|
|
|
Reports and Memo's
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Brussels, october 1995
|
Decisive years for european consumer protection
|
|
Hormones should continue to be banned
The ban on the use of hormones in meat production is currently still in force in the European Union. Nevertheless on 6 July 1995 in a secret meeting of the Codex Alimentarius, the decision was adopted with 33 votes in favour and 29 against and 7 abstentions, to lay down limits for residues of hormones (the Codex Alimentarius is the standardizing programme of the UN food organisation called FAO and the World Health Organisation (WHO) the standards of which are also being increasingly adopted by the European Union after it became a member of the FAO in 1991).
The consumers in the European Union have for years protested vehemently and successfully against the authorisation of hormones in meat production because of the side effects on human and animal health. Neither is the majority of the farmers in the EU very much in favour of the use of hormones in the production of livestock. This is especially true of the small and medium-sized enterprises given that the administration of hormones is also problematic. Nevertheless despite the ban, it seems that in practice extensive illegal use of hormones is rampant as evidenced by the increasing number of meat scandals.
The United States probably motivated the decision taken behind closed doors of the Codex Alimentarius and they have threatened to lodge a complaint at the European Union if the authorisation of « hormone meat » from the United States is not solved to their advantage by the end of the current year. The question should be cleared as to whether « unscientific health standards » could become trade barriers. The Agriculture Commissioner, FISCHLER, sharply condemned the secret decision of the Codex Alimentarius and announced the convening of a Conference of Scientists - including scientists from the United States - before the end of 1995. (See page 9, point 3.3)
The consumer organisations will have to follow the Conference with great care because of interference from the United States. Our view is that the European Union should not allow the United states to press for a dismantling of consumer protection. Once the dam is broken and hormones will have been authorised for a more rapid production of meat, it could easily be followed by the authorisation of BST (bovine somatropine) which increases milk production up to 20% and which would be especially harmful for animal health not to mention the consequences on the quality of the milk in the first place and that of the meat later on.
|
|
|
[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
