# CE2004088EN.01062801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/628 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/628

---

(2004/C 88 E/0646)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2697/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Anomalies in the customs treatment of, and health requirements applied to, imported chicken and turkey

Subject:

The Commission has been informed on several occasions of anomalies in the customs and health requirements for imported chicken and turkey, in that lightly salted or processed meat avoids the imposition of Community tariff 0207, which is supposed to be applied to all frozen poultry meat.

This continuing ambiguous situation is causing substantial damage to Italian (and European) producers, who are being adversely affected by unfair trading practices, and considerable risks for consumers, who are not adequately protected against livestock rearing and health practices which fall short of European standards.

This being so,

| 1. | Would the Commission publish the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on consignments of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil for the purpose of checking that it did not contain nitrofuran and that no animal flours that failed to meet Community standards had been used in those countries in the production of livestock for export to Europe? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would the Commission publish the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on consignments of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil for the purpose of checking that it did not contain nitrofuran and that no animal flours that failed to meet Community standards had been used in those countries in the production of livestock for export to Europe?

| 2. | Would the Commission inform Parliament of any measures taken to prevent possible abuses in connection with livestock production in those countries, or unfair trading practices by importers taking advantage of the anomalous tariffs imposed by certain European customs authorities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the Commission inform Parliament of any measures taken to prevent possible abuses in connection with livestock production in those countries, or unfair trading practices by importers taking advantage of the anomalous tariffs imposed by certain European customs authorities?

| 3. | What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the correct and uniform application throughout the Union of the correct consolidated tariff applicable to all frozen meat imported into Europe, which is already applied in Germany? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the correct and uniform application throughout the Union of the correct consolidated tariff applicable to all frozen meat imported into Europe, which is already applied in Germany?

Any delay in the application of such measures would cause further unjustifiable damage to European producers, some of whom have already suffered irreparable damage.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

| 1. | As regards publication of the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on importation, it should be noted that import controls fall entirely within the competence of the Member States. In general terms, Member States are not required to take samples of every import consignment for laboratory analyses, nor are they required to publish the results or inform the Commission of them. Only when a risk is identified during these controls are Member States obliged to inform the other Member States and the Commission via the Union's rapid alert system (RASFF). The Commission then informs the country of origin. In the case of nitrofuran contamination of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil, specific Commission Decisions applied, under which Member States were required to check each consignment of poultry meat imported from these countries for the presence of nitrofurans and to notify the Commission of the results via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore, by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection.
  The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with vegetable proteins such as soya. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As regards publication of the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on importation, it should be noted that import controls fall entirely within the competence of the Member States. In general terms, Member States are not required to take samples of every import consignment for laboratory analyses, nor are they required to publish the results or inform the Commission of them. Only when a risk is identified during these controls are Member States obliged to inform the other Member States and the Commission via the Union's rapid alert system (RASFF). The Commission then informs the country of origin. In the case of nitrofuran contamination of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil, specific Commission Decisions applied, under which Member States were required to check each consignment of poultry meat imported from these countries for the presence of nitrofurans and to notify the Commission of the results via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore, by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection.

The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with vegetable proteins such as soya.

| 2. and 3. | The Commission is aware that the customs authorities in some Member States have classified large quantities of chicken meat imported into the Community as salted meat under tariff heading 0210 when the meat in question was in fact frozen chicken meat with salt added in quantities too small to preserve it. This meat properly belongs under heading 0207 (frozen poultry meat) since it can be kept for a long time only because it is frozen.
  The very different rates of customs duty attached to these two these headings, and the fact that, in some third countries, production costs are much lower than in Europe, mean that the practice has indeed had a serious effect on European poultry producers.
  The Commission responded to the differing interpretations given to the classification rules by adopting appropriate legislative measures in July 2002, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) requiring that the meat be classified as frozen poultry meat under heading 0207 and Commission Decision 2003/97/EC of 31 January 2003 (2) calling on the German customs administration to withdraw a number of binding tariff information notices classifying the products in question as salted meat under heading 0210.
  The Commission assures the Honourable Member that the relevant Commission departments are constantly monitoring this matter and that, by adopting new regulations or amending notes, the Commission would take whatever action was necessary if it became apparent that the measures already adopted were not effective in ensuring that tariff classifications were correctly and uniformly applied. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

The Commission is aware that the customs authorities in some Member States have classified large quantities of chicken meat imported into the Community as salted meat under tariff heading 0210 when the meat in question was in fact frozen chicken meat with salt added in quantities too small to preserve it. This meat properly belongs under heading 0207 (frozen poultry meat) since it can be kept for a long time only because it is frozen.

The very different rates of customs duty attached to these two these headings, and the fact that, in some third countries, production costs are much lower than in Europe, mean that the practice has indeed had a serious effect on European poultry producers.

The Commission responded to the differing interpretations given to the classification rules by adopting appropriate legislative measures in July 2002, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) requiring that the meat be classified as frozen poultry meat under heading 0207 and Commission Decision 2003/97/EC of 31 January 2003 (2) calling on the German customs administration to withdraw a number of binding tariff information notices classifying the products in question as salted meat under heading 0210.

1

2

The Commission assures the Honourable Member that the relevant Commission departments are constantly monitoring this matter and that, by adopting new regulations or amending notes, the Commission would take whatever action was necessary if it became apparent that the measures already adopted were not effective in ensuring that tariff classifications were correctly and uniformly applied.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, OJ L 179, 9.7.2002.

1

(2)  OJ L 36, 12.2.2003.

2

---