WRITTEN QUESTION P-0053/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Nitrosamines in meat products.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, food additive, food standard, meat product

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/135

animals. In this type of extensive farming castration, effected at a very early age to minimise pain, is
necessary to prevent fighting and obtain the desired quality of meat.

Since reform of the beef sector in 1992 aid in respect of male animals is granted at most twice in the
animal(cid:146)s life, once between the age of 10 and 22 months and a second time from 23 months. This in
practice amounts to an annual premium granted twice on each animal in the case of longer fattening
systems (currently steers). In the case of bulls the second premium gave rise to production of particularly
heavy animals and it was discontinued from 1997 (in certain cases from 1999). So far there has been no
increase in the number of applications for second age range premiums (castrated animals) but rather the
contrary. The new reform of the sector has kept to this approach by retaining a single premium for bulls
(€ 210) and two premiums for steers (€ 150 for both age ranges).

On his last question the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to his Written
Question E-0038/00 (1).

(1) See page 130.

(2000/C 303 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0053/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Nitrosamines in meat products

Five consumer organisations have just published the conclusions of a survey of nitrosamine levels in a
number of common meat products in five EU countries (Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal). A
total of 600 tests were made.

Nitrosamines, which are highly carcinogenic, are formed from nitrates/nitrites added to meat products.
Under Directive 95/2/EEC (1) on food additives other than colours and sweeteners the permitted limit
values are expressed in residual amounts of nitrate/nitrite in a meat product. However the residual amount
gives no indication of the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added. On the other hand, there is a clear
connection between quantities of nitrates/nitrites added and nitrosamine levels. This link was confirmed
by the Scientific Committee for Food in 1990 and 1995.

The survey revealed that completely unacceptable nitrosamine levels were found in a very large number of
samples.

Will the Commission therefore takes steps to:

(cid:129) amend the method to measure the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added to rather than as residual

amounts in meat products,

(cid:129) reduce the permitted limit values very substantially,

(cid:129) set limit values for nitrosamine levels in meat products,

(cid:129) set up a mandatory system for monitoring nitrosamine levels in meat products to which nitrates/

nitrites have been added, and

(cid:129) improve the labelling rules so that consumers are informed of the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added

and of the health hazard represented by nitrosamines.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1.

C 303 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

In Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours
and sweeteners (1) provisions are laid down for the use of nitrates and nitrites in certain meat, dairy and
fish products. For cheese and fish products and for cured bacon the permitted levels are expressed only as
a residual amount. For other meat products an indicative added amount is given in addition to the residual
amount. This is the approach that the Council and the Parliament approved when the Directive was
adopted in 1995. The limits were set in order to attain the necessary effect of preservation and to
correspond with the estimated safety of these food additives. However, these limits are presently the
subject of proceedings in the Court of justice brought by Denmark against the Commission in case C-3/00.
The Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions, therefore are related to the subject matter of those proceedings and
need to be dealt with in that forum.

Nevertheless, as mentioned in the white paper on food safety, the Commission has already indicated that it
proposes to undertake a general revision of the directive this year. As part of the review, the Commission
will take into account any new scientific findings that have become available.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995.

(2000/C 303 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0057/00

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)Erika(cid:146) oil spillage disaster

On 12 December 1999 the oil tanker (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) broke up 70 km south of FinistŁre off the French coast.

The resulting oil spillage has left France facing one of Europe(cid:146)s worst ever ecological disasters.

Following similar disasters (cid:129) the (cid:145)Amoco Cadiz(cid:146) in 1978, the (cid:145)Braer(cid:146) in 1993 and the (cid:145)Sea Empress(cid:146) in
1996 (cid:129) a raft of legislation has been put in place under the aegis of Marpol and the European Union.
None of these accidents need have happened or need have caused the damage they did once they had
happened. The evidence unfortunately suggests that controls on the passage of oil by sea are still too
weakly enforced to give real protection.

What action does the Commission intend to take in the light of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) disaster in terms of both safety
at sea and the immediate environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Regarding the action to take in the light of the Erika disaster in terms of safety at sea and environmental
impact, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its declaration during the January plenary
session of the Parliament.

tankers.

It should focus priorities for actions including the strengthening of

As regards the safety of oil tankers, the Commission decided to prepare a communication which aims to
provide a strong reply from the Community on the risk of major pollution of the European coastline by
the inspections of
oil
potentially substandard vessels in the ports of the Community. The Commission will propose measures
to reinforce the existing directives concerning the classification societies and port state control. It will
examine the accelerated phasing-out of single hull tankers and also providing for financial incentives to the
rapid introduction of double hull tankers. There should be an examination of possible measures increasing
the responsibility of the parties involved in oil transport. This action should focus in the first instance on