WRITTEN QUESTION E-2506/99 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Permitted levels of aflatoxin fungus in brazil nuts imported into the EU.
Date: 1999-12-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, import restriction, nut, toxic substance

C 303 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

If so, could it outline this scheme and indicate whether it must be matched with compensation payable by
the relevant Member State?

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Various financial compensation instruments are available in case of compulsory slaughter of salmon in
farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA).

Member States may grant financial compensation for the losses suffered. In that event, the authorities of
the Member State concerned notify the draft measures to the Commission. According to the guidelines for
the examination of state aid to fisheries and aquaculture, measures aimed at compensating losses suffered
by the producers may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that an eradication plan
is decided by the authorities.

Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1) lists, in its Article
3, the animal diseases for which emergency financial compensation by the Community may be granted.
The financial contribution must be 50 % of the costs incurred by the Member State in compensating
owners for the slaughter, destruction of animals and, where appropriate, their products, for cleaning,
disinsectisation and disinfection of holdings and equipment and for the destruction of contaminated
feedingstuffs and contaminated equipment. Where vaccination has been decided, this must be 100 % of the
costs of supply of vaccine and 50 % of the costs incurred for carrying out the vaccination. ISA is however
not included in the list of diseases eligible for compensation. Its inclusion requires a decision by the
Commission in accordance with the procedure of the standing veterinary committee.

Council Decision 90/424/EEC in its Article 24 introduces the possibility for a Community financial
measure for the eradication and monitoring of certain diseases. This compensation is based on the
approval of annual programmes to be submitted by the Member States. These programmes shall supply
all the appropriate financial information and shall indicate in particular the total estimated cost of carrying
out the programme. The level of Community financial contribution in this case shall be fixed at 50 % of
the costs incurred by the Member States by way of compensation for owners for the slaughter of the
animals. ISA is however not included in the list of diseases to which Article 24 applies. Its inclusion
requires a Council decision upon a proposal from the Commission. The Commission will examine whether
it is appropriate to take action for the inclusion of ISA in one of the lists referred to in Decision 90/424/
EEC.

With effect from 1 January 2000 under Article 15 of the new Financial instrument for fisheries guidance
(FIFG), Member States may within their national programmes encourage the eradication of pathological
risks due to diseases in aquaculture. The conditions allow for a maximum financial contribution of 35 %
for Objective 1 areas and 15 % for other areas. In drawing up the implementing regulation for the new
FIFG next year detailed rules for this aid will be decided by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, as last amended by Decision 94/370/EC (OJ L 168, 2.7.1994).

(2000/C 303 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2506/99

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Permitted levels of aflatoxin fungus in brazil nuts imported into the EU

Could the Commission state:

1.

the source of the scientific research behind its decision to allow a maximum level of aflatoxin fungus
in brazil nuts at 4 parts per billion (ppb), when the US level is 20 ppb?

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/71

2.

Is the EU maximum level for peanuts higher than that for brazil nuts?

3. What consultations were carried out with brazil nut producers before the EU decision was made?

4. What EU assistance has been offered to producers in order that they can take measures to ensure that

fewer nuts are affected?

5. How many months advance warning of the ruling was given to producers?

6.

7.

8.

Is the EU planning to offer compensation to producers in 2000 when they can no longer sell a large
proportion of their crop to the European market?

Is the EU aware that the EU decision could severely reduce the income of some forest peoples, forcing
them towards less eco-friendly exploitation of the forest?

Is the Commission prepared to withdraw this decision pending a study of the impact of it on the
peoples of the rainforest?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1525/98 of 16 July 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 194/97 of
31 January 1997 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (1) establishes maximum
limits for aflatoxin B1 and aflatoxin total for groundnuts, nuts, including brazil nuts, dried fruit, cereals
and derived products of these commodities and for aflatoxin M1 in milk.

The scientific committee for food (SCF) expressed on 23 September 1994 an opinion on aflatoxins,

1.
ochratoxin A and patulin (2). At that time the SCF concluded for aflatoxins:

Aflatoxins are genotoxic carcinogens. For this type of carcinogen, it is generally felt that there is no
threshold dose below which no tumour formation would occur. In other words, only a zero level of
exposure will result in no risk.

to the carcinogenicity and
It agreed with the recent evaluations of
genotoxicity of the aflatoxins. (cid:145)From the many reports on risk assessment, it can be concluded that even
very low levels of exposure to aflatoxins, i.e. 1 ng/kg b.w./day or less contribute to the risk of liver cancer.(cid:146)

(1993) with respect

IARC (3)

The SCF re-discussed the toxicology of aflatoxins at its 108th plenary session in September 1997 (4) in the
light of a recent JECFA evaluation (5). It recognised the great effort made by the joint FAO/WHO expert
committee on foodstuffs (JECFA) to perform a quantitative risk assessment by combining carcinogenic
potencies and human exposure data, but noted also the several limitations and assumptions inherent in
this approach, which were clearly set out in the report. The SCF noted that the toxicology of the aflatoxins
is not questioned by JECFA (cid:145)Aflatoxins are amongst
the most potent mutagenic and carcinogenic
substances known(cid:146) and that several statements of JECFA are not incompatible with the SCF opinion on
aflatoxins expressed in 1994 and concluded that this opinion remains valid.

