WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/01 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Treatment of raw milk.
Date: 2001-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, food technology, foodstuffs legislation, raw milk

C 350 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

the raw milk as being of a higher quality than is in fact the case, and purchasers of raw milk under
quality milk programmes may be deceived as to its quality?

(cid:129) In the light of these facts, will the Commission say whether it still intends in future to allow treatment
at the level of raw milk production (for example microfiltration altering the content of natural milk
components, for example the cell count)?

(2001/C 350 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Treatment of raw milk

In view of the forthcoming comprehensive overhaul of food hygiene regulations and the aim to allow
treatment of raw milk by milk producers (for example by microfiltration), would the Commission answer
the following questions:

(cid:129) Are there reliable methods for detecting by means of analysis the use of microfilters to remove cells

from raw milk, altering the cell count?

(cid:129) At a time when so many food scandals have been occurring, is there not a risk that the sense of
uncertainty felt by consumers may be further added to if the guarantee of the purity of this raw
product is undermined by making microfiltration treatment legal?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0823/01 and E-0824/01
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Microfiltration is a technological process which allows biochemical or organic milk components to be
selected according to size by using membranes with varying degrees of permeability. For optimum effect,
microfiltration usually involves a rise in temperature to above 40 (cid:176)C, which no longer complies with the
definition of raw milk. It is also difficult to carry out on the farm.

The draft text on the simplification of veterinary legislation, as mentioned by the Honourable Member,
proposes the following definition of raw milk: (cid:145)milk which has not been heated beyond 40 (cid:176)C; treatments
such as homogenisation and standardisation which have an effect on the quality of the milk may be
carried out(cid:146).

This definition does not mean that microfiltration can be used to modify lactic flora or distort the
assessment of its initial quality. Moreover, the draft regulation makes it compulsory to use guides to good
practice in primary production, which are designed to help producers manage risks at this crucial stage for
safety and quality.

It is true that there are no direct methods to reveal the use of microfiltration of milk, as there are for
pasteurisation and sterilisation. However, if a producer uses this technology, he will have to justify it when
the relevant authority carries out its checks. For example, he will have to provide data on hygiene control
on his farm, health monitoring of his herd, and the results of microbiological analyses of the milk before it
is collected. These results will have to be within the limits proposed by Community legislation, in terms of
both standards and microbiological criteria, until standards are laid down by more specific legislation on
the quality of milk and dairy products. The Commission has been informed of discussions begun in some
Member States between dairy industry representatives and producers with a view to proposing that the

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/45

representatives of these Member States in the Council amend the definition of raw milk as it stands in their
current draft. Their aim is to provide the consumer with full information on the treatments used in milk.

This approach could include a proposal to use labelling similar to that used for milk which has undergone
treatment, such as the (cid:145)pasteurised milk(cid:146) classification which is today easily identifiable and
heat
understood by the consumer.

(2001/C 350 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0831/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Subject: Toxic waste in the port of Patras

A shipment of 100 tonnes of hazardous and toxic liquid waste produced by the Greek arms industry was
stopped on 23 January 2001 at the port of Patras because the port commission and the Central Port
Authority of Patras rightly refused to allow the loading of such a dangerous cargo owing to the lack of
facilities required for that particular operation.

The toxic waste was bound for a disposal plant in Germany by way of Italy, though at present where it is
stored remains a mystery.

In view of the fact that:

(cid:129) according to reliable information, shipments of toxic waste have been effected in the past without

observance of the applicable legal provisions and safeguards,

(cid:129) the port of Patras does not have adequate facilities for handling toxic waste and there are, therefore,

inherent public health and environmental hazards in any attempt to load such material,

(cid:129) Commission Decision 94/774/EC (1), concerning the supervision and control of shipments within the
Community, requires the use of a standard consignment note for the notification and tracking of
shipments of waste, as provided by Regulation (EEC) 259/93 (2),

(cid:129) Greece is in breach of Community legislation on the disposal and management of waste,

will the Commission say:

1. where the hazardous waste is stored in Greece;

2. where it is recycled (the Greek authorities claimed to have recycled 95 760 tonnes in Greece despite

having no waste reprocessing plants);

3. how many shipments of such cargos have taken place, during which periods and in what quantities,

and whether Community provisions are observed in relation to those shipments; and

4. what steps it will take to deal effectively with the current situation arising from the presence of toxic

waste in the port of Patras and to avoid any similar occurrence in the future?

(1) OJ L 310, 3.12.1994, p. 70.
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.