WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Sweden's competitive disadvantage in egg production

Both carcass meal and colouring agents are allowed in egg production in Finland. The same substances are banned in Sweden. Cages are also allowed to be smaller in Finland. Finnish producers, therefore, have lower costs than their Swedish counterparts. Is it fair that Swedish producers should be at a competitive disadvantage because they take greater account of consumers and animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

The Commission is not aware of a general ban in Sweden on feeding any farmed livestock, including laying hens, with mammalian meat-and-bone meal.

Since 1986 Sweden has banned the use of certain animal material (i.e. animals which have died of natural causes or coming from parts of carcasses of slaughtered animals presenting pathological modifications) in the manufacture of animal feed. This derogation from the Community legislation was negotiated in the Act of Accession at the time of Sweden's accession. The Commission is now reflecting on the possibility to introduce a similar ban in the Community.

According to the information received by the Commission, the use of substances for the colouring of eggs in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), has been authorised in Sweden.

In relation to the protection of laying hens the Commission is very concerned about the welfare of the animals and gives it a high priority.

Concerning the size of the cages and the legislation on the protection of animal welfare in Sweden, Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7th March 1988 complying with the judgement of the Court of justice in Case 131/86, annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25th March 1986 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages(2) states in Article 1 that it lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages.

The same principle is stated by Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999(3) which will replace Council Directive 88/166/EEC, and which provides that Member States may, while respecting the general rules laid down in the EC Treaty, maintain or apply within their territories provisions for the protection of laying hens which are more stringent than those envisaged by the Directive.

It is clear that the aim of the Directive is to set up minimum standards for animal welfare and, therefore, Member States may go further if they wish provided that they respect the general rules laid down in the Treaty. This is in conformity with the judgement of the Court of justice of 19 October 1995, in case C-128/94, Hönig.

It cannot be disputed that some aspects of enhanced animal welfare standards such as provisions of superior housing arrangements may influence production costs but actually, the protocol No 33 of the Amsterdam Treaty requires the Commission and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up transport, single market and research policies.

It does not therefore appear, on the basis of the information available, that the existing legislation which the Honourable Member has mentioned, infringes Community law applicable either to animal welfare or the common organisation of the agricultural market.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.

(2) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988.

(3) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.