Economic Affairs Committee

To the European Commissioner for Health, Mr Tonio Borg

COURTESY TRANSLATION

Town/city and date
Subject:
Our reference:

The Hague, 22 April 2014
Letter in the framework of the political dialogue concerning EU proposals on animal
cloning and novel food (COM (2013) 892/3/4)
2014Z00486/2014D13817

Dear Mr Borg,
The Standing Committee on Economic Affairs of the Dutch House of Representatives has received the
EU proposals on animal cloning and novel food (COM (2013) 892, 893, 894). Various parliamentary
groups have the following comments and questions in the framework of a political dialogue with the
European Commission. These questions and comments have been grouped according to the separate
proposals. The Standing Committee on Economic Affairs looks forward to your response and would very
much appreciate your reply as soon as possible, but at the latest within three months of the date of
this letter.
General
For the members of the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) parliamentary
group, individual freedom of choice is an important principle, which is why these members endorse the
original idea behind the European Union, of ‘unity in diversity’. These members have difficulty in
accepting the overall prohibition against animal cloning now being proposed. This kind of prohibition is
at odds with the Dutch tradition of pioneering spirit and curiosity about new technologies.
In principle, the members of the CDA (Christian Democratic Party) parliamentary group oppose
genetic modification in animals, with some reservations. These members support a provisional fiveyear prohibition against the cloning of farm animals, the placing on the market of animal clones and
clone embryos and food from cloned farm animals, as proposed by the European Commission in COM
(2013) 892 and 893. On the issue of subsidiarity, these members do not see any objections with
regard to the proposals.
The members of the SGP (Reformed Political Party) parliamentary group wish to express their
support, in broad outline, for the European Commission's proposals on the cloning of farm animals
(COM (2013) 892) and the placing on the market of foods originating from cloned farm animals (COM
(2013) 893). They are in support of the prohibitions included in the proposals because the cloning of
farm animals often has a negative impact on animal welfare and because of ethical objections to the
cloning of farm animals. They also feel that the European Commission is justified in citing Articles 13,
43 and 352 of the European Treaty. Much of the trade in farm animals and products from

House of Representatives of the States General
PO Box 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

such animals is international. This makes it a positive move that a prohibition on cloning of agricultural
animals and a prohibition on the placing on the market of foods originating from cloned agricultural
animals is being arranged at the European level.
The members of the SGP parliamentary group ask why a temporary prohibition has been chosen rather
than a prohibition with no specific horizon.
The members of the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) parliamentary group are fully
in favour of the proposed prohibition against the cloning of animals and the prohibition against the
placing on the market of cloned animals and cloned embryos. These members recognise that cloning
seriously affects animal welfare. When animals are cloned, the animals are often born disfigured or
diseased and the majority of the cloned animals die within a few weeks. The surrogate animal parents
of clones also suffer; they are more likely to miscarry and to produce abnormally large foetuses. The
members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group wish to point out, however, that in Europe
animals are not in fact cloned to produce food. Cloned meat and cloned milk do not come directly from
cloned animals, but from their offspring. These members point out that the European Commission
prohibition, in its proposed form, does not comprise a truly effective prohibition but merely a
'temporary postponement' of animal cloning for food purposes in Europe.
Proposal for a Directive on the cloning of animals of the bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine and equine
species kept and reproduced for farming purposes COM (2013) 892
The members of the VVD parliamentary group have responded with some reservations to the
proposal to impose a prohibition of at least five years on the cloning of animals and the placing on the
market of cloned animals and cloned embryos.
These members have been informed by the Dutch government that scientific and medical research and
innovation will remain permitted under the Directive and that research and innovation into cloning
techniques for commercial and production applications will remain possible. These members would like
to receive confirmation from the European Commission that this is indeed the case, since these
members are of the opinion that new techniques should never be obstructed from the outset.
The members of the VVD Parliamentary group notice that the basis for the European Commission's
proposal is more restrictive than current Dutch legislation. These members would like to hear the
European Commission's response to the Dutch government's commitment to extend this basis to cover
all farm animals and animals for sport and leisure. Can the European Commission provide an indication
of the proposed amendments submitted by other member states to this Directive and the criteria or
evaluation framework according to which the European Commission intends to assess these
amendments?
The members of the CDA parliamentary group consider the provisional prohibition to be too
narrowly defined. These members envisage no role for cloning technology for the purposes of sport,
leisure and food production. The European Commission's proposals solely comprise a prohibition on five
species of farm animals: cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and equine species.
The members of the CDA parliamentary group wish to ask the European Commission why it is not
proposing a more general prohibition on animal cloning for a number of purposes, with these purposes
being defined. For example, these purposes could be: sport, leisure and food production.
In addition, these members would like to ask why the European Commission has not included all
known farm animal species in the proposals but has limited itself to the above five species only.
For ethical reasons, the members of the CDA parliamentary group are in favour of a broader
prohibition. Out of respect for animals, these members support a broad prohibition with only minor
qualifications.
The members of the Christian Union parliamentary group (ChristenUnie) ask what exactly the
intention is in proposing to prohibit the cloning of farm animals. Why has the European Commission
opted for a Directive rather than a Regulation? Can the European Commission provide a precise
indication of the scope of the prohibition? Are the offspring of cloned animals covered or not? What is
the European Commission's view of the intended prohibition in the light of negotiations with third
countries on the lifting of trade barriers? Is the European Commission planning to raise the prohibition
on the cloning of farm animals in negotiations about trade agreements?
The members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group have pointed out that the
prohibition does not include the offspring of cloned animals, despite the fact that this is in fact the
actual 'economic purpose' of cloning. Because cloned animals have a high value, these cloned animals
will not be destined for the food market themselves, but the offspring of these cloned animals will be.
These members are of the opinion that the prohibition on the cloning of animals should be extended to
include a prohibition on the offspring of cloned animals and the placing on the market of these and
House of Representatives of the States General
PO Box 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

