WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/02 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Hormones and antibiotics in meat.
Date: 2002-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal nutrition, animal product, antibiotic, competence of the Member States, health control, health legislation, hormone, import, import restriction, meat, third country

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/3

(2003/C 52 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Hormones and antibiotics in meat

In 1988 the European Community banned the use of hormones as growth promoters in livestock-
breeding. The ban covered 17-oestradiol, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and
melenestrol acetate and has applied since 1 January 1989 in the Community and equally to imports from
third countries.

The use of certain antibiotics as growth promoters is also banned in the EU.

What consequences do the recent WTO negotiations have for the import of meat treated with hormones
or antibiotics?

Who is responsible for checks in view of the ban on use in the EU and on imports from third countries?

What control systems are available to the Commission in order to verify compliance with the ban?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The recent World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial meeting that launched the new round of trade
negotiations did not
include the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures in the list of
agreements on which negotiations will take place. Therefore, the discussions that will follow will have no
impact on the Community’s ban on imports of beef derived from hormone treated animals.

The Member States are responsible for the implementation of control measures; for imports, these controls
are carried out by random checks at border inspection posts.

Council Directive 96/23/EC (1) establishes that products of animal origin have to fulfil Community
requirements on residue limits and prohibited substances. According to this Directive, products of animal
origin have to be regularly tested for residues by Member States as well as by those third countries that
export to the Community. Every year Member States and third countries have to submit monitoring plans
to the Commission. Additionally, third countries have to fulfil the relevant Community requirements on
legislation, implementation and enforcement. A third country is listed as complying with Directive 96/23/
EC only if the guarantees provided are considered sufficient.

It is the intention of the Commission to include possible residues from feed additives within the scope of
Directive 96/23/EC thereby enabling controls and the establishment of monitoring plans for the use of
feed additives.

In respect of the antibiotics used as growth promoters, most of them have been banned for use as feed
additives within the Union because of antimicrobial resistance risks. A proposal to ban the remaining
antibiotics used as growth promoters in animal feed is currently under consideration.

Specific checks on compliance are difficult: the detection in meat or other products of animal origin of
residues of antibiotics is not conclusive proof of their use as growth promotors. In addition, the possible
presence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria may not be related to banned uses of feed additives in the
farmed animals.

The Commission is working on a proposal for the Council and the Parliament, which was announced in
the White Paper on Food Safety (2), harmonising official controls. The problems of controls at importation
will be addressed by including equivalence on feeding requirements to the conditions allowing third
countries to export products of animal origin in the Union.

C 52 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Checks on imports of products of animal origin from third countries are carried out in border inspection
posts, the first points of entry to the Community of these products. Controls are harmonised and the
procedures are laid down in Council Directive 97/78/EC (3), which specifies the documentary, identity, and
physical checks that must be carried out. Under this legislation Member States are required to carry out
laboratory testing according to national rules, for all products of animal origin examined routinely, or on
suspicion, in border inspection posts.

Commission staff from the Food and Veterinary Office conduct regular inspections of all border inspection
posts in the Member States to verify that correct Community standards of facilities, staffing and procedures
are maintained. These inspections include laboratory checks carried out on behalf of the border inspection
posts.

(1) Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in
live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC
and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10-32.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
(3) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of

veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

(2003/C 52 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Greeks in Albania

In his answer of 22 January 2002 to question No E-3321/01 (1) tabled by myself and Mr Christos
Zacharakis, Commissioner Patten casts doubt on the reports of targeted demolition of houses belonging to
members of the Greek ethnic minority in Albania and thereby contradicts the warnings which appeared in
the Greek press prior to the events, to which I had also referred, and the statements made by the new
mayor of Himara, which have never been denied by the Albanians.

The Commissioner has thereby put the Commission in a compromising position as he appears not to
recognise the seriousness of an issue which relates to respect for the most fundamental of human rights, a
legacy of communist rule in Albania (under which thousands of
the Greek ethnic minority were
persecuted,
imprisoned and tortured). The blame for the persistence of this situation could be laid at
Europe’s door since it supports Albania economically and politically without compelling it to comply with
international standards of respect for minorities. A particularly distasteful part of Mr Patten’s answer were
the comments that Albania’s attitude was ‘constructive’ and that the Commission had not observed any
persecution of the Greek minority in Albania.

Will the Commission say exactly how many schools teaching the Greek language are operating in how
many areas for the thousands of Greeks in Albania? What is the sum total of Community funding given to
that country over the last ten years? On what conditions did the EU grant that funding? Which of those
conditions did Albania fulfil? Did the Commission check, and in what way, that those funds were used for
the purposes for which they were granted and were not used to support nationalist groups in Kosovo,
FYROM and elsewhere? Does Albania observe the international agreements which it has concluded (in
particular the Corfu Protocol) and how does the Commission monitor the degree to which the rights of all
minorities (regardless of race or creed) are respected in Albania?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 13.