**2. Background of the European Union legislation**

The use of hormonal growth promoters in food-producing animals has been a sensitive issue of debate in the EU and elsewhere for several decades.

Prior to 1981, the EC had no universal policy on the use of growth promoting hormones in meat animals.

The use of hormones had been banned in Italy since 1961, in Denmark since 1963, and in Germany since 1977. Belgium and Greece had never permitted the use of hormones for fattening purposes. However, Spain, the United Kingdom, France and Netherlands permitted the use of most hormones for speeding growth in beef cattle2.

The move to impose a Europe wide ban was spurred by the worrying discovery in 1977 of breast enlargement in girls and boys attending a school in Milan (Italy) (Scaglioni *et al*., 1978). Although oestrogen contamination was not detected when samples of school meals were tested, an uncontrolled supply of poultry and beef was hypothesized as being the cause of this outbreak (Fara *et al*., 1979).

<sup>2</sup> See http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6533E/X6533E03.htm#refeecstr Accessed August 19, 2011.

Steroid Hormones in Food Producing Animals: Regulatory Situation in Europe 39

The relevant international organizations - FAO, WHO, OIE and Codex - started to seriously

The first substantive scientific report had been published by OIE in 1983. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)6 had discussed and issued a

There were two other international reports comprising collective scientific work: the 1984 Scientific Report published by the European Commission (based on the Lamming Report8)

6 It is an independent expert group which deals with specific commodity issues or general health and safety matters related to food. The JECFA focuses on the scientific evaluation of a veterinary drug and does

7 The JECFA Report, on which the Codex standard for zeranol is based, noted that zeranol was a weak oestrogen which mimicked the action of oestradiol-17. The report concluded that the toxic (*in casu*  tumorigenic) effect of zeranol is associated with its hormonal (i.e. oestrogenic) properties and that an ADI could thus be established on the basis of a no-hormonal-effect level. Adopting what it considered to be a conservative approach by using as a basis studies on ovariectomized female cynomolgus monkeys (highly sensitive to oestrogenic substances) and using a safety factor of 100, JECFA set an ADI for human beings of 0-0.5 μg/kg of body weight. For a 70 kg person consuming 500 g of meat daily over an entire lifetime, the maximum permissible or safe level of zeranol residues in meat would then, according to JECFA, be 70 μg/kg of edible tissue. However, the report noted that when zeranol is administered to cattle according to good animal husbandry practice, the maximum mean residue levels did not exceed 0.2 μg/kg in muscle, 10 μg/kg in liver, 2 μg/kg in kindney, and 0.3 μg/kg in fat at any time after implantation. These residue levels obtained on the basis of good animal husbandry practice are thus below the maximum permissible level of 70 μg/kg. However, in order to set a level which is detectable by routine residue analysis methods,

With respect to trenbolone acetate (TBA), the Report concluded that its potential toxic effects only arise as a consequence of its hormonal activity. The report further concluded that, therefore, an ADI could be established on the basis of a no-hormonal-effect level. Adopting what it considered to be a conservative approach by using as a basis studies on castrated male rhesus macaque monkeys (which are highly sensitive to compounds with antigonadotropic activity) and pigs (which are a sensitive model for assessing hormonal effects of TBA) and using a safety factor of 100, JECFA later set an ADI for human beings of 0- 0.02 μg/kg of body weight (34th JECFA Report of 1989). The maximum ADI for a 60 kg person would thus be 1.2 μg of TBA residues. JECFA then set MRL's for -trenbolone in muscle and -trenbolone in liver of 2 μg/kg and 10 μg/kg, respectively, based on average residue levels in heifers at 15-30 days after implantation of 300 mg TBA, noting that concentrations would be even lower at proposed GPVD. According to JECFA, the MRL's thus obtained on the basis of conservative estimates should not exceed the Codex ADI or safe level at any time after implantation of the drug, that is, irrespective of the withdrawal

8 The Lamming Group's interim report, issued in September 1982, found that the three natural hormones (oestradiol-17, testosterone and progesterone) "would not present any harmful effects to the health of the

For the findings of the scientific working group, see Lamming, G.E., Ballarini, G., Baulieu, E.E. *et al*., (1987). Scientific Report on Anabolic Agents in Animal Production. *The Veterinary Record*, 121, at 389-

9 The 1995 EC Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production concluded that: "At present, there is no evidence for possible health risks to the consumer due to the use of natural sex hormones for growth promotion, since: Residue levels of these substances measured in meat of treated animals fall within the physiological range observed in meat of comparable untreated animals. The daily production of sex hormones by humans is much higher than the amounts possibly consumed from meat, even in the

consumer when used under the appropriate conditions as growth promoters in farm animals".

most sensitive humans (prepubertal children and menopausal women).

examine the safety of these hormones in meat production only during the 1980s.

scientific report on these hormones only in 19887.

not consider government policies and politics.

period used.

392.

and the Proceedings of the 1995 EC Scientific Conference9.

the Codex MRL was increased to 2 μg/kg in muscle and set at 10 μg/kg in liver.

In 1980 the discovery of 30,000 jars of baby food containing dethylstilboestrol, commonly known as DES, contaminated French veal was reported. European consumer organizations called for a boycott of veal, and the market for veal was severely affected. On September 20, 1980, the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted a declaration in favor of a ban on the use of oestrogen and endorsed the principle of greater harmonization of legislation on veterinary medicines and of greater control on animal rearing, both at the production and slaughtering stages.

On October 31, 1980, the EC Commission proposed even more rigorous legislation that would ban the use of all hormone products in meat production, except for therapeutic purposes3. This proposal was expanded later by documents COM(80)920 and COM(80)922, presented on 6 January 1981. These allowed for the controlled use for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes of three natural hormone products, and introduced a number of control measures on the production and handling of such products, together with proposals on the testing of animals. Discussions in the European Parliament revealed that three EC member States (Belgium, Ireland and the United Kingdom) favored the use of some hormones to promote growth in meat animals, and Ireland and the United Kingdom also argued for the retention of the synthetic hormones, trenbolone and zeranol. Third countries, including The United States, Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa raised concerns concerning the potential impact of a ban on their exports to European Communities4.

Subsequently, the European Council adopted its first directive on the hormones issues in July 1981 (Directive 81/602/EEC)5.

Directive 81/602/EEC prohibits the administering to farm animals of substances having a *thyrostatic action* or substances having an *oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic* action; the placing on the market or slaughtering of farm animals to which these substances have been administered; the placing on the market of meat from such animals; the processing of meat from such animals and the placing on the market of meat products prepared from or with such meat. The Directive provides two exceptions to the prohibition: one exception is provided for substances with an oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action when they are used for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes and administered by a veterinarian or under a veterinarian's responsibility. The other exception was for oestradiol-17, progesterone, testosterone, TBA and zeranol - when they were used for growth promotion purposes and their use was governed according to the individual regulatory schemes maintained by EC member States. This exception was made pending an examination of the effects of these hormones on the health of consumers and the adoption of an EC rule. EC member States are obliged to apply their regulatory schemes to imports from third countries in a manner not more favorable than that applied to intra-EC trade.

<sup>3</sup> Commission of the European Communities 1980. Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) Concerning the Uses of Substances with a Hormonal Action and those having a Thyrostatic Action in Domestic Animals. COM (80) 614, 31 October, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

<sup>4</sup> WTO, 1997. EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), complaint by the United States. Report of the WTO Panel, WT/DS26/R/USA, August 18, 1997, 2: 26-28. Available at http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/wto/horm-us.asp, Accessed August 20, 2011.

<sup>5</sup> Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 concerning the prohibition of certain substances having a hormonal action and of any substances having a thyrostatic action. Official Journal of the European Communities, L Series, No. 222, pp. 32-33.

38 A Bird's-Eye View of Veterinary Medicine

In 1980 the discovery of 30,000 jars of baby food containing dethylstilboestrol, commonly known as DES, contaminated French veal was reported. European consumer organizations called for a boycott of veal, and the market for veal was severely affected. On September 20, 1980, the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted a declaration in favor of a ban on the use of oestrogen and endorsed the principle of greater harmonization of legislation on veterinary medicines and of greater control on animal rearing, both at the production and

On October 31, 1980, the EC Commission proposed even more rigorous legislation that would ban the use of all hormone products in meat production, except for therapeutic purposes3. This proposal was expanded later by documents COM(80)920 and COM(80)922, presented on 6 January 1981. These allowed for the controlled use for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes of three natural hormone products, and introduced a number of control measures on the production and handling of such products, together with proposals on the testing of animals. Discussions in the European Parliament revealed that three EC member States (Belgium, Ireland and the United Kingdom) favored the use of some hormones to promote growth in meat animals, and Ireland and the United Kingdom also argued for the retention of the synthetic hormones, trenbolone and zeranol. Third countries, including The United States, Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa raised concerns concerning the

Subsequently, the European Council adopted its first directive on the hormones issues in

Directive 81/602/EEC prohibits the administering to farm animals of substances having a *thyrostatic action* or substances having an *oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic* action; the placing on the market or slaughtering of farm animals to which these substances have been administered; the placing on the market of meat from such animals; the processing of meat from such animals and the placing on the market of meat products prepared from or with such meat. The Directive provides two exceptions to the prohibition: one exception is provided for substances with an oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action when they are used for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes and administered by a veterinarian or under a veterinarian's responsibility. The other exception was for oestradiol-17, progesterone, testosterone, TBA and zeranol - when they were used for growth promotion purposes and their use was governed according to the individual regulatory schemes maintained by EC member States. This exception was made pending an examination of the effects of these hormones on the health of consumers and the adoption of an EC rule. EC member States are obliged to apply their regulatory schemes to imports from third countries in a manner not

3 Commission of the European Communities 1980. Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) Concerning the Uses of Substances with a Hormonal Action and those having a Thyrostatic Action in Domestic

4 WTO, 1997. EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), complaint by the United States. Report of the WTO Panel, WT/DS26/R/USA, August 18, 1997, 2: 26-28. Available at

5 Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 concerning the prohibition of certain substances having a hormonal action and of any substances having a thyrostatic action. Official Journal of the European

Animals. COM (80) 614, 31 October, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/wto/horm-us.asp, Accessed August 20, 2011.

potential impact of a ban on their exports to European Communities4.

slaughtering stages.

July 1981 (Directive 81/602/EEC)5.

more favorable than that applied to intra-EC trade.

Communities, L Series, No. 222, pp. 32-33.

The relevant international organizations - FAO, WHO, OIE and Codex - started to seriously examine the safety of these hormones in meat production only during the 1980s.

The first substantive scientific report had been published by OIE in 1983. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)6 had discussed and issued a scientific report on these hormones only in 19887.

There were two other international reports comprising collective scientific work: the 1984 Scientific Report published by the European Commission (based on the Lamming Report8) and the Proceedings of the 1995 EC Scientific Conference9.

With respect to trenbolone acetate (TBA), the Report concluded that its potential toxic effects only arise as a consequence of its hormonal activity. The report further concluded that, therefore, an ADI could be established on the basis of a no-hormonal-effect level. Adopting what it considered to be a conservative approach by using as a basis studies on castrated male rhesus macaque monkeys (which are highly sensitive to compounds with antigonadotropic activity) and pigs (which are a sensitive model for assessing hormonal effects of TBA) and using a safety factor of 100, JECFA later set an ADI for human beings of 0- 0.02 μg/kg of body weight (34th JECFA Report of 1989). The maximum ADI for a 60 kg person would thus be 1.2 μg of TBA residues. JECFA then set MRL's for -trenbolone in muscle and -trenbolone in liver of 2 μg/kg and 10 μg/kg, respectively, based on average residue levels in heifers at 15-30 days after implantation of 300 mg TBA, noting that concentrations would be even lower at proposed GPVD. According to JECFA, the MRL's thus obtained on the basis of conservative estimates should not exceed the Codex ADI or safe level at any time after implantation of the drug, that is, irrespective of the withdrawal period used.

8 The Lamming Group's interim report, issued in September 1982, found that the three natural hormones (oestradiol-17, testosterone and progesterone) "would not present any harmful effects to the health of the consumer when used under the appropriate conditions as growth promoters in farm animals".

For the findings of the scientific working group, see Lamming, G.E., Ballarini, G., Baulieu, E.E. *et al*., (1987). Scientific Report on Anabolic Agents in Animal Production. *The Veterinary Record*, 121, at 389- 392.

9 The 1995 EC Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production concluded that: "At present, there is no evidence for possible health risks to the consumer due to the use of natural sex hormones for growth promotion, since: Residue levels of these substances measured in meat of treated animals fall within the physiological range observed in meat of comparable untreated animals. The daily production of sex hormones by humans is much higher than the amounts possibly consumed from meat, even in the most sensitive humans (prepubertal children and menopausal women).

<sup>6</sup> It is an independent expert group which deals with specific commodity issues or general health and safety matters related to food. The JECFA focuses on the scientific evaluation of a veterinary drug and does not consider government policies and politics.

<sup>7</sup> The JECFA Report, on which the Codex standard for zeranol is based, noted that zeranol was a weak oestrogen which mimicked the action of oestradiol-17. The report concluded that the toxic (*in casu*  tumorigenic) effect of zeranol is associated with its hormonal (i.e. oestrogenic) properties and that an ADI could thus be established on the basis of a no-hormonal-effect level. Adopting what it considered to be a conservative approach by using as a basis studies on ovariectomized female cynomolgus monkeys (highly sensitive to oestrogenic substances) and using a safety factor of 100, JECFA set an ADI for human beings of 0-0.5 μg/kg of body weight. For a 70 kg person consuming 500 g of meat daily over an entire lifetime, the maximum permissible or safe level of zeranol residues in meat would then, according to JECFA, be 70 μg/kg of edible tissue. However, the report noted that when zeranol is administered to cattle according to good animal husbandry practice, the maximum mean residue levels did not exceed 0.2 μg/kg in muscle, 10 μg/kg in liver, 2 μg/kg in kindney, and 0.3 μg/kg in fat at any time after implantation. These residue levels obtained on the basis of good animal husbandry practice are thus below the maximum permissible level of 70 μg/kg. However, in order to set a level which is detectable by routine residue analysis methods, the Codex MRL was increased to 2 μg/kg in muscle and set at 10 μg/kg in liver.

Steroid Hormones in Food Producing Animals: Regulatory Situation in Europe 41

testosterone and progesterone for fattening purposes. However, the Directive maintains the permission to administer these three natural hormones to animals for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes under prescribed conditions; in particular, therapeutic treatment is defined to mean the administering to an individual animal of any of the substances which are authorized to treat a fertility problem diagnosed on examination by a veterinarian. The products which are used for therapeutic treatment may be administered only by a veterinarian, in the form of an injection (to the exclusion of implantation) to farm animals which have been clearly identified. Such treatment must be registered by the veterinarian and these animals may not be slaughtered before expiry of the period fixed. In the case of animals at the end of their reproductive career, the treatments are prohibited from being administered during the fattening period following the end of their breeding life. Article 4 of Directive 88/146/EEC explicitly requires that undertakings in the EC member States producing the prohibited hormones, those companies authorized to market these hormones for whatever purposes and undertakings producing pharmaceutical and veterinary products based on those substances, must keep a detailed register recording (in chronological order) the quantities produced or acquired and those sold or used for the production of pharmaceutical and veterinary products. The importation from third countries of animals and meat from animals to which have been administered substances with thyrostatic, oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action is prohibited. However, under certain conditions, Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC allows trade in those animals and meat from those animals treated for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes, including imports

Directive 88/299/EEC12 lays down the conditions for applying the derogations, provided for in Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC, from the prohibition on trade in certain categories of animals and their meat. The first derogation of the Directive requires EC member States to authorize trade in animals intended for reproduction and reproductive animals at the end of their career (and of meat of such animals) which, during their reproductive career, have undergone one of two categories of treatments. The first category is therapeutic treatment with one of the following substances: oestradiol-17, testosterone and progesterone; and those derivatives which readily yield the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application which appear in a list of approved products. The second category is the administration of substances having an oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action for synchronization of oestrus, termination of unwanted gestation, the improvement of fertility and the preparation of donors and recipients for the implantation of embryos, provided that the products in which they are contained appear on a list of approved products and with the respect of strict conditions of use concerning, in particular, the respect of the withdrawal period, the monitoring of those conditions of use and of the means of identification of the animals. In addition, Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive provide that trade between the EC member States of the European Communities in animals intended for reproduction and reproductive animals and meat from such animals is allowed only if all the conditions laid down in the Directive are respected, in particular as regards the waiting period and the requirement that animals have not received any of the above treatments with any of the

12 Council Directive 88/299/EEC of 17 May 1988 on trade in animals treated with certain substances having a hormonal action and their meat, as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC*. Official* 

*Journal of the European Union*, Series L, No. 87, pp. 36-38.

from third countries.

The European Communities stressed, however, that these reports did not constitute the entire body of scientific knowledge on the issue of safe use of these hormones for growth promotion. There were also important studies made by individual scientists, and other specialized institutions like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The EC Scientific Veterinary Committee gave its reaction to the Lamming Report on November 9, 1982, followed by the EC Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition on November 17, 1982 and by the EC Scientific Committee for Food on February 4, 1983. These Committees supported the conclusions and recommendations of the Lamming Report, but stressed the need to lay down provisions regarding the establishment of proper programmes to control and monitor the use of anabolic agents with regard, in particular, to instructions for use, surveillance programmes and analysis methods. In January 1984, the Commission asked a group of experts within the EC Scientific Committee on Anabolic Agents to review the information on trenbolone and zeranol. On June 12, 1984, the Commission published a proposal (COM(84)295 final) for a Council Directive amending Directive 81/602/EEC, which envisaged the controlled use of the three natural hormones for growth promotion purposes and proposed re-examining the ban on the two synthetic hormones after their scientific evaluation had been completed. However, the European Parliament, the EC Economic and Social Committee and the EC Council of Ministers rejected the Commission's proposal.

The EC Commission amended its proposal accordingly and on December 31, 1985 the EC Council adopted Directive 85/649/EEC10. This Directive banned the use of all the substances concerned for growth promotion purposes and established more detailed provisions concerning authorized therapeutic uses. Its preamble began by emphasizing that differing rules on hormone use in different member countries had distorted trade in the European market and that "[…] these distortions of competition and barriers to trade must therefore be removed […]".

