WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Mad cow disease and animal meal in Italy.
Date: 2000-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, animal nutrition, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cereal substitute, consumer protection, foodstuffs legislation, health control, infringement of EU law, public health, surveillance concerning imports

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/53

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is seen as a serious problem in all Member States. There is a distinct
variation in the diagnosis (identification of at risk infants) and also attribution of the causes of infant death.

With this in mind the Commission, under the Biomed 1 (1990-1994), supported a project involving
15 centres from 12 Member States. The main objective was to harmonise clinical protocols in this
network. By combining data from these centres and with analysis exploiting differences between the
Member States, the network resulted in providing data which contributed to improving the effectiveness of
child care. Additional factors considered also included clothing, bedding, heating and co-sleeping. This
project has contributed, both at national and European level, to providing guidelines for the identification
of (cid:145)at risk(cid:146) families, surveillance procedures for (cid:145)at risk(cid:146) infants and support groups for parents who have
lost an infant.

Currently, no project on this subject is being funded, however should a new application be submitted
which expands upon the existing knowledge and is innovative, it could be submitted to the quality of life
and managing of living resources programme of the Fifth framework programme for Research and
technological development (RTD), under public health research.

(2001/C 187 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Mad cow disease and animal meal in Italy

On 16 November 2000 the Turin Public Prosecutor, Mr Guariniello, charged a Turin-based firm on the
grounds that it had slaughtered cattle posing a high risk from the point of view of BSE and consequently
circumvented the ban on the sale of meat from such animals. This practice seems fairly widespread not
least because it is apparently easy to tamper with barn books and the ban on using animal meal as cattle
feed does not apply throughout the Union. The fact is that it is perfectly possible for dangerous meat to be
sold and hence dished up on the table.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it has been informed by the Italian authorities of the facts set out above and what steps it has
taken or will take to protect citizens from the movement of dangerous foodstuffs in the Union;

2. what practical measures it has taken or will take to substantially reduce the risk that contaminated

meat might find its way on to the market;

3. whether it does not consider that the legislation on farm animal feed is an issue that needs to be dealt
with and finally resolved as a matter of the utmost urgency so as to enable the public to benefit from
wholesome foodstuffs;

4. whether it does not think it odd that the use of animal meal was permitted in France until a few days
ago but has been prohibited in Italy for several years, well before the first cases of mad cow disease
were discovered in the United Kingdom?

C 187 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission did not receive information from the Italian authorities on the specific case on the
slaughter of cattle posing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risks under investigation by the Public
Prosecutor of Turin, Mr Guariniello.

The Commission has already put in place a very comprehensive series of Community measures as regards
public health.

These measures include notably:

(cid:129) generalisation of the ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants of July 1994, to a temporary
ban on the use of processed animal protein from all terrestrial species in feed for all farmed animals,
as of January 2001;

(cid:129) processing standards for the treatment of animal waste (133 degrees, 3 bars of pressure for twenty

minutes), as of 1 April 1997, reinforced as of 1 January 2001;

(cid:129) prohibition on dead animals unfit for human consumption to be used for animal feed as of 1 March

2001;

(cid:129) active surveillance measures for the detection, control and eradication of BSE, as of 1 May 1998 and
the introduction of rapid diagnostic testing of cattle over 30 months of age targeting high-risk animal
categories from 1 January 2001, and all healthy cattle from 1 July 2001;

(cid:129) exceptional market support measures which provide that no untested cattle over 30 months of age are

released for human consumption after 1 January 2001;

(cid:129) removal from the human and animal food and feed chains of specified risk material (SRM) accounting
for over 95 % of infectivity, from cattle, sheep and goats throughout the Community from 1 October
2000. These materials, mainly brain, spinal cord, eyes, tonsils, and parts of the intestines, were already
being removed in several Member States prior to this ban on the basis of the first Commission
Decision on SRMs dating from July 1997. Extension of the list of SRMs to be removed with the entire
bovine intestine as of 1 January 2001;

(cid:129) embargoes on the dispatch of live bovines, meat-and-bone meal and bovine products from Portugal

and the United Kingdom.

All Community measures are based on scientific advice and are regularly reviewed by the Community(cid:146)s
Scientific Steering Committee.

A number of other important Commission proposals are currently under consideration by the Council and
Parliament:

(cid:129) proposal for a Regulation on the prevention and control of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopa-
thies (TSEs) (1). The Agricultural Council of December 2000 reached a political agreement on its
Common Position;

(cid:129) proposal for a Regulation on animal by-products (2) ensuring that only material from animals fit for

human consumption are used in animal feed;

(cid:129) proposal

for a Regulation establishing the European Food Safety Authority responsible for risk

assessment and communication on food safety issues (3).

The Commission(cid:146)s ongoing response to BSE must also be judged in the wider context of the White Paper
on Food Safety (4) which sets out a very comprehensive range of proposals aimed at ensuring food is safe
from farm to table.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/55

The Community measures, where correctly applied, substantially reduce the risk for consumers. However,
effective implementation and enforcement of Community legislation on BSE is the competence of the
Member States. The Commission(cid:146)s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out inspections to audit the
enforcement by the Member States and its reports are regularly published on the Commission website.

Despite reported shortcomings, it can be concluded that the overall situation has significantly improved
since the first BSE crisis. The FVO inspections are being stepped up and particular attention will be given
to a correct implementation of the feed ban and recently approved measures on SRMs and testing.

Following the latest scientific advice from 12 January 2001, and the conclusions of the Agriculture Council
on 29-30 January 2001, the Commission is preparing draft proposals to ban the use of mechanically
recovered meat and to apply additional restrictions for the use of rendered ruminant fat for animal feed,
and concerning the removal of the vertebral column.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999.
(2) COM(2000) 574 final.
(3) COM(2000) 716 final.
(4) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 187 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Deposits on disposable bottles in Germany

Germany(cid:146)s environment ministers recently agreed to introduce a statutory deposit on cans and disposable
bottles. The regulation is to take effect in the summer of 2001, so as to control the quota of re-usable
products and the flood of cans. It will encourage consumers to return their bottles to the the company that
sells its products in disposable bottles. This is in fact creating difficulties for companies which import
disposable bottles into Germany, and then have to take the bottles back although the legislation of their
own country does not provide for this.

Is a regulation passed by a single country in this way not setting in train a market mechanism that runs
counter to the free internal market and free trade? Is action of this kind compatible with EU principles?

(2001/C 187 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/00

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Problem concerning the charge imposed by the German Government on empty drinks bottles

As of 19 January 2001, the German Government plans to place a deposit of DM 0,50 on all non-
returnable bottles or containers which contain drinks (including wine, beer, mineral water etc.).

As a result of this charge, German consumers would obviously be able to return the empties (glass bottles
and cans) to the retailer where they had bought the various products. The retailer would be obliged to take
back the empties and in turn return them to the supplier from whom he had bought the products. In
addition to imposing an incredible workload on German importers in planning and organising transport to
and from suppliers, this deposit charge would also raise imported product costs in comparison with
domestically-produced products, with serious consequences for the whole market. In fact, those supplying
the German market would find themselves having to face insoluble problems as regards empties returned
in unimaginable states, which would of course be unusable.