their products. After all, a prohibition on the offspring of cloned animals and the trade in these and
their products ultimately leaves the risks for animal welfare and health of cloned animals in place. Is
the European Commission willing to extend the prohibition and allow it to be applied to the offspring of
cloned animals? If not, why not?
The members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group would also prefer that the
prohibition not be limited to animals intended for agricultural purposes but be extended to include all
animals, including those used for leisure or sport or as household pets. There were recent reports in
the media that a deceased pet had been cloned. These members fear that the cloning of this pet could
lead to the creation of a market among pet owners. They point out that this is an undesirable
development that can threaten the health and welfare of the animals involved. Is the European
Commission prepared to allow the prohibition against cloning and the trade in such animals to apply to
all animals and their offspring? If so, within what timeframe? If not, why not? The members of the
Party for the Animals parliamentary group are concerned about cloned animals and animal
products from cloned animals being imported from third countries, where pigs are cloned on an
industrial scale for example. In Schenzhen, a city in southern China, there is a pig cloning factory with
more than 90 sows in each stall, all carrying eight to twelve cloned embryos. These are cloning
factories, complete with laboratories and operating theatres. These members ask why the European
Commission itself wishes to prohibit the cloning of animals for reasons of animal welfare but still
permits the results of these Frankenstein practices. For example, the European Commission does give
its approval for the sale in Europe of the semen of a cloned male pig from a third country such as
China. Is the European Commission also willing to prohibit reproductive materials
(semen/embryos/ova) from cloned animals? If not, why not? Is the European Commission willing to
include these unethical developments as a deal-breaker in negotiations on trade agreements? The
members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group predict problems in the enforcement
and monitoring of the importation of cloned animal products. These members would like to draw the
attention of the European Commission to the potentially serious difficulties in enforcing and monitoring
the importation of cloned animals and their products by the member states. Does the European
Commission acknowledge that the only way of preventing cloned animals or products of cloned animals
or their offspring reaching the European market is to dissolve trade agreements with third countries
that do permit cloning? In what way does the European Commission intend to achieve this?
Proposal for a Council Directive on the placing on the market of food from animal clones COM(2013)
893
The members of the VVD parliamentary group do not support the European Commission's proposal
to impose a prohibition on the placing on the market within the EU of food from cloned animals. These
members understand that there is insufficient basis for such a prohibition. Research has shown that
cloned foods are just as safe for people and the environment as foods from normal animals. This
prohibition is largely based on ethical reasoning and to a much lesser extent on reasons of animal
welfare. The European Commission asserts that the consultations it has conducted have revealed that
the European consumer and the business community reject the use of animal cloning as a breeding
technique for agricultural purposes. These members would like further information on these
consultations. How did the Commission conduct these consultations? How many consumers and
businesses took part and in which member states were they based? What were the questions used in
these consultations and what answers were possible to the questions? What were the exact results of
these consultations and how did the European Commission analyze these results? How far does the
European Commission intend to go in limiting the freedom of choice of the consumer and business
community?
The members of the Christian Union parliamentary group ask why the European Commission has
opted for a Directive rather than a Regulation. Can the European Commission explain to what extent a
prohibition can be sufficiently implemented and enforced, especially when it is not always possible in
third countries to trace whether animals have been cloned or whether food is derived from cloned
animals?
The members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group point out that the proposals do not
include any rules concerning labelling. Consumers, the Dutch parliament (motion by member
Ouwehand carried by the House (Parliamentary Papers 21501-32 no. 430) and the European
Parliament would like to see a prohibition on the importation of offspring of cloned animals and of
products derived from such offspring. These members regret that the European Commission has failed
to make any concessions in this area. Currently, companies are not obliged to indicate on the label that
meat or milk is derived from the offspring of cloned animals. Practice has shown that it is perfectly
possible to separate streams of products for genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods.
These members feel that the European Commission's argument citing the lack of feasibility is not
legitimate. They believe that the consumer cannot make a choice in selecting between products unless
the consumer has the necessary information on the origin and background of the product. Is the
House of Representatives of the States General
PO Box 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

European Commission willing to modify the origin labelling in such a way that it is clear whether the
product is derived from cloned animals? Is the European Commission willing, in trade agreements, to
include compulsory origin labelling to indicate whether imported products are derived from cloned
animals and their offspring? If not, why not?
Regulation on novel foods COM (2013) 894
The members of the Christian Union parliamentary group ask the European Commission to indicate
what consequences the Regulation will have for new techniques such as cisgenesis, if these are exempt
from legislation and regulations governing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)? What requirements
will be set with regard to these techniques?
The members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group acknowledge the need for a
Regulation on novel foods with a view to protecting human health by safeguarding the food safety of
novel foods. They ask how willing the European Commission is to define this in such a way that human
health can be guaranteed? Does this mean that the presence of nano-ingredients must be indicated on
the label? If not, why not?

Yours sincerely,
Chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs

M.I. Hamer
Explanatory note
The House of Representatives consist of 150 members, currently divided into 14 political groups, 5
of which have contributed to the letter above:
- People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), number of seats: 41
- Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), number of seats: 13
- Christian Union (CU), number of seats: 5
- Reformed Political Party (SGP), number of seats: 3
- Party for the Animals, number of seats: 2

House of Representatives of the States General
PO Box 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl