Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal product, by-product, health control

C 193/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not
intended for human consumption

(2001/C 193/08)

On 10 November 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 152(4)(b) 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 30 March 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Nielsen.

At its 381st plenary session on 25 and 26 April 2001 (meeting of 26 April), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to seven with three abstentions.

1.

Background

1.1.
Since the discovery of bovine spongiform encepha-
lopathy (BSE) in cattle in 1986 and identification of the link
with the new strain of Creuzfeldt-Jakobs disease (nv-CJD)
described in 1996, a series of measures have been taken with
a view to blocking the routes of BSE infection and eliminating
the risk of transmission to humans. In all probability, BSE
has been spread through animal feed containing material
contaminated with the agent of
the
tougher restrictions primarily concern the production and use
of meat-and-bone meal. These include:

infection. Therefore,

— a ban in mid-1994 on feeding protein derived from
mammalian tissues to ruminants, which was supplement-
ed with more restrictive provisions in certain Member
States (1),

— since 1 April 1997, the requirement for production of
meat-and-bone meal to conform to minimum parameters
which are considered sufficient to inactivate the agents of
Scrapie (2) and BSE (3),

— since 1 October 2000,

removal of
material (4) from the food and feed chain,

specified risk

— the introduction of measures concerning the identifi-

cation, control and eradication of BSE on 1 May 1998.

(1) Decision 94/381/EC implemented in all 15 Member States. In
addition, Sweden, France, the United Kingdom and Portugal
voluntarily introduced stricter provisions.

(2) Scrapie has been known as a disease affecting sheep since the
18th century and has been detected in all countries with the
exception of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand.

(3) Council Directive 90/667/EEC and Decisions 92/562/EEC,

95/348/EC and 99/534/EC.

(4) Specified risk material (SRM) is defined as the skull, tonsils and
spinal cord etc. from cattle, sheep and goats. Furthermore, in the
UK and Portugal, the entire head, thymus, spleen, intestine and
spinal cord of cattle over six months and the vertebral column of
cattle above 30 months must be removed. The Commission
proposal on the removal of SRM was presented as long ago as
1996.

1.2.
In December 2000 the Council approved a temporary
ban during the first half of 2001 on the use of meat-and-bone
meal in feed for productive livestock and a requirement to test
for BSE when slaughtering all cattle over 30 months as a
condition of their use for human consumption. In addition, in
January 2001 the Council adopted provisions requiring the
removal of the entire vertebral column of ruminants. The
Commission’s proposal laying down rules for the prevention
and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopa-
thies (TSE) (5) is expected to be adopted in the near future. This
will have the effect, inter alia, of tailoring the requirement to
remove risk material according to the particular Member
State’s BSE/TSE status.

2.

Summary of the Commission proposal

The draft regulation (6) is mentioned in the White Paper
2.1.
on Food Safety and lays down new framework provisions for
animal by-products. Fallen animals and condemned animal
material are removed from the feed chain. The only raw
material allowed to be used for the production of meat-and-
bone meal would then be material derived from animals
declared fit for human consumption. The proposal lays down
alternative methods for the use or disposal of animal by-
products. It also establishes a link with Community environ-
mental legislation.

2.2.
The proposal thus replaces the current rules for the
disposal and processing of animal waste, as well as the
production of feedingstuffs of animal origin, with the aim of
preventing the presence of any pathogens. Animal waste is
here defined as carcasses or parts of animals, including fish, or
products of animal origin not intended for direct human
consumption. These are divided into high- and low-risk
materials, the latter category consisting of products which are
introduces the
approved for consumption. The proposal
collective term ‘animal by-products’ which is then divided
into three categories with differing requirements regarding
subsequent use.

(5) ‘TSE proposal’ — COM(98) 623, OJ C 214? 10.7.1998, p. 11.
(6) COM(2000) 574.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/33

2.3.
The Scientific Steering Committee has given a number
of scientific opinions on animal by-products. According to
these, the exclusion of material from dead animals or con-
demned animal material in the feed chain will further reduce
the risk of disease transmission and the risk of unacceptably
high concentrations of chemical residues in animal
feed.
Alternatives other than incineration, co-incineration or landfill
are restricted to certain animal by-products.

Category 1 is the highest risk category,

2.4.
including
animal by-products presenting a risk related to a transmissible
spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) or an unknown risk or a
risk related to the presence of residues of prohibited substances
(i.e. hormones, beta-agonists, etc.) (1) or residues of environ-
mental contaminants (i.e. dioxins, PCBs, etc.) above permissible
thresholds. The animal by-products belonging to this category
may only be disposed of as waste by incineration, co-
incineration or landfill.

2.5.
Category 2 includes animal by-products presenting a
risk related to animal diseases other than TSEs or a risk related
to the presence of residues of veterinary drugs. Manure,
digestive tract contents and slaughterhouse sludge are also
included in this category. The animal by-products belonging
to this category may be recycled for certain uses other than
animal nutrition after heat treatment (i.e. biogas production,
composting, fertilisers or oleochemical products).

2.6.
Category 3 includes animal by-products derived from
healthy animals (i.e. animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse,
which have been declared fit for human consumption). Only
animal by-products belonging to this category can be used as
feed material. Therefore, this category establishes the ‘positive
list’ of materials for the preparation of ingredients of animal
origin which can be incorporated in animal feed. Furthermore,
this category includes products, such as wool, hides, fur and
feathers, intended for purposes other than animal or human
consumption (i.e. technical products).

2.7.
The proposal contains detailed controls to guarantee a
clear separation during collection and transport and the
traceability of the different categories by means of a record-
keeping system, accompanying documents and health certifi-
cates. At
introduces a system for the
identification and registration of the final products (e.g. dying
of rendered fats and animal protein meal with an appropriate
marker).

the same time it

2.8.
According to the Commission proposal, products of
rendering (meat-and-bone meal and rendered fats) are not
regulated by Directive 90/667/EEC. When subject to waste

disposal or recovery, such products are regulated by the
Framework Directive on Waste (2) which lays down provisions
for the handling, disposal and recovery of waste.

2.9.
The proposal therefore seeks to clarify the relationship
between the Animal Waste Directive and the Framework
Directive on Waste by creating a logical link between the
two. There are to be only three potential outlets for both
unprocessed and processed animal by-products, namely:

— a waste disposal operation (landfill, burial, incineration),

— a waste recovery operation (co-incineration)

— ‘placing on the market’ (production of processed animal
protein and rendered fats to be used in animal feed or
fertilisers or in cosmetic or pharmaceutical products etc.).

2.10.
If an animal by-product is consigned to a disposal or
recovery operation, it shall be treated as waste. Therefore, the
controls on these disposal and recovery operations must
ensure that the objectives of Article 4 of the Framework
Directive on Waste are achieved and that human health and
the environment are protected.

2.11.
The Commission admits that the disposal of meat-
and-bone meal by means of incineration or landfill does
involve extra costs, considerable ecological disadvantages and
problems arising from the lack of capacity at local level. In
contrast, the co-incineration of fats provides a limited econ-
omic return. The composting and use of meat-and-bone meal
as fertiliser could provide certain ecological benefits and would
make for a similarly limited recovery of costs. According to
the Commission, biogas production is an evolving technology,
which,
in addition to the many beneficial effects for the
environment, offers the prospect of partial cost recovery
through the production of ‘green’ energy.

3. General comments

3.1.
The uncertainty surrounding the BSE crisis has to a
large extent been reflected in the Council’s decisions and
successive legislative measures taken by the EU and the
Member States since 1986. It is now a recognised fact that the
extent of the crisis is due to delays in the adoption and
implementation of provisions, as well as patchy compliance.
Community inspection missions to the Member States carried
out since 1996 by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary
Office (FVO) have revealed that in a number of cases the
provisions are not being complied with. In the ESC’s view, far
stricter enforcement of existing rules in all Member States
would have been decisive in halting the further spread of the
disease and preventing further transmission of Creutzfeldt-
Jacobs to humans. There is also a very clear need for measures
to train all categories of persons concerned.

(1) The substances in question are defined more precisely in Council

Directive 96/22/EC, OJ L 125, 13.5.1996.

(2) Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.

C 193/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

3.2.
The ESC previously proposed a ban on the use of meat-
and-bone meal for productive livestock followed by a thorough
in the
risk analysis and assessment of risk management
Member States before any decision is taken on resuming its
use As early as 1996, in its own-initiative opinion on the
consequences of BSE (1), the ESC proposed an investigation
into whether the ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal based
feedingstuffs for ruminants should be extended to include non-
ruminants. The proposal was reiterated in the ESC’s 1999
opinion on the TSE proposal (2). In the same context, the ESC
stressed the need for a far-sighted strategy in the field and the
close link between the TSE proposal and the handling of
animal by-products.

3.3.
The key question now is whether the temporary ban
on the use of meat-and-bone meal for productive livestock
should be extended or made permanent, which will remove
the justification for some of the provisions in the present
proposal. By the same token, the provisions on waste disposal
and recovery will encompass far greater quantities of animal
by-products (3). As long as all risks to animal health and any
danger of transmission to humans cannot be excluded, and
particularly as long as the risks of BSE and CJD persist, the
Committee considers that the ban on meat and bone meal as
feed for non-vegetarian single stomach animals must be strictly
in any event become
maintained and enforced.
permanent in the case of normally vegetarian animals, which
presupposes the adoption of emergency measures for mass
production of substitute plant proteins.

It must

3.4.
The ESC feels that, as a matter of principle, the use
of healthy parts of healthy animals approved for human
consumption may be considered completely safe provided that
the relevant provisions are complied with, as well as ensuring
the recovery of resources. However, for the purposes of risk
management, the current ban on the use of meat-and-bone
meal for ruminants should remain in place and ruminant
material should be removed from the feed chain so that only
the use of materials derived from, or intended for, single
stomach animals is permitted. In addition, a ban on intra-
species recycling (‘cannibalism’) could be introduced. However,

(1) OJ C 295, 7.10.1996, p. 55.
(2) ESC opinion on COM(98) 623, OJ C 258, 10.9.1999, pp. 19-23.
(3) According to the Commission, animal waste in the EU totalled
16,1 million tonnes in 1998. Of this, 14,3 million tonnes was
derived from animals declared fit for consumption and 1,8 million
tonnes from fallen animals or condemned animal material. A
permanent ban would mean a nine times greater quantity of
animal by-products to be disposed of or recovered than if only
fallen animals and carcasses are treated as waste.

the temporary ban should definitely remain in place until
adequate safety standards are achieved in the production and
use of meat-and-bone meal.

