Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Council Directive 1999/29/EC on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition'
Date: 2000-09-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal nutrition, exchange of information, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, product safety, public health

20.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 367/11

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Directive amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Council Directive
1999/29/EC on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition’

(2000/C 367/03)

On 27 April 2000 the Council, acting under Article 152 of the EC Treaty, decided to consult the
Economic and Social Committee on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was instructed to prepare
the Committee’s work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Leif
E. Nielsen.

At its 375th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 September 2000 (meeting of 20 September) the
Committee adopted the following opinion by 101 votes with 3 abstentions.

1.

Background

1.4. More specifically, the proposal provides that:

1.1.
The purpose of Directive 95/53/EC on the principles
to govern official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1)
is to harmonise the official inspections carried out by the
Member States. The Directive has been in force since 1 May
1998 and contains a number of provisions regarding the
carrying out of checks, cooperation between Member States,
introduction of safeguard measures in the event of infringe-
ments, annual inspection programmes and communication of
the relevant reports to the Commission (commencing in April
2000), besides requiring the Commission to present an overall
report each year (as from October 2000) and a proposal for a
recommendation concerning a coordinated Community con-
trol programme.

In 1998, following the detection of dioxin in citrus
1.2.
pulp imported into the EU, the Commission presented a
proposal amending the Directive (2) so as to allow the Com-
mission to conduct on-the-spot
inspections both in the
Member States and in third countries and, when confronted
by a serious risk, to adopt a safeguard measure for products
originating in third countries. In addition, the proposal makes
it possible for the Commission to require the Member States
to conduct specific targeted inspection programmes as back-
up to the annual, general control programme.

1.3.
The current proposal forms part of the follow-up
programme after the May 1999 dioxin crisis and further
tightens up the legislation, making it possible to monitor
contamination and implement
inspection pro-
grammes. In the light of past experience, special conditions
are laid down for the approval or registration of establishments
or operators handling products constituting a hazard.

specific

— Member States shall set up national contingency oper-
ational plans to deal with emergencies relating to the
detection of serious risks for public health, animal health
or the environment from products for animal nutrition.
The Commission approves these plans and their efficiency
is verified by blind simulations on a regular basis;

— where a problem is likely to pose a risk to human or
animal health or to the environment, the Commission
shall immediately suspend — or lay down special con-
ditions for — the putting into circulation of the relevant
products in the EU or third countries. Any Member State
may, within thirty days, refer the Commission’s decision
to the Council which, acting by a qualified majority, may
take a different decision within thirty days. A Member
State may adopt corresponding interim protective
measures where it has called on the Commission to act
without any result. In that case the matter is submitted to
the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs within ten
working days for its opinion with a view to the extension,
amendment or repeal of the decision;

— decontamination, reprocessing or destruction must not
have harmful effects on public or animal health or on the
environment. Where contamination has spread to the
food chain, the relevant batches shall be traced and the
necessary steps taken to prevent damage of any kind. In
addition, the Commission must be notified so that it can
provide the other Member States with the relevant
information;

— exchange of information shall be governed by the same
procedure as applies for risks connected with foodstuffs,
which is based on the rapid alert system for general
product safety (3). Pending revision and possible measures

(1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.
(2) COM(1998) 602 final, OJ C 346, 14.11.1998.

(3) Directive 92/59/EEC on product safety, OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

C 367/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.2000

resulting from the White Paper on food safety, the current
rapid alert system is applicable;

— further, actions taken are to be recorded in the annual

report to the Commission;

— when the frequency of a certain contamination or hazard
increases, the Member State is to draw up an interim
report, to be sent to the Commission, and the matter will
be discussed in the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs
in order to take the appropriate measures.

2. General comments

2.1.
The proposal must be viewed in relation to the
Commission’s White Paper on food safety (1). The White Paper
sets out the broad principles for food safety and gives an
overview of the set of proposals which the Commission plans
to present in the near future with a view to coordinated action
at all stages of the food chain, from ‘farm to table’. The
overview encompasses various proposals on feedingstuffs,
including the one which is the subject of this opinion.

As stated in earlier ESC opinions (2), the ESC supports
2.2.
the White Paper’s strategy on future inspection measures,
including the interrelationship between the EU and national
inspection authorities, which is given tangible form in the
current proposal.

2.3.
As the ESC has pointed out, future control should
consist first and foremost of pressing ahead with compulsory,
recognised self-regulation within establishments, which can
detect sources of pollution faster and more effectively than
national authorities are able to do. Far greater emphasis should
therefore be placed on the HACCP principle in connection with
approval or certification of self-regulation by establishments as
well as quality guarantees and registration of data for individual
batches so that it is possible to detect sources of pollution at
an earlier stage and more effectively than has so far been the
case.

It can be observed that

2.4.
the combination of self-
regulation and official inspections has not operated properly
in the case of dioxin pollution and the subsequent case of
sludge in animal feed. Further measures are therefore needed.

2.5.
It is also a fact that the dioxin crisis was handled badly
and that there was insufficient coordination between the
relevant authorities. The Commission could merely take

emergency measures regarding contamination likely to stem
from products of animal origin. The Commission only learnt
of such contamination at a very late stage, and national
measures were inadequate. In connection with the detection of
sludge in animal feed, no requirement or possibility existed of
including such information in a Commission warning to the
other Member States concerned.

2.6.
Experience has therefore proved the need to improve
procedures regarding safeguard measures and exchange of
information between the Member States and the Commission
when products do not comply with set requirements or when
human and animal health or the environment are at risk. The
Commission must be able to suspend trade and exports from
the Member State concerned (or certain regions) and/or fix
special conditions for the relevant products or substances. In
the above cases, the other Member States mainly learned of
the situation from the media. It is essential that such infor-
mation should come through the Community system for rapid
exchange of information (Rapex) (3) or a corresponding system.

The proposal

illustrates the problem of matching
2.7.
national and EU areas of responsibility. In the ESC’s view, the
EU’s authority in this field needs to be expanded in view of the
operation of the internal market and to protect human and
animal health and the environment. The proposal provides for
the Commission or another Member State to act outright in
emergency situations. Subsequently, the Standing Committee
for Feedingstuffs can consider the matter and the decision may
then be altered.

2.8.
The recommended model would seem to correspond
to the procedure for action in connection with the outbreak of
contagious livestock diseases. Procedures should therefore
preferably be the same for all forms of intervention: feeding-
stuffs, foodstuffs, plant health problems, environmental situ-
ations,
including the marketing of dangerous substances
and materials, etc. The system should also be restricted to
circumstances where there is a serious risk to human and
animal health or the environment, and procedures should
involve as little red tape as possible. In addition, care must also
be taken to ensure that inspection is sufficiently effective and
to harmonise organisation of such checks in the Member
States.

2.9.
In the light of the above, the ESC supports the thrust
of the Commission’s proposal but nonetheless feels that the
legal situation should be clarified. Currently there are 62 EU
legislative texts relating to animal feed, with related amend-
ments. This proliferation of rules should be codified in a more
accessible form at the first opportunity, especially in the case

(1) COM(1999) 719, 12.1.2000.
(2) CES 361/2000, OJ C 140, 18.5.2000, CES 362/2000, OJ C 140,

18.5.2000 and CES 585/2000 OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

(3) Article 8, Council Directive 92/59/EEC, OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

20.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 367/13

of new legislation. The constant ‘offshoots’ and numerous
‘interlocking’ provisions make it difficult for national auth-
orities and establishments to have a complete overview of the
legal situation.

2.12.
In addition, in the interests of transparency, the ESC
would reiterate that consolidated texts should always at least
be accessible on Celex.

In connection with the case involving sludge in
2.10.
animal
feed and the Commission proposal concerning
sludge (1), the Commission should clarify the definition given
of different kinds of sludge so as to avoid uncertainty regarding
the term.

Under the proposal, Member States are required to
2.11.
draw up an interim report immediately when the frequency of
a certain contamination or hazard increases; the information
is then discussed in the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs
so that the appropriate measures can be taken. As mentioned
above, the ESC is prepared to endorse this ‘alert system’,
provided that it does not call the underlying scientific principles
into question or have an unreasonable impact on the establish-
ments concerned in terms of bad publicity and possible
misunderstandings.

(1) COM(1999) 654 final, OJ C 89, 28.3.1999, p. 70.

Brussels, 20 September 2000.

3. Conclusions

The ESC supports the Commission proposal, subject to the
following comments:

— the procedures for Commission intervention in various

fields should be harmonised as far as possible;

— legislation on feedingstuffs should be consolidated in a

more transparent form;

— the definition given of different types of ‘sludge’ should

be clarified;

— important information should be exchanged through a

system corresponding to the ‘Rapex’ system;

— the ‘alert system’ must not generate uncertainty as to the
scientific or legal basis for notification of contamination
or risk.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI