Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 92/117/EEC concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specific zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications"

(1999/C 169/08)

On 22 April 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Leif Nielsen.

At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 93 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Council Directive 92/117/EEC obliges the Member States to take certain measures for protection against zoonoses and zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications. The directive provides for a reporting system on the incidence of zoonoses, as well as the monitoring, control and eradication of certain types of salmonella found in poultry breeding flocks. It also introduces control programmes for other zoonotic agents than salmonella. These require the Commission to follow developments and, inter alia, to draw up guidelines for measures to control zoonoses.

1.2. Although the directive was adopted unanimously by the Council of Ministers, it soon became clear that not all Member States were able to implement the rules it laid down. It was particularly difficult to carry out the requirement to slaughter or destroy poultry flocks infected with salmonella (S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium). To date, the directive has only been fully implemented in four Member States. Sweden and Finland obtained indefinite trade guarantees uponaccession in 1995. Even though the deadlines were postponed in 1997 by Directive 97/22/EC, a number of Member States have still not submitted their national plans for achieving the objectives of the directive or for implementing its provisions.

1.3. The Commission is now considering a fundamental change to the policy pursued to date and reflecting on the objectives of future strategy. This involves, inter alia, flexibility on how the objectives are achieved, measures to counter the spread of zoonotic agents through trade, prevention of trade disputes with third countries and development of the "stable to table" principle, including the introduction of codes of good farming practice.

1.4. The Commission was originally supposed to submit a report containing a proposal for a revision of the directive in the light of the experience gained by 1 January 1996. This deadline was extended in 1997, but has now been exceeded by 1[half ] years. The Commission is now complaining that,because of the complex nature of the matter, it is still unable to present new proposals, claiming that further reflection is necessary. It therefore proposes a further postponement, allowing it to submit a report including proposals by 31 March 2000. These proposals would then be adopted by the Council no later than 31 December 2000. The Member States are to implement the directive no later than 31 May 2001. The deadline for implementation by third countries importing to the EU is one year after the entry into force of these provisions.

1.5. The Commission has provided funding for the eradication and control of zoonotic diseases in animals and for other programmes aimed at preventing zoonoses. This funding amounts to 36 million EUR in 1999. EC reference laboratories for salmonella and zoonosis epidemiology have also been set up to provide guidance for national laboratories on methods of analysis and comparative studies, as well as training courses and workshops.

2. General comments

2.1. In February 1996, the last time the deadlines were extended, the ESC recognised that Directive 92/117/EEC has certain shortcomings and that the failure to implement it fully in some Member States leads to a distortion of competition between producers in the various Member States(1). The ESC also drew attention to the increasing concern about salmonella among consumers, pointing out that major action was needed to fulfil the Treaty obligation to contribute to a high level of health protection. The ESC emphasized the need to promote and speed up the implementation of control measures on salmonella in all EU Member States. In view of the lack of progress made, these comments are as relevant now as they were three years ago.

2.2. In addition to the provisions of Article 129a of the Treaty, it has been pointed out countless times in recent years, especially in the wake of the BSE crisis, that the EU is expected to ensure a high level of consumer protection and food safety. Zoonoses are one of the chief problem areas in this respect. There are no reliable and comparative figures on the number of cases of illness or death in the EU as a result of zoonoses. Only a small proportion of the cases of illness are reported. Zoonoses are responsible for major healthcare expenditure and loss of working hours, as well as the personal suffering of those concerned and premature death. A rough, unofficial estimate of the number of cases of salmonella-related illness reported in the EU is 200 000 per year. The actual number of cases is thought to be between 10 and 50 times greater and the direct cost is estimated to amount to between 2 and 10 billion EUR per year.

2.3. Eggs and poultry meat are the major cause of salmonella-related illness in most Member States. In 1998 serious salmonella enteridis was therefore a problem in the majority of EU countries. This can probably be attributed to the production of table eggs and could have been prevented if the original guidelines had been followed.

2.4. Despite the fact that a number of private programmes have been implemented, the ESC finds it unacceptable that a number of Member States have been unable to go further towards implementing the 1992 directive and that the Commission did not taken legal action far sooner to enforce implementation and did not submit proposals for changes. This is an illustration of the unacceptable practice current in the EU whereby deadlines are set which neither the institutions not the Member States take seriously. In future, the maximum effort should be made to set realistic deadlines which are then respected.

2.5. The ESC calls upon the Commission to make up for lost time by drawing up the relevant proposals as soon as possible, and feels that the deadlines should be considerably shorter than proposed. Postponing the deadlines further brings with it the risk that Member States will do nothing until the year 2001, allowing the situation to get worse as a result.

2.6. Many zoonoses, such as salmonella, should be eliminated in individual poultry flocks and pig or cattle herds with measures relating to the acquisition of animals, the purchase of feedingstuffs, disinfecting of sheds etc. as well as improved management. Next, measures must be taken during slaughter to prevent, for instance, salmonella in contaminated animals spreading from the throat and intestine to the meat. Finally, action is needed at the subsequent stages of the marketing chain; food preparation hygiene is also very important.