The Directive was challenged in the European Court of Justice, which annulled it on procedural grounds. The proposals were re-introduced by the EC Commission and readopted by the EC Council as Council Directive 88/146/EEC on March 7, 198811. This Directive extends the prohibition imposed by Directive 81/602/EEC to the administration to farm animals of trenbolone acetate and zeranol for any purpose, and oestradiol-17,

11 Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action. *Official Journal of the European Union*, L Series, No. 70, pp. 16-18.

Due to an extensive first-pass metabolism, the bioavailability of ingested hormones is low, thus providing a further safety margin".

With regard to the synthetic hormones, zeranol and trenbolone, the 1995 EC Scientific Conference concluded that: "At the doses needed for growth promotion, residue levels [of trenbolone and zeranol] are well below the levels regarded as safe (the MRLs). There are, at present, no indications of a possible human health risk from the low levels of covalently-bound residues of trenbolone".

See Assessment of Health Risk - Working Group II", in 1995 EC Scientific Conference Proceedings, pp. 20-21.

<sup>10</sup> Council Directive 85/649/EEC of 31 December 1985 prohibiting the use in livestock faring of certain substances having hormonal action. *Official Journal of the European Communities*, L Series, No. 382, pp. 228-231.

The European Communities stressed, however, that these reports did not constitute the entire body of scientific knowledge on the issue of safe use of these hormones for growth promotion. There were also important studies made by individual scientists, and other

The EC Scientific Veterinary Committee gave its reaction to the Lamming Report on November 9, 1982, followed by the EC Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition on November 17, 1982 and by the EC Scientific Committee for Food on February 4, 1983. These Committees supported the conclusions and recommendations of the Lamming Report, but stressed the need to lay down provisions regarding the establishment of proper programmes to control and monitor the use of anabolic agents with regard, in particular, to instructions for use, surveillance programmes and analysis methods. In January 1984, the Commission asked a group of experts within the EC Scientific Committee on Anabolic Agents to review the information on trenbolone and zeranol. On June 12, 1984, the Commission published a proposal (COM(84)295 final) for a Council Directive amending Directive 81/602/EEC, which envisaged the controlled use of the three natural hormones for growth promotion purposes and proposed re-examining the ban on the two synthetic hormones after their scientific evaluation had been completed. However, the European Parliament, the EC Economic and Social Committee and the EC Council of Ministers

The EC Commission amended its proposal accordingly and on December 31, 1985 the EC Council adopted Directive 85/649/EEC10. This Directive banned the use of all the substances concerned for growth promotion purposes and established more detailed provisions concerning authorized therapeutic uses. Its preamble began by emphasizing that differing rules on hormone use in different member countries had distorted trade in the European market and that "[…] these distortions of competition and barriers to trade must

The Directive was challenged in the European Court of Justice, which annulled it on procedural grounds. The proposals were re-introduced by the EC Commission and readopted by the EC Council as Council Directive 88/146/EEC on March 7, 198811. This Directive extends the prohibition imposed by Directive 81/602/EEC to the administration to farm animals of trenbolone acetate and zeranol for any purpose, and oestradiol-17,

Due to an extensive first-pass metabolism, the bioavailability of ingested hormones is low, thus

With regard to the synthetic hormones, zeranol and trenbolone, the 1995 EC Scientific Conference concluded that: "At the doses needed for growth promotion, residue levels [of trenbolone and zeranol] are well below the levels regarded as safe (the MRLs). There are, at present, no indications of a possible

See Assessment of Health Risk - Working Group II", in 1995 EC Scientific Conference Proceedings, pp.

10 Council Directive 85/649/EEC of 31 December 1985 prohibiting the use in livestock faring of certain substances having hormonal action. *Official Journal of the European Communities*, L Series, No. 382, pp.

11 Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action. *Official Journal of the European Union*, L Series, No. 70, pp. 16-18.

human health risk from the low levels of covalently-bound residues of trenbolone".

specialized institutions like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

rejected the Commission's proposal.

therefore be removed […]".

providing a further safety margin".

20-21.

228-231.

testosterone and progesterone for fattening purposes. However, the Directive maintains the permission to administer these three natural hormones to animals for therapeutic and zootechnical purposes under prescribed conditions; in particular, therapeutic treatment is defined to mean the administering to an individual animal of any of the substances which are authorized to treat a fertility problem diagnosed on examination by a veterinarian. The products which are used for therapeutic treatment may be administered only by a veterinarian, in the form of an injection (to the exclusion of implantation) to farm animals which have been clearly identified. Such treatment must be registered by the veterinarian and these animals may not be slaughtered before expiry of the period fixed. In the case of animals at the end of their reproductive career, the treatments are prohibited from being administered during the fattening period following the end of their breeding life. Article 4 of Directive 88/146/EEC explicitly requires that undertakings in the EC member States producing the prohibited hormones, those companies authorized to market these hormones for whatever purposes and undertakings producing pharmaceutical and veterinary products based on those substances, must keep a detailed register recording (in chronological order) the quantities produced or acquired and those sold or used for the production of pharmaceutical and veterinary products. The importation from third countries of animals and meat from animals to which have been administered substances with thyrostatic, oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action is prohibited. However, under certain conditions, Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC allows trade in those animals and meat from those animals treated for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes, including imports from third countries.

Directive 88/299/EEC12 lays down the conditions for applying the derogations, provided for in Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC, from the prohibition on trade in certain categories of animals and their meat. The first derogation of the Directive requires EC member States to authorize trade in animals intended for reproduction and reproductive animals at the end of their career (and of meat of such animals) which, during their reproductive career, have undergone one of two categories of treatments. The first category is therapeutic treatment with one of the following substances: oestradiol-17, testosterone and progesterone; and those derivatives which readily yield the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application which appear in a list of approved products. The second category is the administration of substances having an oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action for synchronization of oestrus, termination of unwanted gestation, the improvement of fertility and the preparation of donors and recipients for the implantation of embryos, provided that the products in which they are contained appear on a list of approved products and with the respect of strict conditions of use concerning, in particular, the respect of the withdrawal period, the monitoring of those conditions of use and of the means of identification of the animals. In addition, Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive provide that trade between the EC member States of the European Communities in animals intended for reproduction and reproductive animals and meat from such animals is allowed only if all the conditions laid down in the Directive are respected, in particular as regards the waiting period and the requirement that animals have not received any of the above treatments with any of the

<sup>12</sup> Council Directive 88/299/EEC of 17 May 1988 on trade in animals treated with certain substances having a hormonal action and their meat, as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC*. Official Journal of the European Union*, Series L, No. 87, pp. 36-38.

Steroid Hormones in Food Producing Animals: Regulatory Situation in Europe 43

veterinarian; and reinforces the provisions on control and testing. Penalties and sanctions in case of violations are to be increased where checks detect the presence of prohibited

In Directive 96/23/EC measures are specified to control the ban16 (Passantino *et al*., 2001). The control should be performed by special, dedicated institutes. Analysis of the samples taken is performed by routine or field laboratories (RFLs). In each member state the RFLs are coordinated and controlled by at least one national reference laboratory (NRL)

Finally, the NRLs are supported, advised and controlled by four community reference laboratories (CRLs), which were designated in 1991 by the EU and implemented in 1993 (Stephany *et al*., 1994). Annually a residue monitoring programme must be made in which the results of the controls of the previous year and the targets for control in the new year are given. People working on the farms and veterinarians are made co-responsible for the control of the ban. Samples can be taken at production plants for banned substances and animal feeds, and at farms, slaughterhouses and butchers. There should be at least one national reference laboratory for every banned substance. Indications should be available for sampling and analysis. The main sanction on the use of banned substances is the destruction of the positive animals. The farmer has to pay for the additional controls that are performed. When meat is imported from third countries, it must also be controlled. When the products give a positive result the European Commission should be informed and additional controls are indicated. Eventually this could lead to a ban on the import from a certain country.

It is important underlines that the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH)17 of 30 April 1999 on potential adverse effects to human

16 A principal objective of Council Directive 96/23/EC is to detect illegal use of substances in animal production as well as detecting the misuse of authorized veterinary medicinal products. The Directive lays down measures requiring European Member States to monitor the substances and their residues in

In particular, this directive describes guidelines for residue control and divides all pharmacologically

· Group A compounds, which comprise prohibited substances (listed in the Directive 96/22/EC and in

· Group B compounds, which comprise substances with final and provisional MRLs (listed in Annexes I and III of the Regulation 2377/90/EC). See, Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. Official Journal

17 The United States and Canada contested the prohibition imposed by the European Communities on the import from third countries of treated animals with the hormones and, in 1997, a panel of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that the measure was not in line with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). The EU appealed against this ruling and, in 1998, the WTO Appellate Body reversed most of the findings of the panel. The WTO Appellate Body only upheld the finding that prohibition of imports of meat from hormone-treated animals to the EU did not comply with the requirement that such a measure should be based on a relevant assessment of the risks to human health. In reaction to these findings, the EU carried out a complementary risk assessment and mandated the Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) to evaluate the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat

both live animals and animal products, listed in Annex I to the Directive.

substances or products or residues of substances administered illegally.

designated by the national government.

active substances into two groups:

Annex IV of the Regulation 2377/90/EC);

of the European Union, L Series, No. 125, pp. 10-32.

products treated with six hormones for growth promotion.

above substances during the fattening period following the end of their breeding life. The EC stamp may be affixed to the meat only if the waiting time ended before the animals are slaughtered. The second derogation in Directive 88/299/EEC allows imports from third countries of treated animals and meat of such animals under guarantees equivalent to those for domestic animals and meat.

Following reports of significant use of illegal growth-promoting hormonal substances in a number of EC member States, on September 26, 1988 the European Parliament established a Committee of Enquiry into the Problem of Quality in the Meat Sector. The conclusions of this Committee were published in a document known as the "Pimenta Report", which recognized the ban on the use of hormones13. On March 29, 1989, the European Parliament adopted its recommendations to maintain and expand the ban.

The European Parliament adopted another report on the issue of use of hormones for animal growth promotion, the "Collins Report" of February 7, 198914. This report argued that: "Current licensing systems for the regulation of veterinary medicines (including at present, growth promoting products) require that a new product satisfy three criteria: safety, quality and efficacy. These criteria may well be satisfactory for therapeutic drugs. They are by no means sufficient for growth promoting products. For the latter it is proposed here that the Community's veterinary medicine licensing system be adapted to include a "fourth hurdle", entailing an objective socio-economic and environmental impact assessment". In the Commission's July 1988 draft proposals for the reform of veterinary medicine licensing in the Community this idea was accepted in principle. The final version of the proposals (December 1988) does not include this concept. It is clear, however, that the social, agricultural and environmental implications of the use of growth and yield promoting pharmaceuticals require a licensing system somewhat different from that which exists for these products when used for therapeutic purposes.

Directive 96/22/EC15 replaces Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC. It maintains the prohibition on the use of these hormones for growth promotion purposes; extends the prohibition on the use of beta-agonists; restricts the use of the hormones at issue for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes, reinforcing in particular the role of the

 13 The scientific conclusions regarding the use of natural hormones rested upon strict conditions of use which it believed could not in reality be attained. The Committee was of the opinion that use of the natural/nature-identical hormones carries the risk of inexperienced application, incorrect dosage and unsupervised injection which could pose a risk to the animal and the consumer, and also noted doubts with regard to long-term cumulative and interactive potential carcinogenicity. In addition, the Committee believed that proven necessity and socio-economic desirability should be criteria of acceptability for the use of (bio)chemical growth promoters in animal-rearing. In brief, the essential findings of the Pimenta Report were that the prohibition of hormonal substances for non-therapeutic (i.e. growth-promoting) purposes must be maintained and expanded.

<sup>14</sup> European Parliament, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, Report on "The USA's Refusal to comply with Community legislation on slaughterhouses and hormones and the consequences of this refusal", EP 128 381/B, 7 February 1989, named after its reporter Mr. Collins, MEP.

<sup>15</sup> Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/609/EEC, 88/146/ECC and 88/299/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 125, pp. 5-9.

above substances during the fattening period following the end of their breeding life. The EC stamp may be affixed to the meat only if the waiting time ended before the animals are slaughtered. The second derogation in Directive 88/299/EEC allows imports from third countries of treated animals and meat of such animals under guarantees equivalent to those

Following reports of significant use of illegal growth-promoting hormonal substances in a number of EC member States, on September 26, 1988 the European Parliament established a Committee of Enquiry into the Problem of Quality in the Meat Sector. The conclusions of this Committee were published in a document known as the "Pimenta Report", which recognized the ban on the use of hormones13. On March 29, 1989, the European Parliament

The European Parliament adopted another report on the issue of use of hormones for animal growth promotion, the "Collins Report" of February 7, 198914. This report argued that: "Current licensing systems for the regulation of veterinary medicines (including at present, growth promoting products) require that a new product satisfy three criteria: safety, quality and efficacy. These criteria may well be satisfactory for therapeutic drugs. They are by no means sufficient for growth promoting products. For the latter it is proposed here that the Community's veterinary medicine licensing system be adapted to include a "fourth hurdle", entailing an objective socio-economic and environmental impact assessment". In the Commission's July 1988 draft proposals for the reform of veterinary medicine licensing in the Community this idea was accepted in principle. The final version of the proposals (December 1988) does not include this concept. It is clear, however, that the social, agricultural and environmental implications of the use of growth and yield promoting pharmaceuticals require a licensing system somewhat different from that which exists for

Directive 96/22/EC15 replaces Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC. It maintains the prohibition on the use of these hormones for growth promotion purposes; extends the prohibition on the use of beta-agonists; restricts the use of the hormones at issue for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes, reinforcing in particular the role of the

13 The scientific conclusions regarding the use of natural hormones rested upon strict conditions of use which it believed could not in reality be attained. The Committee was of the opinion that use of the natural/nature-identical hormones carries the risk of inexperienced application, incorrect dosage and unsupervised injection which could pose a risk to the animal and the consumer, and also noted doubts with regard to long-term cumulative and interactive potential carcinogenicity. In addition, the Committee believed that proven necessity and socio-economic desirability should be criteria of acceptability for the use of (bio)chemical growth promoters in animal-rearing. In brief, the essential findings of the Pimenta Report were that the prohibition of hormonal substances for non-therapeutic

14 European Parliament, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, Report on "The USA's Refusal to comply with Community legislation on slaughterhouses and hormones and the consequences of this refusal", EP 128 381/B, 7 February 1989, named after its reporter

15 Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/609/EEC, 88/146/ECC and 88/299/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L

adopted its recommendations to maintain and expand the ban.

these products when used for therapeutic purposes.

(i.e. growth-promoting) purposes must be maintained and expanded.

Mr. Collins, MEP.

Series, No. 125, pp. 5-9.

for domestic animals and meat.

veterinarian; and reinforces the provisions on control and testing. Penalties and sanctions in case of violations are to be increased where checks detect the presence of prohibited substances or products or residues of substances administered illegally.

In Directive 96/23/EC measures are specified to control the ban16 (Passantino *et al*., 2001). The control should be performed by special, dedicated institutes. Analysis of the samples taken is performed by routine or field laboratories (RFLs). In each member state the RFLs are coordinated and controlled by at least one national reference laboratory (NRL) designated by the national government.

Finally, the NRLs are supported, advised and controlled by four community reference laboratories (CRLs), which were designated in 1991 by the EU and implemented in 1993 (Stephany *et al*., 1994). Annually a residue monitoring programme must be made in which the results of the controls of the previous year and the targets for control in the new year are given. People working on the farms and veterinarians are made co-responsible for the control of the ban. Samples can be taken at production plants for banned substances and animal feeds, and at farms, slaughterhouses and butchers. There should be at least one national reference laboratory for every banned substance. Indications should be available for sampling and analysis. The main sanction on the use of banned substances is the destruction of the positive animals. The farmer has to pay for the additional controls that are performed. When meat is imported from third countries, it must also be controlled. When the products give a positive result the European Commission should be informed and additional controls are indicated. Eventually this could lead to a ban on the import from a certain country.

It is important underlines that the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH)17 of 30 April 1999 on potential adverse effects to human

17 The United States and Canada contested the prohibition imposed by the European Communities on the import from third countries of treated animals with the hormones and, in 1997, a panel of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that the measure was not in line with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). The EU appealed against this ruling and, in 1998, the WTO Appellate Body reversed most of the findings of the panel. The WTO Appellate Body only upheld the finding that prohibition of imports of meat from hormone-treated animals to the EU did not comply with the requirement that such a measure should be based on a relevant assessment of the risks to human health. In reaction to these findings, the EU carried out a complementary risk assessment and mandated the Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) to evaluate the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products treated with six hormones for growth promotion.

<sup>16</sup> A principal objective of Council Directive 96/23/EC is to detect illegal use of substances in animal production as well as detecting the misuse of authorized veterinary medicinal products. The Directive lays down measures requiring European Member States to monitor the substances and their residues in both live animals and animal products, listed in Annex I to the Directive.

In particular, this directive describes guidelines for residue control and divides all pharmacologically active substances into two groups:

<sup>·</sup> Group A compounds, which comprise prohibited substances (listed in the Directive 96/22/EC and in Annex IV of the Regulation 2377/90/EC);

<sup>·</sup> Group B compounds, which comprise substances with final and provisional MRLs (listed in Annexes I and III of the Regulation 2377/90/EC). See, Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 125, pp. 10-32.

Steroid Hormones in Food Producing Animals: Regulatory Situation in Europe 45

In relation to the five other hormones (testosterone, progesterone, TBA, zeranol, and MGA) Directive 2003/74/EC continues to apply the prohibition contained in Directive 96/22/EC,

This Directive specifies that, even though the scientific information available showed the existence of risks associated with these substances, "the current state of knowledge does not make it possible to give a quantitative estimate of the risk to consumers"23. Accordingly, the prohibition of these five hormones should apply "while the Community seeks more complete scientific information from any source, which could shed light and clarify the gaps

On 27 October 2003, the European Communities notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the adoption, publication, and entry into force of Directive 2003/74/EC, as well as the 1999, 2000, and 2002 Opinions, which it considered to be risk assessments that sufficiently justified the permanent and provisional import prohibitions under the *SPS Agreement* 

The latter use has to be phased out by until 14 October 2006 and for the rest of the uses the

The report was presented on 11 October 2005 to Council and Parliament. It comes to the conclusion that the use of the alternative substances such as prostaglandins is already

Veterinarians predict an insignificant impact of future unavailability of oestradiol 17β and its ester like derivates on farmers and on animal welfare. It was moreover observed that the unavailability of oestradiol and its ester like derivates would have minimal economic effect. This is because the incidence of fetal mummification and fetal maceration is low, and although the incidence of pyometra is higher, methods of prevention not involving use of

Article 11a of Council Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Council Directive 2003/74/EC requires the presentation of a report on the necessity of the use of the hormone oestradiol 17β in food animal production. A report concerning the availability of alternative veterinary medicinal products to those containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives for the treatment of fetal maceration or mummification in cattle, and for the treatment of pyometra prepared (later addressed as the Report) by an independent scientist has been presented by the Commission in October 200626. The Report concludes that oestradiol 17β is not essential

21 Directive 2003/74/EC, supra, footnote 20, Recital 10 and Article 1 (amending Articles 2 and 3 of

25 European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS26/22, WT/DS48/20, 28 October 2003. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2003/november/tradoc\_114641.pdf Accessed August 23, 2011. 26 See, Report concerning the availability of alternative veterinary medicinal products to those containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives for the treatment of fetal maceration or

(Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)25.

but on a provisional basis22.

common.

in the present state of knowledge of these substances"24.

Commission was to present a report in October 2005.

oestradiol do exist and would be preferable.

23 Directive 2003/74/EC, supra, footnote 20, Recital 7.

in food animal production.

Directive 96/22/EC).

24 Ibid., Recital 10.

22 Ibid.

health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products (which was reviewed on 3 May 2000 and confirmed on 10 April 200218) established that there is a substantial body of recent evidence suggesting that oestradiol 17ß has to be considered as a complete carcinogen, as it exerts both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects, and that the data currently available do not make it possible to give a quantitative estimate of the risk to human health19.

In the light of the conclusions of the 1999, 2000, and 2002 Opinions, the European Communities adopted Directive 2003/74/EC20, which amends Directive 96/22/EC in relation to the prohibition permanently of the use of hormones in stockfarming.

Directive 2003/74/EC maintains the permanent prohibition of the placing on the market of meat and meat products from animals treated with oestradiol-17β for growth-promotion purposes originally contained in Directive 96/22/EC21.

On 10 April 2002, a second review of the 1999 Opinion was issued by the SCVPH (the "2002 Opinion") on the basis of more recent scientific data collected since the previous review. The scientific data reviewed by the SCVPH included the final results of all 17 studies that had been commissioned by the European Commission. Publishing its third opinion on the risks to human health from hormone residues in beef products, the SCVPH found no reason to change its previous opinions of 1999 and 2000.

*See*, Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on "Assessment of potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products, adopted on 30 April 1999. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out21\_en.pdf Accessed August 19, 2011.

See also Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on "Review of specific documents relating to the SCVPH opinion of 30 April 1999 on the potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products", adopted on 3 May 2000, and on "Review of specific documents relating to the SCVPH opinion of 30 April 1999 and 3 May 2000 on the potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products", adopted on 10 April 2002. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out50\_en.pdf Accessed August 19, 2011.

19 In this context, it is important underlines that Article 168 of the Treaty establishing the European Union (EU) states that a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all EU policies and activities. A comprehensive body of EU legislation has been put in place to achieve this objective. All of this legislation is publicly available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/en/index.htm Accessed August 23, 2011.

20 Directive 2003/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists. Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 262, pp. 17-21.

 18 The EU Scientific Committee confirmed that the use of hormones as growth promoters for cattle poses a potential health risk to consumers, following a review of 17 studies and other recent scientific data.

Subsequent to the adoption of the 1999 Opinion, additional scientific information was made available to the European Commission in the form of scientific studies conducted by: (i) the United Kingdom's Veterinary Products Committee sub-group on the 1999 Opinion (October 1999); (ii) the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products ("CVMP") of the European Union (a subcommittee of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)) (December 1999); and (iii) the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives ("JECFA") (February 2000). At the request of the European Commission, the SCVPH examined this scientific information and, on 3 May 2000, issued a review of its 1999 Opinion in which it declined to alter the conclusions contained therein (the "2000 Opinion").

In relation to the five other hormones (testosterone, progesterone, TBA, zeranol, and MGA) Directive 2003/74/EC continues to apply the prohibition contained in Directive 96/22/EC, but on a provisional basis22.

This Directive specifies that, even though the scientific information available showed the existence of risks associated with these substances, "the current state of knowledge does not make it possible to give a quantitative estimate of the risk to consumers"23. Accordingly, the prohibition of these five hormones should apply "while the Community seeks more complete scientific information from any source, which could shed light and clarify the gaps in the present state of knowledge of these substances"24.

On 27 October 2003, the European Communities notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the adoption, publication, and entry into force of Directive 2003/74/EC, as well as the 1999, 2000, and 2002 Opinions, which it considered to be risk assessments that sufficiently justified the permanent and provisional import prohibitions under the *SPS Agreement*  (Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)25.

The latter use has to be phased out by until 14 October 2006 and for the rest of the uses the Commission was to present a report in October 2005.

The report was presented on 11 October 2005 to Council and Parliament. It comes to the conclusion that the use of the alternative substances such as prostaglandins is already common.

Veterinarians predict an insignificant impact of future unavailability of oestradiol 17β and its ester like derivates on farmers and on animal welfare. It was moreover observed that the unavailability of oestradiol and its ester like derivates would have minimal economic effect. This is because the incidence of fetal mummification and fetal maceration is low, and although the incidence of pyometra is higher, methods of prevention not involving use of oestradiol do exist and would be preferable.

Article 11a of Council Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Council Directive 2003/74/EC requires the presentation of a report on the necessity of the use of the hormone oestradiol 17β in food animal production. A report concerning the availability of alternative veterinary medicinal products to those containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives for the treatment of fetal maceration or mummification in cattle, and for the treatment of pyometra prepared (later addressed as the Report) by an independent scientist has been presented by the Commission in October 200626. The Report concludes that oestradiol 17β is not essential in food animal production.

