals, most
of them healthy, in response to the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The Dutch Minister of Agriculture is now
seeking a review of the non-vaccination policy which dates from 1991, but has not received any support
from the Commission.

From the early 1950s until the introduction of the European non-vaccination principle in 1991 the
Netherlands pursued a policy whereby only cattle were vaccinated as a structural measure. Cattle often
mixed with other livestock on farms. Nevertheless, the entire Dutch population of livestock was FMD-free
from the 1950s on.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

Does the Commission feel that, if applied Europe-wide, this approach would also keep European

2.
livestock FMD-free and

(a)

if not, why does it think that what was true of the Netherlands could not apply on a European scale?

(b)

if so, why does it base its arguments against abandoning the non-vaccination policy on the cost of
vaccinating all 300 million livestock in the EU when it would suffice to vaccinate the 50 million or so
cattle?

The Commission says that it takes six days after inoculation for the vaccination to become effective.

3.
Can the Commission indicate on what scientific research this claim is based?

4.
The Commission says that abandoning the non-vaccination principle would mean the EU losing part
of its sales market. Does the Commission agree that the current FMD epidemic and the mass cull used to
control it are equally ineffective means of promoting sales of meat within and beyond the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

With reference to the first, second and fourth questions raised by the Honourable Members,
the
Commission would like to draw attention to the reply it gave to Written Question E-1143/01 by
Mr Meijer (1), which includes information on the Community approach to the control of foot-and-mouth
disease (FMD) and on the review of this policy by the Commission. This approach included the approval of
both suppressive and preventive vaccination in the Netherlands.

With reference to the third question on scientific knowledge and research concerning the time needed for
developing immunity after FMD vaccination, the information available to the Commission is summarised
as follows.

Several days are needed in order for immunity against the FMD virus to develop after vaccination.

This period of time is dependent on certain variables, including:

(cid:129) the type of vaccine used, with particular reference to the concentration of antigen (the FMD virus-
derived material which induces specific immunity) and the adjuvants (other substances which further
stimulate the immune system) in the vaccine;

(cid:129) the virulence of the FMD virus strain and the infectious dose (e.g. the amount of virus) to which the

animal may be exposed after vaccination;

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/59

(cid:129) the species which are vaccinated (cattle, pigs, sheep, etc.);

(cid:129) the age of the animals to be vaccinated and other individual factors.

Taking the above into account, on average a sufficient immunity develops in cattle from six to ten days
after vaccination. The words (cid:145)sufficient immunity(cid:146) above mean that, after exposure to the FMD virus,
clinical signs of disease and virus replication are to a large extent reduced in a vaccinated cattle population
when compared with a non-vaccinated one. Therefore, FMD may be more easily controlled and may
eventually die out in the vaccinated population.

However, cases of FMD may still occur in recently vaccinated cattle, which may then spread FMD virus to
non-vaccinated animals, as about three weeks are necessary to develop the maximum level of immunity.
Indeed, the tests on efficacy of FMD vaccines required by the European Pharmacopoeia and the Office
International of Epizootics (OIE) are carried out 21 days after vaccination. Vaccinated cattle may anyhow
act as virus carriers after FMD virus exposure.

The above data are based on information provided by FMD-vaccine manufacturers and on several scientific
papers which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and/or presented and discussed in
the annual meetings of the research group of the Commission for the Control of FMD of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which are substantially financed by the Commission.

In relation to the final question it is important to note that there was no support in either the Council or
the Parliament for the introduction of generalised propalyactic vaccination at any stage in the course of the
current FMD outbreak. This lack of support reflects the well identified limitations of such a policy which
include, but are not limited to, trade implications. In this regard, the current outbreak has had an impact
on trade, as many third countries have adopted temporary restrictions on imports from all or part of the
Community. Nonetheless, it can be safely assumed that if a generalised vaccination policy was introduced
there would currently be important and permanent restrictions on exports from the whole Community in
countries which insist on imports only from countries which enjoy the status of FMD-free, without
vaccination. These restrictions would also have an impact on Community internal production and
marketing of animals and animal products. Member States which were not affected by the current
outbreak would be most unwilling to see their disease status and exports compromised.

is inferred in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question. The Commission welcomes,

Finally, the Commission fully supports a review of the current approach towards vaccination, contrary to
what
the
forthcoming conference proposed under the Belgian Presidency on FMD and the implications and lessons
from the current outbreak. The Commission will also provide an opportunity for a full review of the
current approach in its forthcoming proposal on a Council Directive on FMD.

therefore,

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 82.

(2001/C 364 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Threat to cultural monument from building project

Plans for the 2004 Olympic Games include the construction of a table-tennis arena covering a total area of
32 000 m2 on the boundary of the districts of Galatsi and Nea Ionia very close to the (cid:145)Evmorfi Ekklisia(cid:146),
a 12th century church classified as a rare cultural monument with exceptional frescos.