Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and Council on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition'
Date: 2000-03-23
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal nutrition, food additive, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, toxic substance

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/9

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and Council on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition’

(2000/C 140/04)

On 23 March 2000, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 March 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Nielsen.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 29 of March 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 81 votes to two, with one abstention.

1. Background

1.1.
During the dioxin crisis in June/July 1999 the Com-
mission put forward an ambitious work programme, which
was unanimously approved by the Council. The current
proposal, which forms part of this work programme, substan-
tially tightens up the rules governing undesirable substances
and products in feedingstuffs. These rules date back to
1974 (1) and, following a large number of amendments, were
consolidated in Directive 1999/29/EC (2).

1.2.
In addition, the proposal should be seen in the light of
the subsequent White Paper on Food Safety (3), which describes
the general principles of food safety and outlines the set of
proposals the Commission intends to present in the near
future with a view to coordinated action at all stages in the
food chain, from ‘farm to table’. The overview includes several
proposals concerning feedingstuffs; the current proposal too is
mentioned in this connection.

1.3.
The purpose of Directive 1999/29/EC was to reduce
the content of undesirable substances and products potentially
dangerous to animal and human health in feedingstuffs. The
Directive’s preamble states that
is impossible to fully
eliminate the presence of such substances and products and
that it is inappropriate to fix this content below the maximum
levels detectable by the methods of analysis to be defined. Feed
materials and feedingstuffs may not be put into circulation in
the EU unless they are ‘sound, genuine and of merchantable
quality’ and comply with specified maximum levels for
undesirable materials (4).

it

1.4.
Annex I to the above Directive, which is regularly
updated by the Commission, assisted by the Standing Com-
mittee on Feedingstuffs, to keep pace with scientific and
technical progress, currently covers maximum levels for six
chemical substances (arsenic, lead, fluorine, mercury, nitrites
and cadmium), 21 different products (including aflatoxin,
dieldrin and dioxin) and 12 botanical impurities (various types
of mustardseed, etc.) These ceilings apply to specified feed
materials and feedingstuffs. As the annex does not set any
maximum levels for the content of undesirable substances in
additives (5). In some cases these are covered by the general
requirement regarding ‘sound, genuine and of merchantable
quality’.

The Commission proposes the following improve-

1.5.
ments on the status quo:

— extension of the Directive’s scope to cover feed additives;

— introduction of a ban on dilution where the maximum

permitted level is exceeded (6);

— removal of the option allowing a derogation for particular

local reasons;

— an option of fixing an action threshold considerably lower
than the specified maximum level so that an investigation
can be launched at an early stage to identify the source of
contamination and take steps to reduce or eliminate it;

— adjustment of the regulatory procedure provisions con-
cerning the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs (7).

(1) Directive 74/63/EEC, OJ L 38, 11.2.1974, p. 31.
(2) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 32.
(3) COM(1999) 719 of 12.1.2000.
(4) Feed materials are primarily products used in the preparation of

compound feedingstuffs.

(5) Additives are substances, preparations or micro-organisms added
to feedingstuffs with a view to achieving a positive effect in
connection with use of the feed concerned.

(6) Apart from individual undesirable substances, it has hitherto been
possible for operators to dilute the concentration of undesirable
substances and products in a consignment of feed materials or
feedingstuffs.

(7) Council Decision 1999/468/EC, OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

C 140/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee supports the White Paper’s aims and
general priorities in respect of upgrading food safety in the EU
through coordinated action at all stages of the food chain. The
Committee is composed of representatives from all the relevant
interest categories and is therefore a natural and highly
appropriate forum for discussion of both the broader aspects
and specific proposals relating to future EU food safety. Hence
in both these areas, to make a
the Committee is eager,
constructive and realistic contribution towards securing sus-
tainable food safety in the EU.

2.2.
Here the ESC also welcomes the Commission’s work
programme to curb dioxin. After the June 1999 crisis, attention
was subsequently focused on the more persistent problem
presented by dioxin. The ESC recognises the existence of this
environmental problem, which varies in gravity from one
Member State to another, depending on incineration tech-
nology.

2.3.
In the ESC’s view, the dioxin problem — like other
environmental problems in the EU — primarily needs to be
tackled at source, partly by sorting and recovering/removing
waste materials generating dioxin when incinerated, and partly
through the use of smoke filters at the incineration plant to
capture the remaining dioxin. Despite the decrease in dioxin
emissions these past few years, it will take several years before
the dioxin content in affected fish stocks and rural areas drops
substantially. Realistic maximum levels therefore need to be
set and the most heavily polluted fishery and agricultural
products will have to be removed from the food chain. Here it
is important to align the maximum levels for products for
human consumption with those applicable to dioxins in oils
and fats used in feed, which in the latter case are subject to the
committee procedure referred to above.

