WRITTEN QUESTION E-3133/02 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Tolerated levels of anabolic steroids.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Netherlands, calf, food safety, hormone, marketing restriction, public health, veal, veterinary legislation

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/171

(2003/C 110 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3133/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Tolerated levels of anabolic steroids

In three regions of Italy, Lombardy, Piemonte and Emiglia-Romagna, under Law No 336 of 4 August 1999
calves have been confiscated as a precaution because traces of boldenone, an anabolic steroid with an
androgynous-type hormonal effect, which is regarded as a doping substance, was found in their urine.
Veterinary experts claim that this steroid is a hormone produced by the calves themselves, as a result of
which countries of the European Union tolerate significantly higher levels than in Italy. The Netherlands
national institute for the environment and health, one of the most authoritative in Europe on steroids and
doping, says in its studies that boldenone can be endogenous, caused by the transformation of
phytosteroles, which are legitimately present in animal feed. In March the Italian Minister of Health asked
the Netherlands to provide blanket certification of the absence of boldenone in every single calf sent to
Italy.

In view of this confusion:

1. Can the Commission affirm that this steroid may be tolerated in the everyday consumption of veal

and baby-beef imported into Italy without concern?

2.

If so, are the measures laid down by Italian law too restrictive?

3.

If not, what measures does it intend to take to prevent damage to public health as a result of too lax
standards?

4. What proposals does it intend to bring forward in any case to prevent consumer health being put at

risk, to a greater or lesser extent depending on where veal calves come from?

5. Who guarantees food safety in this case?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The use of boldenone, as of all steroid hormones, is banned in stockfarming in the Community by Council
Directive 96/22/EC (1) on the prohibition of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and
of beta-agonists.

When boldenone is injected into bovine animals, it is found under two different forms in their urine: as
17-alpha boldenone and 17-beta boldenone. According to currently available scientific knowledge,
17-alpha boldenone has been found in urine samples of bovines that have never been injected with
boldenone. Therefore, a possible natural occurrence of 17-alpha boldenone in urine of bovine animals
cannot be excluded.

The Commission is aware that there is a divergence of views on this issue and is endeavouring to clarify it.
At the request of the Commission, the relevant Community Reference Laboratory is compiling the
information available in the Member States on the possible natural occurrence of boldenone in non-treated
animals. The Commission has taken up contact with the Italian competent authorities in order to clarify
the issue.

There is currently scientific consensus that the presence of 17-beta boldenone in urine indicates an illegal
treatment. According to the Community legislation, animals or products where 17-beta boldenone is
detected should be withdrawn from the food chain. When only 17-alpha boldenone is found, further
investigations should be carried out in order to establish whether the animals have been treated illegally, in

C 110 E/172

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

line with Council Directive 96/23/EC (2) on monitoring certain substances and residues thereof in live
animals and animal products. The Commission considers that these provisions ensure consumer health
protection.

(1) Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain
substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/
146/EEC and 88/299/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2) 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.

(2003/C 110 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3140/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Unlawfulness of Directive 91/67/EEC

The current EU legislation on animal health checks in the aquaculture industry incorporates complex
provisions governing the award to zones or farms of ‘approved’ status. In particular, the provisions of
Directive 91/67/EEC (1) and the subsequent implementing measures lay down in great detail the rules
governing testing procedures in the laboratories run by national animal health authorities and impose, in
cases where the presence of certain diseases is brought to light, extremely strict safeguards which represent
a breach of the right of ownership. The rules do not stipulate that a technician designated by the firm
concerned should be present when the tests are carried out or that, at least, a second test may be
requested, even though the very survival of what are generally small firms depends on the outcome. These
provisions would seem to be clearly at odds with the right of ownership, a fundamental human right
which can be restricted only in a manner proportional to the objective to be achieved.

What interpretation does the European Commission place on the rules in force and does it take the view
that the right of ownership is being violated? If so, what measures does it plan to take to bring an end to
this unlawful state of affairs?

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Article 295 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘this Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member
States governing the system of property ownership’.

Although property ownership is to be regarded as a fundamental right, that right has to be weighed in the
balance with other fundamental rights such as the protection of public health and safety.

Measures taken to control the outbreak of diseases of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, may, in the
general public interest as well as in the interest of producers of the product concerned, require temporary
restrictions on the exercise of certain property rights.

A similar question to that posed by the Honourable Member is currently the subject of a request for a
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (joined cases C-20/00 and C64/00).

In relation to the possibility of those affected having an expert present at the time laboratory analysis of
samples takes place, or indeed of receiving an additional sample for an independent analysis,
the
Commission’s view is that, whilst this is not expressly provided for in the text of Council Directive 91/67/
EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of
aquaculture animals and products, or the Commission’s implementation rules, it is in no way prevented by
the Community rules concerned. Member States are therefore, at liberty to provide for such rights of
counter expertise in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions.