Verbatim report of proceedings

Friday, 20 September 1996 - Strasbourg

5. Protection against specified zoonoses

  President . – The next item is the report (A4‐0237/96) by Mr Martinez, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Directive (COM(95)0491 – C4‐0527/95‐95/0255(CNS)) amending Directive 92/117/EEC concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food‐borne infections and intoxications.

  Martinez (NI), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, the subject is much less prominent, clearly, than bioethics: we are being asked to amend a few details within the framework of a 1992 Directive. So what we have here is an insignificant text in an agonizing context.

To start with, there were only the conventional zoonoses – diseases that can be transmitted from animals to man, through viruses or parasites or bacteria, the most important case being that of salmonellosis and listeriosis, illnesses associated with temperatures of 38.5° in man and occurring regularly in public catering or similar activities.

It is in this modest though not negligible context that we now have to consider the matter of BSE – bovine spongiform encephalopathy – which has changed everything. I understand that the Committee on Agriculture, in its great wisdom, felt that the watchword should be caution. No one knew whether BSE was or was not transmissible to man, but when in doubt it was necessary to assume the worst in order to protect the consumer – in other words to act as if it was transmissible. And there were good arguments in favour of this. The species barrier had been crossed in the case of cats, in the case of ostriches – including those on the European Commission – and in the case of antelopes, indeed in the case of about forty species. It was hard to see how the human barrier might not have been crossed. The Committee on Agriculture took evidence from, in particular, Heino Diringer, head of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, and Heino Diringer said to the Committee on Agriculture last February, ’I must warn Europe's health authorities that there is every reason to think that the virus or virion or prion crosses the human barrier’.

In one sense, then, we have weakness on the part of Europe's health authorities. In another sense, no doubt to help them to forget their weakness, they leapt from Charybdis to Scylla by going so far as to call for the culling of the entire British stock of cattle, which was ridiculous because it was known that transmission was either oral or parenteral but not horizontal. The disease is not pasteurian, it is not transmitted from one animal to another even if the two rub against each other. Consequently, I entirely understand the British government's position as regards the scientific arguments.

The fact remains that there were two lessons to be learnt. First, there were legal lessons. There is a principle of international law, which in fact is now a principle of national law, deriving from a whole series of conventions, a principle of environmental law: the polluter pays. Well, if the polluter pays, then the poisoner pays too, and Mulder Brothers of Doncaster in Yorkshire who manufactured the contaminated feeds should pay! That is one of the basic principles.

Then there were political lessons, starting with the lesson of health policy. We had a state of complete chaos among Community authorities, who went so far as to come up with a magical, irrational solution – a kind of scapecow – comprising the slaughter of 11.2 million British cows, a pile of corpses which if placed one on top of the other would tower 11 kilometres high, higher than the Himalaya, or if laid end to end would stretch half way round the world. This says something about the level of confusion reached within the Commission. The problem was to get rid of the meals, not to get rid of the cattle!

There is another political lesson, too: the illusory character of Community protection. Yesterday, we heard the Director of Health at DG VI tell us – in words that alarmed even the pro‐Europeans: ’We didn't know. For five years we were doubtful, we thought the disease was incubating. That's why we didn't do anything.’ Then we heard all the Commissioners say in reply, ’But surely, you must have done something.’ To which he followed up with ‚No we didn't, we didn't know, it was incubating so we did nothing.’

Alongside these legal and political lessons there are lessons to be learnt about agricultural policy. It is intensive farming that has produced this irrational situation. And perhaps we should now be thinking not in terms of anachronisms or nonsensical drivel but in terms of a more biological agriculture, viewed from the standpoint of labels. A giant organization like the National Federation of Farming Unions in France believes that, today, talk of biological agriculture is no longer just folklore.

Finally, there is one last point which the Committee of Inquiry is very delicately coming round to, a problem of strategic policy: who has benefited from the mad cow business? Hasn't the American soya market picked up as a result? May not the strategic conflict between the European continent and the United States on hormone‐fed meat offer an explanation, perhaps a partial explanation, of the irrational and media‐hyped course of this affair?

So, Madam President, on the basis of a modest text, there are a few developments which may result in strategic problems.

  Glase (PPE). – (DE) In view of the pressure of time, I shall forego my speaking time, though I would ask that what I have to say should be taken as an explanation of vote.

  Crepaz (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the mere suspicion that BSE – mad cow disease – is transmissible to man has caused the virtual collapse of the European beef market. Restoring consumer confidence is costing billions of ECUs from public funds. BSE has plunged the European Union into a deep political crisis. For months on end the British government has been crippling the Council, and it is going to go on doing so. The British government played down the risks of the possible transmissibility of BSE to man for many years, and it now transpires that the Commission, too, was a party to this conspiracy of silence.

It would be nice to think that the Commission has learnt something, but obviously this is not the case. I put a question to you, Commissioner, about the so‐called bovine AIDS, a BIV virus which, like the HIV virus, belongs to the retrovirus group. In your answer, Commissioner, you told me that this disease has occurred on one farm in the United Kingdom. But in the very next paragraph of your answer you refer to a world‐wide spreading of the BIV virus. And then you go on to tell me – and I quote – on good authority that BIV and the other retroviruses found in animals have no effect on human health. According to my information, there is a strong suspicion that HIV viruses were transmitted from apes to man. But it would be misleading – your word, Commissioner, misleading – to talk about congenital immunodeficiency, in other words AIDS, because this disease does not result in AIDS‐type symptoms. At the same time, though, you say that further studies are needed to enable the Commission to assess the importance of this BIV virus.

Your line of argument here has a familiar ring to me. We heard exactly the same kind of argument for years about BSE. The Commission is now confronted by the shattered remnants of European agriculture. The Commission must take immediate action to ensure that the ‚polluter pays’ principle applies in agriculture, too. And the Commission must also acknowledge that the plague‐like spread of zoonoses is encouraged by intensive agriculture – that intensive agriculture which the EU subsidizes with half its budget.

  Santini (UPE). – (IT) Madam President, I wish to make clear straightaway that I do not mean any disrespect to honourable Members who were more interested in bioethics but, as the rapporteur, Mr Martinez, has properly stressed, this report which seemed destined to interest only veterinarians or a very few others, it is of very great interest and, above all, hugely topical, with the explosion of BSE and its discussion by the committee of inquiry.

We met yesterday for four hours with the committee of inquiry into BSE, and it was actually during those proceedings that gaps emerged, new concerns justifying continued discussion of the report, given that, of the some 200 zoonoses currently being studied in Europe, I would say the BSE is still by far the least well‐understood, not only because of the effects it may have on man and therefore the possibility that it might trigger the notorious Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease but also because of its effects on the animals themselves.

This report therefore constitutes another reason for investigating further at a time of great concern for Europe, in the wake of the information Commissioner Fischler gave us even today. This is not therefore a report of lesser importance than others; it is not an opportunity to waste time. It is a further call for a greater concentration of commitment and effort, for greater determination to tackle this with transparency and clarity but, above all, by making available adequate resources.

We learnt yesterday that, during the bad years of the so‐called ‚black hole’ in the fight against BSE, when, after the alarm was raised, practically nothing or very little was done to try to understand the causes or find remedies, we did not have the resources to organize the teams of inspectors, to pay their subsistence, to approach renowned scientists and ask them to help explain the epidemic. That is cause for concern! If that is what has happened in the case of one of the 200 zoonoses at this time, what can we say about the others which have hitherto been studied in part only?

I would say that the main concern continues to be the same: first of all, the health of citizens, then, in second place, protecting the market. But is specifically on account of citizens' health that we are concerned about the information emerging from scientific studies. It is said that it is not really certain that BSE or other zoonoses can affect the health of citizens and influence Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease. Well, if the scientists lack the courage or are cautiously taking refuge behind the data that science makes available to them, statistics are unintentionally more forthcoming: the fact is that in the first four months of this year – to avoid inundating you with figures, I shall quote only certain statistics relating to this development – Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease has claimed two victims in France, three in Italy, one in Germany and eleven in the United Kingdom. And is there anyone who still dares to say that it may be that BSE does not affect man; that it may have nothing to do with that kind of disease? Is there anyone who will tell us further, Madam President, that BSE cannot be a negative factor in other forms of disease as yet unknown to us?

That is why it is right to be concerned; it is right that this debate should be taking place, and I promise, as a penance, to sit through the whole of the debate on biotechnology or bioethics.

  Fischler , Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, I really would like to do my bit to keep things short. But I must make one thing clear: the reason why the Commission is rejecting Mr Martinez's amendments is not because we were not interested in the best possible data on BSE but because accepting them would mean that the quality of information would deteriorate. The frequency and detail of the information on BSE is, in fact, higher at present than it would be if the amendment were adopted. In addition, I should like to say this to Mrs Crepaz: I shall be very happy to explain to her, outside this sitting, how things stand with the BIV virus, because what she had to say made it clear to me that there are certain gaps in her knowledge.

  President . – Thank you very much.

The debate is closed.

We shall now proceed to the vote.

Explanations of vote

  Klaß (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The purpose of Directive 92/117/EEC is to create a reliable system for reporting the occurrence of zoonoses. By zoonoses we mean infectious diseases in animals which can be directly or indirectly transmitted to man. This Directive needs to be reviewed, because the prevention and control of zoonoses have become enormously more important in recent years. Until this review has been concluded, the Commission proposes that the current implementation period should be extended.

In Mr Martinez's report, the Committee on Agriculture favours this extension. The rapporteur also proposes that mad cow disease, BSE, should be added to the list of zoonoses in a new article as a potential zoonosis. These proposals were accepted by the Committee on Agriculture.

As the spokesman for the EPP Group, I should like to support this proposal. When the first cases of BSE occurred in 1986, very little was known about this disease. The origin was suspected to be scrapie in sheep. No one would have guessed at that time that this illness might, indirectly, represent a hazard to man. When a new variant of Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease was identified in March this year, suspicion that BSE might be transmissible to man hardened. Despite intensive research, however, no scientific proof of this has yet been produced.

Since then, European agriculture has been facing its most severe crisis to date. Consumer confidence has been replaced by widespread mistrust. The beef market has virtually collapsed in extensive areas of the European Union. Many farmers, not to mention operators of slaughterhouses and meat businesses, are facing ruin. The most extreme reaction among consumers has occurred, primarily, in countries where there have been no cases of BSE at all.

What we need now, apart from financial support for farmers, are measures to restore confidence and get sales moving again. We need effective controls and an obligatory Union‐wide labelling system for meat, so that the consumer can identify the region from which the meat comes. We need arrangements to guarantee origin, such as already exist in Germany.

By including BSE in Directive 92/117/EEC as a potential zoonosis, the European Parliament is encouraging the systematic recording of this disease. This will help to win back the confidence of Europe's citizens in beef.

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I am voting for the amendments in the Martinez report but should nevertheless like to state my objection to the erroneous statements made in the section on bread.

As far as what is described as ‚Scandinavian fundamentalism as regards salmonella’ is concerned, one can only say that before Sweden became a Member of the EU we had more or less eradicated salmonella in Sweden, while our Scandinavian neighbour Denmark had a relatively high incidence of salmonella in its chickens. I doubt whether this difference resulted from differences in the degree of fear of the infection or in the number of precautionary hygiene measures or health requirements. The reason is more likely to have been that we were able to impose strict border controls and that we had limited use of antibiotics in animal fodder.

  Wibe (PSE), in writing. – (SV) I never believed that in a public parliamentary report Sweden's concern for public health and our successful battle against salmonella would be described as ‚Scandinavian fundamentalism as regards salmonella’. The rapporteur also more or less accuses people in Northern Europe of being hypochondriacs where salmonella is concerned.

There are many theories as to why the number of cases of salmonella increases as one moves away from the Mediterranean towards Scandinavia. For my part I believe that this is because of stricter health inspections and adequate medical care which mean that all cases of salmonella infection in Scandinavia are treated. I do not believe that health inspections and medical care are as good in the Mediterranean region.

Members of the European Parliament should obviously distance themselves from the downright scandalous comments by the rapporteur in the section of his report entitled ‚Different cultural perceptions of zoonoses’; such comments have no place in official reports.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)