WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Use of animal cadavers in meat-and-bone meal.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, Germany, agricultural waste, animal feedingstuffs, cereal substitute

C 151 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

otherwise comply with the recommendations and rulings within the timeframe set by the WTO, then the
party which suffers from the non-compliance (here the Community) is authorised to ask an authorisation
from the WTO to apply countermeasures. However, such authorisation is indisputable only if granted
within 30 days after the deadline for compliance.

Therefore, in order to protect its rights under the WTO agreements, the Community is obliged from a
procedural point of view to request the authorisation to apply countermeasures early in the procedure.
Authorisation will be given unless the United States request arbitration on the amount of the counter-
measures. In that case the authorisation of countermeasures is delayed until the ruling of the arbitrators.

3.
The purpose of the countermeasures is to induce the losing party to remove the prohibited export
subsidy. The list of American exports which could be subject to increased customs duties has not yet been
finalised.

4.

Not at this stage.

in conformity with their obligations under the Treaty (for example,

In the Community, direct taxation is mainly the remit of Member States, which have however
5. and 6.
to act
the principle of non-
discrimination) and existing secondary legislation (for example, the directive on intra-company payment
of dividends). However, the issue raised by the Honourable Member is different, as it concerns the respect
by a WTO Member of its obligation not to provide an export subsidy. Indeed, the measure at stake in the
FSC dispute is a subsidy to promote US exports, which is prohibited by the WTO agreements. The fact
that the subsidy takes the form of an income tax exemption or, for example, a grant to companies is
irrelevant from a WTO perspective.

The appellate body has confirmed that (cid:145)a Member of the WTO may choose any kind of tax system it
wishes, so long as, in so choosing, that Member applies that system in a way that is consistent with its
WTO obligations. Whatever kind of tax system a Member chooses, that Member will not be in compliance
with its WTO obligations if
through its tax system, subsidies contingent upon export
performance that are not permitted under the covered agreements.(cid:146)

it provides,

(2001/C 151 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Use of animal cadavers in meat-and-bone meal

The decision to ban the recycling of (cid:145)fallen(cid:146) farm animals for use in meat-and-bone meal and feed has led
to great uncertainty on the part of the affected farmers, slaughterhouse operators and associations in
Germany. It is feared that the new rules on disposal will incur additional unilateral costs.

Would the Commission state:

1. What are the reasons for this decision? Do they have any scientific basis?

2. What additional costs will be incurred? Who will have to meet them?

3. Does the Commission plan to introduce provisions to enable such costs to be defrayed?

4. Does the Commission recognise the danger that other methods of disposal could be resorted to and

the decision could be circumvented?

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/69

5. What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion of the German procedure for producing meat-and-bone meal

(pressure sterilisation at 133 C for at least 20 minutes at 3 bar)?

6. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the possibility of introducing that procedure throughout Europe?

Could that be a means of achieving optimum consumer protection throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

1.
The Honourable Member refers to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and the Council
concerning health rules on animal by-products not for human consumption (1) adopted by the Commission
on 19 October 2000. The key part of this proposal is the prohibition of recycling certain animal by-
products into the feed chain, namely dead animals and condemned animal material. The only raw material
allowed to be used for the production of animal feed would then be material derived from animals
declared fit for human consumption.

This proposal is based on nine scientific opinions adopted by the scientific steering committee, all of them
recommending the exclusion from the animal feed chain of materials derived from animals not fit for
human consumption. The explanatory memorandum of the proposal provides background information
highlighting the reasons for this new policy on animal by-products not intended for human consumption
and gives the complete list of the scientific opinions.

A modified form of this proposal, concerning only dead animals, is also to be put to the Member States at
the invitation of the Agriculture Council on 20/21 November as a safeguard measure.

The Commission is aware that there might be a number of potential problems as a consequence of
2.
the prohibition of recycling certain animal material
in feed. In particular the cost implications of the
proposal are potentially important, because the new rules will make the disposal of certain animal material
and carcasses a cost whereas they previously presented a positive economic value. In order to overcome
this problem, the proposal also includes a number of alternatives to the production of feed material for the
use or disposal of
these animal by-products such as co-incineration, composting, biogas products,
fertilisers, and the oleochemical industry. These alternative methods of use or disposal allow a recovery
of costs. An analysis of impacts is provided in the explanatory memorandum of the proposal.

3.
The Commission is aware that in the Member States there is a wide variety of approaches to the
financial support for the processing and disposal of animal by-products. In order to avoid this situation
affecting the conditions of competition between agricultural products, the proposed regulation establishes
that harmonised rules on this issue may be laid down at Community level.

4.
The regulation contains the necessary provisions in order to guarantee a separation of the different
types of animal materials streams during collection, transport, storage and processing and imposes a
reliable identification and registration system for the final products.

5. and 6.
Council Decision 1999/534/EC of 19 July 1999, on measures applying to the processing of
certain animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2) establishes that, from
1 April 1997, all mammalian animal waste destined for the production of meat-and-bone meal for animal
consumption must be processed in accordance with the minimum parameters of 133 (cid:176)C for 20 minutes at
3 bars of pressure. Furthermore, from 1 July 2000, rendered fats, derived from high risk ruminant animals,
destined for animal consumption must also be processed in accordance with the above minimum
parameters. These requirements are based on current scientific opinion and will be reconsidered in the
light of relevant scientific developments.

(1) COM(2000) 574 final.
(2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999.