WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation of alternative and supplementary measures to bring to a rapid end the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
Date: 2001-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, United Kingdom, World Organisation for Animal Health, disease prevention, drug surveillance, foot-and-mouth disease, vaccination, vaccine, veterinary legislation

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/139

complexity of these issues, to which only a formal answer can be given in this reply, the Commission
would like to draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to its White Paper on Food Safety (1), where
detailed information is provided on the Commission(cid:146)s views in this regard.

A very comprehensive set of legislation is already in place on health rules on import of plants,
3.
animal and foodstuffs into the Community, which is in line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. Therefore the Commission does
not agree with the assumption of the Honourable Member that the possibilities offered by the WTO are
not exploited.

At the request of the Commission, food safety will be on the agenda of a special session of the WTO on
agriculture, due to meet in July 2001.

The Parliament, the Council and the Commission are already engaged in a review of the Community

4.
policy on some major animal diseases.

In particular:

(cid:129) the Council adopted a Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions

for the control and eradication of blue tongue (2);

(cid:129) the Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001 laying down
rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalo-
pathies (3) including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE);

(cid:129) following the opinion of the Parliament, a new Directive on the control of classical swine fever is at

present in the process of adoption by the Council;

(cid:129) the Council reached a political agreement on a common position on the proposed regulation on

animal by-products at its meeting on 19 June 2001;

(cid:129) the Council has also reached a political agreement on the proposed Food Authority;

(cid:129) the Commission has already committed itself to a review of the current legislation on foot-and-mouth

disease once the current outbreak is eradicated;

(cid:129) the Commission will submit in the next months to the legislator two proposals on the monitoring and

control of zoonoses (Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and others).

Through the activities of its Food and Veterinary Office, the Commission is closely involved in evaluating
the manner in which animal health legislation is implemented in the Member States. The reports of the
Office(cid:146)s evaluation missions are available on the Directorate general (DG) Health and Consumer Protection
website. Future missions to be undertaken by the Office will pay particular attention to the issues raised by
the recent disease problems identified in the animal health sector.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(3) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/155)

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?

C 364 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

Does the Commission consider it possible that the use of illegal vaccines helps to prevent the further
2.
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, (cid:145)NRC
Handelsblad(cid:146) 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?

To what extent and under what conditions are vaccinations now being carried out in the United

4.
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(cid:146)s view, does
the existence of different obligations in different countries constitute legal inequality?

How long will it be before use of a marker vaccine will make it possible for inspectors to distinguish

6.
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 (cid:145)FMD-free(cid:146) and (cid:145)FMD infection-free(cid:146) 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 (cid:145)Animal Health Code 2000(cid:146), 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)

it is technically impossible to demonstrate that none of the almost 300 million FMD susceptible

No,
animals living in FMD non-infected or non-suspected areas of the Community have been vaccinated.

However, the Commission can state that:

(cid:129) it is not aware of any factual information concerning any illegal use of FMD vaccine in France or in

any other Member State;

(cid:129) unconfirmed rumours on illegal vaccination cannot be the basis for any action or decision by the

Commission;

(cid:129) it is regrettable that such rumours have been amplified in such a way that they generate distrust and
discredit
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 efforts made by the agricultural sector,

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.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/141

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
It includes compulsory provisions on slaughtering of FMD infected
applicable in all Member States.
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(cid:146)s (cid:145)Office International des Epizooties(cid:146) (OIE) is the international
organization designated under the World Trade Organisation(cid:146)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.