2.7. As things stand at present, specific action could be taken at the slaughter stage which would bring an appreciable improvement in hygiene. The ESC therefore proposes that the Commission initiate such action as soon as possible so that those Member States which have not yet implemented the zoonosis Directive are obliged to submit, without delay, a plan outlining how they first of all intend to implement targeted action at the slaughter stage. The more complex measures required in primary production can then be considered more closely and implemented at a later date. However, the ESC fears that developing a new strategy in this respect, including codes of good farming practice, will be extremely time-consuming.

2.8. The ESC feels it is crucial that the Commission should lose no time in publishing available statistics in this field so that the general public is able to follow developments and seethe current state of affairs in the Member States. This overview will also stimulate market forces, as well as business and consumer interests, which have an effect on the production and distribution elements in the whole "stable to table" chain.

2.9. The objective in the EU is to ensure veterinary harmonisation at a high level. EU action in the field of zoonoses is not in reasonable proportion to efforts being made to combat other infectious diseases in livestock, particularly to take account of the operation of the internal market.

2.10. Rapid action is necessary to solve the question of how to maintain free trade within the internal market while safeguarding those areas of the EU with the best zoonosis profile so that this is not undermined by importing goods infected with zoonotic agents. Countries which, for example, have reduced salmonella to a minimum in domestic animal production, obviously want to demand guarantees with regard to imports both from other Member States and from third countries. Such demands may be difficult to ignore. If this conflict is not resolved, trade guarantees and a consequent regionalization of the internal market could become necessary.

2.11. According to Article 14 of the zoonoses Directive, third countries are to submit a plan giving details of guarantees as regards the incidence of zoonoses and zoonotic agents. This is a condition for being included or remaining on the Community's list of third countries from which imports to the EU are permitted. However, no third country has yet submitted a plan, which means that imports from the third countries in question should be formally stopped. For EU countries which have or are in the process of improving the situation, these imports pose a risk of spreading zoonotic agents, as well as causing uncertainty among consumers and an unfair distortion of competition. In addition, third countries will be able to require guarantees from the EU for EU exports.

2.12. The proposed extension of the deadline until 2002 at the earliest is also quite damaging to the EU's credibility with respect to third countries. Nor can the applicant countries, which are expected to adopt the acquis communautaire, fail to lose respect for EU rules in this vital area, which inevitably creates a precedent, thereby damaging subsequent development.

2.13. Zoonoses in domestic animals lead to increased use of antibiotics. Various international forums have concludedthat the use of antibiotics must be restricted as far as possible in order to prevent the development of resistance(2). Stepping up the fight against zoonoses in domestic animal production will therefore also help to counteract the risk of bacteria developing which are resistant to different known antibiotics, with implications both for animal production and the treatment of human illnesses.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The ESC feels that a scientific evaluation should be carried out as soon as possible of Member States' measures to prevent or treat zoonoses in connection with Decision No. 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(3).

3.2. In its opinion of February 1996, the ESC called on the Commission and other interested parties to hold a conference on the zoonosis issue. The Committee now repeats that call for a conference, with a view to increasing public awareness of relevant initiatives in the EU. The conference could be organised in conjunction with the ongoing workshops held at the Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine in Berlin (BGVV).

3.3. Made up as it is of different interest groups, the ESC has a major commitment to combating and preventing zoonoses. It would therefore ask to be brought into future discussions in good time with a view to proposing improvements in the fight against zoonoses and to achieving a high level of health protection without distorting internal trade or competition between producers.

3.4. The ESC also calls on the Commission to ensure that food safety is one of the priorities at the coming WTO negotiations. A clear strategy to control zoonoses within the EU is a necessary requirement to back up the EU's international negotiating position.

4. Conclusion

4.1. In view of the significance of zoonoses, both in terms of health and economic implications, the ESC regrets that the Commission and the Member States did not make effortssooner to achieve the objective set in the 1992 directive. Similarly, it is concerned about a further postponement. With initiatives underway in the Member States to prevent the further spread of zoonoses, the Commission must lose no time in surveying the current state of play and submitting appropriate proposals with a view to bringing the situation under control as soon as possible. Otherwise there is a risk of major problems in the functioning of the internal market. Available statistics should also be published and a scientific conference organised as soon as possible. Early clarification of the EU's policy in this area is also crucially important for its relations with the wider world.

Brussels, 28 April 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

(1) OJ C 97, 1.4.96, p. 29.

(2) cf. the ESC opinion of September 1998 on "Resistance to antibiotics as a threat to public health" (OJ C 407, 28.12.98, p. 7) and the conclusions of the EU conference on "The Microbial Threat" held in Copenhagen in September 1998.

(3) OJ L 268, 3.10.98.