The dioxin problem therefore illustrates the close link
2.4.
between food safety and environment protection. Throughout
the food production chain, plant and animal foodstuffs are
subject to environmental influences in the shape of various
chemical interactions. As in the case of dioxin, these must
primarily be tackled at source. The desired improvement in
food safety will therefore in future need to be accompanied
by more energetic EU action in the environmental sphere.
However, steps must also be taken to prevent EU measures in
this sphere being undermined by imports from non-EU
countries.

and more active measures need to be focused on reducing the
total content of undesirable substances and products in
feedingstuff production, and by extension in the food chain.
In addition to the aspects relating to the White Paper referred
to above, that would be consistent with the precautionary
principle. The content of undesirable substances and products
in feedingstuffs must under no circumstances endanger human
or animal health. The specific maximum levels must therefore
be established on the basis of the latest findings and available
scientific data, applying an adequate safety factor which takes
account of the inadequacy of expertise in this field and the
potential synergies between different risk factors.

2.6. With this in mind, the ESC supports the introduction
of specific maximum levels for the content of undesirable
substances in additives and the future ban on dilution, despite
the fact that these proposals are very far-reaching and represent
a shift
in approach. More stringent rules will provide a
greater incentive for the operators involved to take preventive
measures (checking the quality of raw materials; introducing
additional requirements in contracts with suppliers; taking
action at source). However, it is necessary to clarify what is to
be done with raw materials (e.g. grain) which exceed the
maximum level, when the producer is not to blame for the
pollution. Other things being equal, adoption of the proposed
directive will push up the costs of EU feedingstuffs production;
the Commission should therefore present a cost/benefit impact
assessment in connection with adoption of the proposal.

The ESC supports the future control measures outlined
2.7.
in the White Paper, including coordination between EU and
Member State control authorities. In this connection, both EU
and Member State control systems should in future provide
every encouragement for operators in the feedingstuff industry,
to minimise the content of
raw material producers etc.
undesirable substances. This should be achieved through
continued promotion of mandatory, approved internal checks
in undertakings which can detect sources of pollution more
speedily and effectively than national authorities are able to
do. Much greater emphasis should be placed on the HACCP
principle in connection with the approval or certification of
operators’ internal checks as well as quality guarantees and
registration of data for the individual consignments so as to
facilitate the detection of sources of pollution more effectively
and at an earlier stage. For this purpose it will be necessary to
develop and introduce technical equipment and IT systems, as
well as to step up education and training measures.

2.5.
undesirable substances in feedingstuffs,

In connection with the specific proposals regarding
increased attention

2.8.
At the same time care must be taken to ensure that
checks are sufficiently effective and implemented uniformly in

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/11

the Member States. The cost of removing consignments in
which the content of undesirable substances exceeds maximum
levels can encourage operators to ‘turn a blind eye’ to breaches
at one stage in the production chain. In addition, it is difficult
to ascertain whether consignments imported into the EU
from third countries have been mixed, or whether rejected
consignments ‘make their way back’ after being mixed. The
feed compounds on
same applies to the production of
the holding. The ESC would expect future internal checks,
registration, quality guarantees etc. by operators combined
with more incisive action by the authorities, the introduction
of contractual obligations in the case of imports from third
countries, and so on, to help to alleviate the scale of these
problems.

2.9. Maximum levels, in application of the above principles,
should be set so as to be practicable. On the other hand, the
individual maximum levels must also take full account of the
practical, technological, economic, competition-related and
other aspects that come into play in connection with the
relevant undesirable substances or products in combination
with the feedingstuffs, feed materials and feed additives in
question. In particular, when determining maximum levels
for undesirable substances and ingredients in feed additives
account must be taken of
the limited concentrations in
compound preparations.

2.10.
Higher EU standards in this and other relevant sectors
presupposes ongoing adjustment to international trade rules,
which is vital for the EU animal feed industry to be able to
compete internationally. As the White Paper points out, the
situation has changed significantly. The ESC calls for a
substantial effort on the part of the EU to foster greater
in
international understanding for these aspects in future,
tandem with a greater scientific effort in this sphere.

case of feed produced and used on an agricultural holding
without subsequent processing, e.g. in connection with the
development of toxins in grain as a result of climatic con-
ditions. The ESC can therefore approve the abolition of this
derogation. However, in this connection it should be pointed
out that reducing the use of pesticides increases the risk of
fungous infections, and hence the development of toxins.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
The Danish version’s definitions of ‘feedingstuffs’ and
‘feed materials’ (Article 2) vary slightly in their references to
the same elements and concepts, and should be harmonised.
In addition, some of the proposal’s provisions are worded
ambiguously and should preferably be clarified (e.g. Article
10(3) relating to the obligation to notify the authorities in the
event of awareness of a breach of maximum levels, and Articles
11 and 12 concerning the regulatory procedure involving the
Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs).

3.2.
Adoption of the proposed amendments will necessitate
corresponding changes in the annex. It is not clear whether
the Commission envisages specific or uniform maximum levels
for feedingstuffs, feed materials and feed additives in respect of
the individual undesirable substances. There is also the matter
of whether differentiated maximum levels for the content of
undesirable substances in feed additives can be justified in
certain cases.

3.3.
The proposal does not take a stand on decontami-
nation. In the ESC’s view, decontamination should be permit-
ted if this can be done without detriment to the feedingstuffs,
feed materials and feed additives concerned.

2.11.
Under the proposal, the Member States are required
to demand an investigation of contamination with a view to
identifying, reducing or eliminating the source of contami-
nation if a significant level of certain undesirable substances or
products is detected. With this in mind, the Commission,
assisted by the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs, may set
action thresholds in the annex for the relevant substances and
products which are ‘well below the maximum levels fixed’.
The ESC can support this proposal, on condition that the
introduction of action thresholds does not call into question
the scientific premises. Further, application of action thresholds
must not make unreasonable demands on the operators
concerned, e.g. in the form of publicity and possible misunder-
standings regarding interpretation of the actual situation.

3.4.
Concern was expressed in some quarters that feeding
animals with, for instance, genetically modified maize or soya
protein containing antibiotic marker genes could aggravate
antibiotics-resistance. The ESC assumes that the approval
procedure and the future rules on ‘novel feed’ will address this
risk.

Nickel is used as a catalyst in hardening fat. Normally
3.5.
it is removed at the end of processing but significant concen-
trations can be found in consignments of feed fats. Nickel is
environmentally unfriendly and involves allergy risks. The
annex to Directive 96/25/EC (1) specifies that ‘feed materials
must, as far as good manufacturing practices allow, be free

2.12.
No practical use has been made of the existing option
of granting a derogation for particular local reasons, in the

(1) As

indicated in the amendment
98/67/EC, OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 13.

to Commission Directive

C 140/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

from chemical impurities resulting from their manufacturing
process and from technical auxiliaries ...’. This clause has

proved inadequate; the annex to the current directive should
therefore set a maximum level for nickel.

Brussels, 29 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘European Parliament and Council
Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs’

(2000/C 140/05)

On 23 March 2000, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the ‘European
Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound
feedingstuffs’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 March 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Nielsen.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 29 March 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 78 votes to one.

1. Background

The EU’s extensive and complex legislation on feeding-
1.1.
stuffs seeks as far as possible to combine safety and health
considerations,
information on content and use, and free
competition and trade aspects. In the current proposal, the
Commission is proposing the introduction of mandatory
‘open’ declarations for compounds, in the form of detailed
information concerning the qualitative and quantitative com-
position of feedingstuffs. To date ‘closed’ declarations have
indicated feed material categories without providing more
detailed particulars of quality or quantity. However, to avoid
unsubstantiated and misleading claims, it will in future still
only be permissible to report objective or measurable quantities
that can be shown.

1.2.
Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of
compound feedingstuffs (1), as last amended by Directive
90/44/EEC (2), lays down rules for labelling as regards compo-
sition and use. When Directive 90/44/EEC was adopted in
1990, quantitative determination of the feed materials used

(1) OJ L 86, 6.4.1979, p. 30.
(2) OJ L 27, 31.1.1990, p. 35.

apparently raised verification problems, mainly because of the
nature of the materials used, the complexity of the mixtures or
the manufacturing methods. It was therefore decided not to
require indication of the quantity of feed materials. Further,
a number of materials were grouped under a common
denomination and the information provided relates to categor-
ies of ingredients.

1.3.
Open, as opposed to closed, declarations for com-
pounds have since been the subject of heated discussion. Since
February 1997 the European Parliament and its Temporary
Committee of inquiry into BSE have consistently pressed for a
mandatory, open declaration containing qualitative details of
the ingredients and origin of the feed materials; quantitative
indications have been recommended on several occasions. The
Commission and the Standing Committee for feedingstuffs
have also pointed out that to require quantitative and qualitat-
ive labelling presupposes that such information can be con-
trolled, and that labelling should be based on recognised
methods of analysis. However, at a Standing Committee
meeting during the ‘dioxin crisis’ in July 1999, most Member
States supported an optional, open declaration.