On the basis of this assessment it is considered that fixing maximum levels, besides preventive measures to
avoid contamination, contributes to the protection of the consumer. These limits must be set at a level as
low as reasonably achievable.

For groundnuts, nuts,

2.
including Brazil nuts, dried fruit, cereals and processed products thereof
intended for direct human consumption or as an ingredient in foodstuffs, maximum limits are at the
level of 4 microgrammes per kilogramme (µg/kg) aflatoxin total (B1 + B2 + G1 + G2) and 2 µg/kg
aflatoxin B1. Sorting techniques and other physical treatments which reduce the aflatoxin content can be
carried out on unprocessed nuts to obtain the final consumer product. Taking these techniques into
account, higher maximum limits have been established for nuts, including brazil nuts (10 µg/kg aflatoxin
total and 5 µg/kg aflatoxin B1) to be subjected to a sorting or other physical treatment, before their human
consumption or their use as an ingredient in foodstuffs. Maximum limits for unprocessed groundnuts have
been established at 15 parts per billion (ppb) total and 8 ppb aflatoxin B1, which is in line with the limit

C 303 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

approved in Codex Alimentarius (6) and because sufficient data exist which clearly demonstrate that, by
sorting, the level of 15 ppb in unprocessed peanuts can be reduced to 4 ppb in the final consumer
product. The limit of 15 ppb will also be considered for unprocessed nuts, including Brazil nuts and dried
fruit if data are provided before 1 July 2001 (7) proving the effectiveness of the sorting techniques or other
physical treatments to reduce an aflatoxin level of 15 ppb in unprocessed nuts and dried fruit to the
maximum level set for products intended for direct human consumption or use as an food ingredient.
These data have not yet been submitted.

3., 5. and 6.
The draft measures were notified to the World trade organisation (WTO) by notification
G/SPS/N/EEC/51, dated 8 January 1998 with a deadline for comments set at 20 March 1998. Conse-
quently, the competent authorities of WTO members were officially informed of the draft measures
in January 1998. The adopted measures have been published in the Official journal (8) and a reply to the
comments made during the consultation was sent to the WTO for distribution on 14 October 1998. The
measures entered into force on 1 January 1999. The Commission is of the opinion that the national
authorities have to ensure that the domestic producers of Brazil nuts are informed of the regulations in
force in the countries whereto their products are exported.

The maximum limits established at Community level by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1525/98
replaced and harmonised the existing national maximum limits for aflatoxins of the Member States. For
Brazil nuts maximum limits similar to those established at Community level were already established at
national level since the beginning of the 1990(cid:146)s by important importing countries of Brazil nuts. It can
therefore be reasonably assumed that the entry into force of the Community maximum limits on 1 January
1999, replacing the existing national maximum limits for aflatoxins, would not significantly affect the
import of Brazil nuts into the Community in comparison with previous years.

Consequently, the Commission is of the opinion that on the basis of the available information, there is no
reason justifying a withdrawal of the Regulation (EC) No 1525/98.

4. and 7.
The Commission is fully aware of the importance of Brazil nut production for the social
conditions of the local producers and for the preservation of the Amazon forest. The Commission is
therefore currently examining under the technical co-operation programmes with the countries involved,
including Brazil, what technical and financial assistance can be provided in order to maintain brazil nut
production as a way of preservation of the bio-diversity of the Amazon rainforest, to improve the quality
of the brazil nut with regard aflatoxin content and to improve the social conditions of the small, local
growers. However these objectives are secondary to the protection of European consumers from the
dangers to public health from aflatoxin contamination.

International Agency for Research on Cancer.

(1) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.
(2) Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food, 35th series.
(3)
(4) Minutes of the 108th meeting of the Scientific Committee for Food held on 18-19 September 1997 in Brussels.
(5)

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), Forty-ninth meeting, Rome, 17-26 June 1997,
Summary and Conclusions, enclosed section.

(6) Alinorm 99/12, Report of the Thirtieth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, The

Hague, The Netherlands, 9-13 March 1998, par. 64-72 and Appendix X.

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1566/1999 of 16 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 194/97 setting

maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p.17).

(8) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(2000/C 303 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/99

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds

Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (1) is now 20 years old. During that time it has
never been the subject of debate or amendment and is now in need of thorough revision.