WRITTEN QUESTION P-1523/99 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: evaluation method, foodstuff, health risk, product safety, toxic substance

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/31

medium sized enterprises investment. The project was also considered for its positive spill-over effects in
the region(cid:146)s tourism and related services sectors. At the time the EIB took its decision, the project had
planning permission from the Italian authorities.
It was out of the scope of Directive 85/337 and
Directive 97/11 was not applicable. However, environmental consequences of the project were considered
by the Italian authorities. Given the nature of the project and the selection criteria listed in Annex III to
Directive 97/11, they took the view that the project would not require a full EIA.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 170 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1523/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs

A letter issued in June 1999 by the German food industry body, BLL, states that the Belgian authorities are
declaring end products to be dioxin-free, although the proof is based only on extrapolations relating to
seven PCBs. This extrapolation method may possibly be used in the used oil and lubricant field, but not in
relation to foodstuffs.

Has the Commission been informed about this reprehensible extrapolation method being used by the

1.
Belgian authorities?

Does the Commission agree that no arbitrary extrapolations should be carried out, owing to the

2.
serious potential risks posed by PCBs?

Does the Commission share my view that tolerance levels of 1-4 pg/kg are totally absurd and

3.
arbitrary, and cannot guarantee that risks to health will be excluded?

4. When will the Commission set limit values for dioxins in foodstuffs and thereby put an end to the
scandalous situation in which no limits are calculated and there is irresponsible (cid:145)self-regulation(cid:146) by the food
industry?

5.
Is the Commission aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recent studies
which show that many more PCBs (in addition to the mere seven named over here) are classed as toxic?
Has the Commission seen these studies? What conclusions will it draw therefrom?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The contamination of foodstuffs reported to the Commission and the other Member States by Belgium on
27 May 1999 concerned abnormal dioxin levels in recycled fatty matter accidentally fed to certain poultry,
pigs and bovines.

The Commission has examined the various studies that have been made of this particular contamination.
These studies show that this dioxin contamination in fats can be demonstrated by the presence of seven
PCB congeners, namely 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180. This detection method is not adapted to
other forms of dioxin contamination in a different context: other PCBs should therefore be used as dioxin
contamination markers or, in cases in which dioxin contamination is not associated with the presence of
PCB, yet other markers. Hence, in each case of accidental dioxin contamination, an attempt is made to
identify the most reliable markers, which are not always the most toxic ones.

the time, expense and technical equipment necessary to identify dioxins in food,

Because of
few
laboratories are in a position to perform this type of analysis. In the case of an extended research
programme it is therefore always better to rely on less costly and less time-consuming analyses using PCBs,
which are reliable markers and make it possible to identify contaminated products and, in certain cases,
may indicate the presence of dioxins.

C 170 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

As regards the limit values for dioxins in food, the Commission began an in-depth study of food
contamination levels ascertained in several Member States in June 1998. 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, as well as the results of work done at the Joint
Research Centre and the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) should help assess the
risk and will therefore be the basis for further reflection.

Pending the availability of information allowing it to pronounce on the limit values for dioxins in food, the
Commission is relying on the scientific assessment made by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which
recommends a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 1 to 4 picograms per kilogram body weight for dioxins. In
laying down this level the WHO wanted to safeguard human health as much as possible while acknowl-
edging the existence of a (cid:145)background level(cid:146) of dioxins in all
industrialised countries. Until 1999 the
surveillance plans put in place in these countries, and notably the Member States, were focused on keeping
contaminated milk and milk products off the shelves. The Commission will propose to the Member States
to test all meat, fish and derived products for dioxins and PCBs as from 2000.

(2000/C 170 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/99

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Council

(8 September 1999)

Subject: Application of Regulation 258/97 (novel foods and novel food ingredients)

As the Council will be aware, a number of products (including margarine, halvarine and cheese) to which
stanols have been added to reduce cholesterol levels have recently been marketed in the United Kingdom
under the trade name (cid:145)Benecol(cid:146). The manufacturer of these new products refers to the authorisation
previously granted and the marketing in Finland of a margarine product also with added stanols, as a result
of which, it claims, Regulation 258/97 (1) (novel foods and novel food ingredients) does not apply.

Does the Council consider that the Commission,

1.
in assessing products previously marketed and
which are covered by Regulation 258/97, should be aware of the content and scope of the authorisation
granted in the Member State in question? Is there a difference depending on whether the authorisation
relates to a product or to an ingredient?

Can the Council

investigate whether the Commission,

2.
in assessing whether Regulation 258/97
applies to the original Benecol margarine product or the cholesterol-reducing ingredient, had the
authorisation at its disposal? What information did the authorisation contain concerning the difference
between product and ingredient?

3. What quantitative criteria is the marketing of a given product required to meet in order for
Regulation 258/97 not to apply because the product or ingredient has been used for human consumption
(cid:145)to a significant degree(cid:146) within the Community?

4. What qualitative criteria is a product required to meet if, on the basis of the previous marketing of a
product, Regulation 258/97 does not apply to it? Is this product required to have the same composition as
the product which has been marketed (cid:145)to a significant degree(cid:146) or may the composition be modified, and if
so, to what extent? May the ingredient occurring in the original product be included in other products
without Regulation 258/97 applying? What criteria should be used to answer these questions?

5.
Does the Council consider that the Commission can investigate to what extent the margarine,
halvarine and cheese products currently being marketed in the UK differ from the original margarine
product? If not, under what obligation is the Commission to investigate?

6.
Can the Council indicate whether the Commission has been asked (cid:129) formally or informally (cid:129) for an
opinion on whether Regulation 258/97 does not apply to the new Benecol products? If so, what was this
opinion and on what was it based?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.