Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 91997E002581

    WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2581/97 by Giuseppe RAUTI to the Commission. Forcible importation into Europe of US meat containing hormones

    OV C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 112 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    European Parliament's website

    91997E2581

    WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2581/97 by Giuseppe RAUTI to the Commission. Forcible importation into Europe of US meat containing hormones

    Official Journal C 082 , 17/03/1998 P. 0112


    WRITTEN QUESTION E-2581/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

    Subject: Forcible importation into Europe of US meat containing hormones

    Can the Commission say what the current situation is as regards the United States' insistent and threatening requests to import into Europe meat produced from cattle which have been treated with hormones?

    Not least because of the opinion of its Scientific Committees the European Union has so far been opposed to these requests, but now the World Trade Organization (WTO) has declared European opposition to be 'contrary to the rules of international free trade'.

    Can the Commission say whether and, if so, how the European Union will continue to uphold its belief that the use of hormones in stock breeding, as practised in the United States, is seriously harmful to human health?

    Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

    On 30 June 1997, the World trade organisation (WTO) panel notified the parties of its final reports on hormones meat. Effectively, the panel reports find violation of three provisions of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement by the Community directives prohibiting the use of hormones for animal growth promotion. A decision has been taken to appeal from the panel's reports. Until there is a definitive ruling on this matter under the WTO dispute settlement process (probably not before November 1997), it is not possible to indicate what course of action might be open to the Community. If the panel's conclusions are upheld by the appellate body of the WTO, the Community will still have a 'reasonable period' to decide its options.

    The Commission will continue to invoke the precautionary principle in support of its claims and to defend the position that the Community's right to decide what level of sanitary protection it deems appropriate for its citizens be fully recognised by the SPS Agreement.

    Top