44 A Bird's-Eye View of Veterinary Medicine

health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products (which was reviewed on 3 May 2000 and confirmed on 10 April 200218) established that there is a substantial body of recent evidence suggesting that oestradiol 17ß has to be considered as a complete carcinogen, as it exerts both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects, and that the data currently available do not make it possible to give a quantitative estimate of the risk to human health19. In the light of the conclusions of the 1999, 2000, and 2002 Opinions, the European Communities adopted Directive 2003/74/EC20, which amends Directive 96/22/EC in

Directive 2003/74/EC maintains the permanent prohibition of the placing on the market of meat and meat products from animals treated with oestradiol-17β for growth-promotion

18 The EU Scientific Committee confirmed that the use of hormones as growth promoters for cattle poses a potential health risk to consumers, following a review of 17 studies and other recent scientific

Subsequent to the adoption of the 1999 Opinion, additional scientific information was made available to the European Commission in the form of scientific studies conducted by: (i) the United Kingdom's Veterinary Products Committee sub-group on the 1999 Opinion (October 1999); (ii) the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products ("CVMP") of the European Union (a subcommittee of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)) (December 1999); and (iii) the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives ("JECFA") (February 2000). At the request of the European Commission, the SCVPH examined this scientific information and, on 3 May 2000, issued a review of its 1999 Opinion in which it

On 10 April 2002, a second review of the 1999 Opinion was issued by the SCVPH (the "2002 Opinion") on the basis of more recent scientific data collected since the previous review. The scientific data reviewed by the SCVPH included the final results of all 17 studies that had been commissioned by the European Commission. Publishing its third opinion on the risks to human health from hormone residues in beef products, the SCVPH found no reason to change its previous

*See*, Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on "Assessment of potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat

See also Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on "Review of specific documents relating to the SCVPH opinion of 30 April 1999 on the potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products", adopted on 3 May 2000, and on "Review of specific documents relating to the SCVPH opinion of 30 April 1999 and 3 May 2000 on the potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products", adopted on 10 April 2002. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out50\_en.pdf Accessed

19 In this context, it is important underlines that Article 168 of the Treaty establishing the European Union (EU) states that a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all EU policies and activities. A comprehensive body of EU legislation has been put in place to achieve this objective. All of this legislation is publicly available at http://eur-

20 Directive 2003/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists. Official Journal of the European Union, L

relation to the prohibition permanently of the use of hormones in stockfarming.

purposes originally contained in Directive 96/22/EC21.

declined to alter the conclusions contained therein (the "2000 Opinion").

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/out21\_en.pdf Accessed August 19, 2011.

data.

opinions of 1999 and 2000.

August 19, 2011.

Series, No. 262, pp. 17-21.

products, adopted on 30 April 1999. Available at

lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm Accessed August 23, 2011.

 <sup>21</sup> Directive 2003/74/EC, supra, footnote 20, Recital 10 and Article 1 (amending Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 96/22/EC).

<sup>22</sup> Ibid.

<sup>23</sup> Directive 2003/74/EC, supra, footnote 20, Recital 7.

<sup>24</sup> Ibid., Recital 10.

<sup>25</sup> European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), Communication from the European Communities, WT/DS26/22, WT/DS48/20, 28 October 2003. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2003/november/tradoc\_114641.pdf Accessed August 23, 2011. 26 See, Report concerning the availability of alternative veterinary medicinal products to those containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives for the treatment of fetal maceration or

Steroid Hormones in Food Producing Animals: Regulatory Situation in Europe 47

progesterone, trenbolone acetate and zeranol) and two hormones as feed additives: melengestrol acetate (MGA) for feedlot heifers30 (Berende & Ruitenberg, 1983; Meissonnier

As aforementioned, the hormone ban of the EU is currently the cause of a dispute between the EU and these third countries, led by the United States and Canada. The reason for this dispute is that those countries want to export meat to EU nations from animals treated with in their view acceptable hormones. In their opinion the EU blocks international trade on

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the largest national group of cattle producers, has long opposed the EU's ban on imports of U.S. hormone-treated beef, claiming that the ban is scientifically unjustified and fails to satisfy the EU's WTO requirements under the SPS. Similar concerns have been expressed by other U.S. farm groups, including American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the Animal Health Institute (AHI), and the American Meat Institute (AMI)31. Many trade analysts believe that the United States has a strong case against the hormone ban under WTO rules that require SPS restrictions to be based on risk assessment and to have a scientific justification. These various interest groups have continued to exert pressure on U.S. trade policy officials to

Recently, On May 13, 2009, following a series of negotiations, the United States and the EU signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) implementing an agreement that could resolve this long standing dispute32. On July 13, 2009, the EC adopted regulations opening a

Currently Council Directive 2008/97/EC34 has been published amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stock farming of certain substances

to fill in the gaps". Accordingly, the United States claims, the EU's 2003 update to its hormone ban is

For more detailed discussion see USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service, Historic Overview and Chronology of EU's Hormone Ban, GAIN Report E23206, Nov. 7, 2003, available at http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200311/145986773.pdf Accessed August 26, 2011; USDA, FAS, EU Presentation on Hormone Ban Directive (2003/74/EC), GAIN Report E23217, Nov. 13, 2003, available at

30 http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm

31 See, "Coalition Statement on EU's Latest Pronouncement on Hormones," May 14, 2002 by AFBF, AHI, AMI, and NCBA, Available at http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/sp/i/1482/pid/1482 Accessed

32 For other information, see WTO, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat And Meat Products (Hormones), Joint Communication from the European Communities and the United States, WT/DS26/28, September 30, 2009; 74 Federal Register 40864, August 13, 2009; 74 Federal Register

33 Council Regulations (EC) No 617/2009 of 13 July 2009 opening an autonomous tariff quota for

34 Directive 2008/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances

& Mitchell-Vigneron, 1983) and ractopamine for swine (Marchant Forde *et al.*, 2003).

improper grounds and against international law.

hold to their position regarding the EU's meat hormone ban.

**4. Existing community legislation** 

48808, September 24, 2009; and USTR press releases.

Accessed August 23, 2011.

August 23, 2011.

tariff quota for imports of High Quality Beef, effective August 1, 200933

not in compliance with its WTO obligations and should be discontinued.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200311/145986807.pdf Accessed August 26, 2011.

imports of high-quality beef. Official Journal of the European Union, L series, No. 182, 1..
