WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3916/97 by Marianne THYSSEN to the Commission. Ruling of the WTO panel on hormones
C 187/88 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 6. 98 3. This approach is already Commission policy, in relation to all chemicals placed on the market. 4. and 5. The Commission is keeping under review the European schedule of occupational diseases. In 1998 it envisages a study of the data deriving from scientific and technical progress, and based on epidemiological analysis. As part of this review new occupational diseases could be considered. As far as the question of assistance to victims is concerned this remains the responsibility of Member States. (1) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1990. (2) OJ C 375, 10. 12. 1997. (98/C 187/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/97 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997) Subject: Ruling of the WTO panel on hormones At the conference on food law organised on 3 and 4 November 1997 jointly by the Commission and the European Parliament one of the speakers maintained that the European Community had lost the hormone case before the WTO panel because of poor drafting of the relevant European legislation. In particular, it had been impossible to use the argument that European consumers did not accept hormones being fed to animals reared for human consumption because no reference was made to this non-acceptance in the preamble of the directive concerned. Can the Commission agree with this view? Does the Commission not think there is an urgent need to review European food legislation and if necessary to adapt the wording in order to prevent such problems in future? Has the Commission already taken action on this matter or does it intend to do so? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998) The panel of the World trade organization (WTO) charged with examining the Community measures concerning the use of hormones for growth promotion purposes in livestock farming issued its report on 18 August 1997. The Community appealed the report to the WTO appellate body, which issued its report on 16 January 1998. The line of argument mentioned by the Honourable Member, concerning the impossibility to invoke European consumersí non-acceptance of the use of hormones because such non-acceptance was not mentioned in the preamble of the relevant directive, does not appear as such in the report of the panel. The panel ruled that a reference should have been made in the preamble of the names of the scientists and the scientific studies on which the import prohibition was based. However, the WTO appellate body has now reversed this finding of the panel