WRITTEN QUESTION E-1727/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: General increase in dioxin limit values

The dioxin scandal which became public in Belgium after much delay has given rise to considerable disquiet among wide sections of Europe's population. It is a known fact that Belgian, French and Dutch manufacturers of feedstuff mixes have processed fat contaminated by dioxins.

In view of the absence hitherto of any dioxin limit values in many EU countries and of the Commission's efforts to set uniform limit values in this area:

1. does it make sense to align the lower limit values in many countries (e.g. until now 100 nanogrammes in Italy) with the higher values in other Member States?

2. would it not be more consumer-friendly in the light of the recent crisis and for the benefit of us all to set the limit values in all 15 countries at the lower value?

3. must it not seem totally incomprehensible in these circumstances to implement a general increase as described above in the first subparagraph?

4. is the Commission not planning therefore to reverse this decision?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

As regards dioxins and polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), there is no recognised international standard laying down limits by type of foodstuff. The studies on the subject are inconclusive. Certain Member States have already adopted limits for certain foods, in the light of national scientific opinions, but these limits are not always identical.

However, adopting a standard which can maximise protection of public health is closely linked to the technical means available to verify compliance with this level. The techniques used to determine a PCB level of 100 nanograms per gram (ng/g) of fat require material and trained personnel which few laboratories in the Member States currently possess. Adopting such a standard would considerably reduce the already meagre analysis capacity available in Europe.

The PCB level of 200 ng/g fat in meat and derived products laid down in Decisions 1999/449/EC(1) and 1999/551/EC(2) of 9 July 1999 and 6 August 1999 concern the particular case of contamination resulting from fats supplied by the Belgian firms Verkest/Fogra. In this case, seven identified PCB congeners make it possible to define the products contaminated as a result of this incident. The standard of 200 ng/g fat was adopted at Community level in the decisions on the Belgian crisis in order to certify, on the basis of analyses, Belgian meat intended for exportation or for intra-Community trade.

The Scientific Committee on Food held that the values selected were appropriate for managing this crisis. The national scientific opinions on the basis of which the Member States adopted their standards have been taken into account by the European scientific committees.

Besides, the adoption of PCB limits in food and feedingstuffs is closely linked to the adoption of dioxin limits for these products. As regards the adoption of limit values for dioxins in food, the Commission in June 1998 launched an in-depth study of food contamination levels ascertained in several Member States. This study belongs in the framework of the scientific cooperation programme between the Member States (SCOOP). The preliminary results of this study, which should be available very shortly, should cast light on the public health risk and will be one of the factors in the ongoing deliberations with a view to laying down Community limits at a later stage.

Besides, a research project on analysis of the dioxin risk is currently being negotiated in the context of the programme Quality of life and management of living resources under the Fifth R and D Framework Programme; the aim is to define better methodologies for evaluating the health effects of dioxins.

It is quite possible that in implementing harmonised limits at Community level the Commission may adopt different levels than those applied in the case of the Belgian crisis, if this is in the interest of public health protection. This will be done taking into account all the available scientific data.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999.