# CE2004084EN.01039101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/391

---

(2004/C 84 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

Subject:

In his answer to my question E-1601/03 (1) of 30 June 2003, David Byrne, the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, stated: ‘Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) (the extended feed ban), implemented by Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (3), both last amended by Commission Decision 2002/248/EC (4), aims at preventing cattle from being exposed to ruminant meat-and-bone meal, potentially contaminated with prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It is a crucial tool in the control and eradication of BSE in cattle and therefore necessary to guarantee safe beef. Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is a matter of control. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Preliminary results of a recent ring trial indicate that it is difficult to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the present detection method. However, by modifying the microscopic test, an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins may become available on short term. [...] appropriate validated analytical methods to differentiate ruminant proteins from proteins of other species are not yet available and the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is still reporting deficiencies in the control of the feed ban. The Commission is aware that the conditions to use fishmeal in non-ruminant feed have presented difficulties, resulting in a reduction of the market for fishmeal in non-ruminant animal nutrition since 2001. The proposal aims to simplify some of the conditions for using fishmeal. A step-by-step lifting of the feed ban on a prudent and scientifically justified basis may be considered in the light of development of analytical tests over the next six to twelve months.’

1

2

3

4

Can the Commission state whether it has already modified the microscopic test and whether an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins is or will shortly be available?

If this is the case, can the Commission confirm whether it has begun or intends (if so, when?) to begin to lift the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed?

Is the Commission aware of the social and economic damage to the Community's fishmeal industry as a result of this temporary restriction, and what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ease these ill-effects?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

(23 March 2004)

Commission Directive 2003/126/EC of 23 December 2003 on the analytical method for the determination of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feeding stuffs (5), introduces modifications to the microscopic tests allowing the detection of small amounts of potentially Transmissible Songiform Encephalopathy (TSE) infected proteins in feed containing fishmeal. Member States are to implement the Directive by 1 July 2004.

5

In the meantime, the Commission's Joint Research Centre is carrying out ring trials to verify the competence of laboratories in the current and new Member States to carry out these controls with this modified method. The results should be available in June 2004. If the results of these ring trials are favourable, a review of the measures on fishmeal will be considered.

As to subsidies or compensation, a detailed analysis of the Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance (FIFG) Regulation shows that the fishmeal and oil processing industry is in general not eligible for public support. The Council has considered that the FIFG's limited resources should be dedicated to rationalising the fishing industry and reducing its impact on marine ecosystems. Regarding support to investment in processing, Point 2.4 of Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (6) specifies that ‘investments shall not be eligible for assistance where they concern: ... fishery and aquaculture products intended to be used and processed for purposes other than human consumption, with the exception of investments exclusively for the treatment, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture wastes;’.

6

As for financial compensation for cessation of activities or other financial compensation, the relevant Article 16 — temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensations, only applies to ‘fishermen and owners of vessels’. It should be stressed that through the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (7), the Council agreed to delete from paragraph 1 (c) of Article 16 the possibility to grant financial compensation to the processing industry in general ‘where it depends for its supply on a resource covered by a recovery plan and where imports cannot compensate for the reduced suppply’.

7

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 51.

1

(2)  OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.

2

(3)  OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 32.

3

(4)  OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 71.

4

(5)  OJ L 339, 24.12.2003.

5

(6)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

6

(7)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

7

---