Overall summary report on the results of inspections in the field of animal nutrition carried out by the Member States in 2001

(2003/C 30/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. Introduction

Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995(1) fixes the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition. In accordance with Article 22(2) of that Directive, Member States shall transmit to the Commission before 1 April 2002 all the relevant information concerning the following controls in the field of animal nutrition:

- the implementation of the programmes setting out the national measures to be taken for the year 2001,

- the implementation of the coordinated monitoring programmes for the year 2001, as provided for in the Commission Recommendation of 5 June 2001(2).

By the deadline (1 April 2002), only three Member States had sent the relevant information to the Commission. On 24 May and 25 June 2002, the Commission representative on the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health reminded the Member States' delegations to present their reports. 14 reports have now been sent, on the following dates:

>TABLE>

2. Overall summary results

The Member States do not use a uniform reporting format in their national reports. The type and format of the information is quite varied, which limits the possibilities of compiling the data from national sources into a single overall summary report.

In addition to the heterogeneity of the reports, the information in each report is sometimes incomplete or unclear, such as:

- two different figures for the same fact in different parts of the report,

- indication of the number of samples without giving the result,

- information on results without giving the number of samples,

- total of positive and negative results different from the number of samples analysed,

- grouping results on different substances under the same figure,

- other unclear information.

Only some Member States present figures on national production of feedingstuffs and imports from third countries.

On account of those difficulties in reporting, the overall compilation of results for all Member States is very limited and gives only a partial picture of the whole control system. The lack of data does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. The same remarks were already made in the conclusions of the overall summary report on the results for the year 2000.

Those difficulties are to be overcome by the adoption of a harmonised reporting model, which is being prepared and is expected to be implemented for the controls in 2003. That model should provide relevant information, but should also be simple enough to be completed by each competent authority.

3. Detailed results

The main results of the coordinated inspection programme for 2001 are presented in Tables 1 to 10.

Some Member States do not present the results of the annual programme separately from those of the coordinated programme. Moreover, in some cases, it is not specified whether the results belong to the coordinated programme or not. Notwithstanding that shortcoming, the tables combine all the results available for each section.

Table 1: Production (1000 tonnes) of feedingstuffs for sale

>TABLE>

Table 2: Imports (1000 tonnes) of feedingstuffs

>TABLE>

Table 3: Number of samples from imports and national production

>TABLE>

Comments on Tables 1, 2 and 3

The overall data on production and imports of feedingstuffs are scarce.

Most of the Member States report the number of samples taken. However, samples are categorised according to different criteria.

The lack of data does not allow comparison between the tables in order to assess sampling frequencies.

Table 4: Methods used in laboratory tests

>TABLE>

Comments on Table 4:

Finland reports on methods used. Some Member States mention the use of microscopic identification and estimation of constituents of animal origin in feedingstuffs.

Table 5: Dioxins and PCBs

>TABLE>

Comments on Table 5:

Belgium carried out extensive testing for dioxins and PCBs, most of it as part of a national contaminants surveillance system.

Sweden ran a project targeted on fish and fish products, which could explain the high frequency of samples with a high concentration of dioxins.

Other Member States found relatively fewer anomalies.

Table 6: Heavy metals

>TABLE>

Comments on Table 6:

The number of non-complying samples is small, with the exception of the results provided by France (mercury in fish meal) and Belgium.

Table 7: Salmonella

>TABLE>

Comments on table 7:

Even though the Commission Recommendation for a coordinated programme indicates feed materials of vegetable origin as the scope of Salmonella checks, in some cases it is not possible to distinguish whether the results reported by Member States refer only to this type of feed. The results presented in the table therefore comprise all available results for Salmonella.

There is a relatively large number of samples (from less than 1 % up to 5,4 %) contaminated with salmonella.

Table 8: Feed additives with maximum level (correct use)

>TABLE>

Comments on Table 8:

Ireland found a low frequency of non-complying samples, but the evaluation was carried out through labelling checks only.

The results provided by Belgium and Germany, which carried out analyses, show a much higher rate of non-compliance.

Table 9: Antibiotics banned as growth promoters

>TABLE>

Comments for table 9:

The results are difficult to compare because each Member State searched for different substances. However, from the data received, the presence of forbidden antibiotics used as growth promoters was found in a significant number of samples.

Table 10: Constituents of animal origin

>TABLE>

Comments on Table 10:

The results are difficult to compare because the Member States do not carry out identical monitoring programmes, e.g. targeting, number of samples, sensitivity of the methods of analysis can be different. In addition, it is not always clear whether the non-complying samples refer to meat-and-bone meal and/or fish meal.

Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that the highest number of non-compliances in respect to the presence of constituents of animal origin in compound feedingstuffs was found at the beginning of 2001. Since then the number of non-compliances decreased significantly during the second half of 2001 and this trend continued into the early part of 2002.

4. Conclusions

The format of the reports provided is not homogeneous and from the activities carried out it is not possible to draw clear conclusions on areas requiring a coordinated action at Community level.

However, the results regarding controls of heavy metals show a generally low level of infringements which is not the case for the investigations on the presence of antibiotics banned as growth promoters in feedingstuffs, where the number of non-complying samples was significant according to the data received.

It is necessary to make progress on the establishment of a harmonised model for reporting the annual results of national controls in the field of animal nutrition.

In the meantime, the Commission considers appropriate to include the following targeted controls in the recommendation for a coordinated programme for 2003:

- restrictions on the production and use of feed materials of animal origin,

- contamination of certain industrial by-products with dioxins as a result of processing,

- presence of antibiotics banned as growth promoters.

These three issues should be subject to increased and coordinated control because they are currently identified as of particular concern in terms of feed safety. Firstly, it must be ensured that the restrictions on the production and use of feed materials of animal origin are effectively applied. Secondly, recent contamination of feed with dioxins has shown that some stages of the production process involve a higher risk, so that certain feed materials should be targeted for specific control. Thirdly, it must be ensured that banned antibiotics are not used as growth promoters in animal nutrition.

(1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17. Directive as last amended by Directive 2000/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 333, 29.12.2000, p. 81).

(2) OJ L 161, 16.6.2001, p. 42.