WRITTEN QUESTION P-1318/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Boycott of Dutch agricultural products by China in connection with meat conflict

Since 19 April China has been boycotting Dutch agricultural products in reaction to the destruction of eleven consignments of Chinese rabbit meat and fish in the port of Rotterdam. The reason for the destruction was that the products contained too much chloramphenicol, a carcinogen, to meet European standards.

Is the Commission aware of the boycott of Dutch agricultural products by China?

Does the Commission take the view that the Netherlands authorities were right to destroy eleven consignments of Chinese rabbit and fish in the port of Rotterdam, in accordance with European regulations?

Does China's boycott violate WTO rules? If so, what does the Commission propose to do about it?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The Commission is aware of recent Chinese measures which include a ban on animal products coming from the Netherlands, and is also aware of the decision by the Netherlands to destroy some consignments of products from China.

The precise details of each consignment destroyed by Netherlands are not known, so the Commission cannot comment on the specific cases. However, since August 2001, Member States have continued to find chloramphenicol, nitrofurans and other residues of veterinary medicines or contaminants or prohibited substances in certain products of animal origin,

notably crustaceans, aquaculture products, honey, casings, poultry meat, etc imported from some south eastern Asian countries and in particular from China. In order to ensure that all Member States were taking the same action for such contaminated consignments, and in the light of the Community legislation the issue was discussed with the Standing Veterinary Committee on 19 December 2001. The following statement was entered in the minutes of the Committee:

The Commission and the Member States agree that, following Article 5 of Council Regulation 2377/90/EC(1), the presence of chloramphenicol, at whatever limit, in foodstuffs of animal origin constitutes a hazard to the health of the consumer. Therefore all consignments found positive to the presence of this antibiotic following a chemical test shall be destroyed in application of Article 22.2 of Council Directive 97/78/EC(2).

The key elements of this statement are that:

1) the Community has zero tolerance for the presence of chloramphenicol in food (and feed) products, because of its highly toxic nature, (this zero tolerance is in conformity with the international rules (Codex Alimentarius) on the matter),

2) a confirmatory test is required before destruction is considered, and

3) Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC provides for no alternatives to seizure and destruction when a danger to human or animal health is detected.

Assuming that the Netherlands acted in accordance with this statement, or the competent authority had other reasons to believe that a consignment was likely to present a danger to human health, the action would be in accordance with EU rules.

The Commission recalls that the Community allowed imports of Chinese products to continue, despite finding chloramphenicol repeatedly in a high percentage of cases, and did not ban imports for a period of over 5 months, until the results of a Community inspection revealed serious systemic problems in the Chinese residue control system. During that time, China had ample time to investigate the matter and to improve their system thus ensuring that consignments intended for export to the EU would be in conformity with EU legislation. Moreover, a transitional period of 6 weeks was introduced, with intensified testing, to overcome the problems of shipments already en route. In contrast, China introduced an immediate ban on the whole of the Netherlands after one interception of chloramphenicol. The Commission, in a letter from the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade to Minister Shi of April 2002, expressed the Commission's views and concerns regarding this course of action which seems disproportionate. The issue will be raised bilaterally whenever appropriate in an effort to resolve the situation and the Commission, if considered necessary, may take further steps within the framework of the WTO.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.