WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1112/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. EU import ban on beef
C 31/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5. 2. 1999 2. The evaluation by an external organisation followed specific terms of reference and did not overlap with other activities. The Commissionís report was produced in the light of the external evaluation and benefited from close cooperation with the external evaluation team. The support of an external contractor was sought in particular to procure sufficient resources (staff, time, 3. administrative capacity) in order to carry out a comprehensive study during the given period of time. 4. As already stated, the Commission did not have the appropriate resources to complete such an evaluation study in the given time-scale. In its report the Commissionís own observations in particular with respect to the European training foundationís future focus, draw largely on the evaluatorsí main recommendations. 5. The cost of the external evaluation was ECU 223 296. (1) OJ L 131, 23. 5. 1990. , as amended by Regulation (EC) 2063/94 (1) no L 216, 20. 8. 1994. (2) COM(97) 379 final. (1999/C 31/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (8 April 1998) Subject: EU import ban on beef 1. Do the EUís arguments for the import ban on meat from hormone-treated cattle relate only to the evidence of residues of the hormones used which are detrimental to health? If additional arguments are put forward, can the Commission specify what they are? 2. Which qualified and respected scientists are working in what areas on the EUís arguments in this case? The SPS measures relate almost exclusively to the avoidance of health risks. Does the Commission make 3. any additional demands? If so, what are they? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1998) 1. The ban on the use of certain oestrogenic, androgenic and gestagenic hormones in livestock farming within the Community, and the import ban on meat from bovine animals treated with these growth hormones, are based on the potential risk presented for the consumer by the residues of these hormones in the meat. When these measures were adopted Parliament considered that scientific information about these substances was far from complete and that considerable doubt therefore existed about the desirability of their use and their effect on human health. The Appellate Body, although recognising that the scientific evidence presented by the Community was relevant, nevertheless indicated that this scientific evidence was not sufficiently specific to the case at hand, i. e. not focused enough on the genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of the hormones in question when used specifically for growth promotion purposes, in particular the potential effects arising from the presence in meat of hormone residues. Taking account of the conclusions of the Appellate Body, the Commission has started work on generating 2. the scientific data required for a risk assessment linked more specifically to the residues from these six hormones and their metabolites in meat when used for animal growth promotion. In this context, the Commission has freed financial resources to request internationally recognised scientists to produce the missing data. 3. As the Honourable Member notes, the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures concern exclusively the human, animal or plant health risks, and the import ban on meat from animals treated with the hormones comes completely within the scope of these measures