It is clearly necessary to eliminate the risk of the rules
3.5.
being circumvented. This can be achieved by means of HACCP
programmes, certification or accreditation of individual enter-
prises (slaughterhouses, meat feed factories, feedingstuff com-
panies etc.), as well as mandatory separate production chains,
in order to ensure completely safe production of meat-and-
bone meal. Here total traceability in all production chains and
clear indication of feedingstuffs containing meat-and-bone
meal are a necessary consequence. This is not only important
for the market in beef and veal but also in the interests of
consumers, who must be confident of being able to buy meat
which does not damage their health.

3.5.1
The Commission should take immediate steps to
recall urgently and forthwith all products which are potentially
contaminated or suspected of such risks. Further, for ethical
reasons and out of respect for the very nature of animals, the
Committee takes the view that omnivorous or carnivorous
animals should not be fed by-products of animals of their own
species, thereby helping to avoid the risk (which is more direct
and frequent than inter-species contamination) of transmission
of disease within the same species.

that

As regards the concrete assessment of the present
3.6.
proposal, the ESC is in no doubt, both from the ethical point
of view and considering the scientifically documented evidence
concerning diseases,
fallen animals and condemned
material from animal by-products should no longer be used
for the production of feedingstuffs and that the current lack of
clarity in provisions on waste should be rectified. The ESC
therefore feels that the proposal should be implemented as
soon as possible. However, it must be a clear prerequisite that
all Member States be able to comply in practice as soon as it
comes into force,
thereby precluding any distortions of
competition.

It is necessary to recognise the technical, ecological,
3.7.
economic and commercial problems which will
inevitably
arise as a result of implementing the proposal. However, these
problems will be much less substantial than if the total ban on
the use of meat-and-bone meal were to be extended (4).

(4) The cumulative annual cost of a total ban is estimated to be at
least two billion euros by the European meat meal manufacturers’
association. However, the Committee thinks that it is completely
wrong to use this as an argument in a situation where human and
animal health can be harmed by BSE.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/35

3.8.
The disposal option involves considerable environmen-
tal implications, not least in the form of nitric oxide, dioxin
and other harmful substances released during incineration. It
is therefore very important to promote the research effort so
as to reduce the environmental impact to a minimum. High
priority must be given to the risks for the environment
(pollution) and human and animal health,
including those
associated with the uncontrolled disposal of fallen animals.

According to the proposal,

3.9.
imports of animal by-
products are subject to EU provisions. Yet it is questionable
whether imports of meat and meat products for consumption
meet consumer safety requirements to the same degree as the
EU’s own production, whether it is possible in practice to
check compliance with these requirements and to what extent
such requirements conform to WTO provisions.

The proposed simplification will bring greater trans-
3.10.
parency with regard to the specific health rules applicable
to animal products not intended for human consumption.
However, in the ESC’s view, simplification should under no
circumstances entail deregulation. When human and animal
health is at stake, it is imperative to uphold and tighten up the
more explicit health rules concerning animal by-products.

3.11.
Opposition to the building of plants to incinerate
meat-and-bone meal makes it difficult to build new ones;
similarly, incinerating meat-and-bone meal in power stations
and cement kilns is far from straightforward for the same
reasons. In several Member States there are incentives to use
waste for energy production and recycling, and this should be
promoted as much as possible through the exchange of
experience and relevant
initiatives at EU level. Research
findings and decisions relating to the rules applicable to
incineration plants must be in the public domain.

The need for alternative use and disposal options
3.12.
depends on the relevant country’s BSE status and therefore
varies from one Member State to another. The situation
regarding tax legislation,
including taxes on energy and
is also quite complex. The ESC also calls for
pollution,
appropriate forward-looking solutions at EU level
in this
respect.

3.13.
Pursuant to Article 36 of the draft, the Commission
is to prepare a report on financial support for the processing
and disposal of animal by-products. The form of this financial
support varies enormously from one Member State to another,
inter alia because of differing legal and judicial situations. In
order to prevent any impact on mutual competition, the
Commission should undertake this analysis without delay and
take the requisite steps. This is necessary to ensure that the
proposal is implemented effectively with no risk of distortions
in competition between the Member States and with third
countries.

4.

Specific comments

4.1.
It makes sense to coordinate the proposal with any
other rules on products of animal origin used for feed. Care
should therefore be taken to ensure that the proposal contains
the relevant derogations, references, coordination etc. with
products such as animal fat, protein partial hydrolysate and
dicalcium phosphate, as well as other food waste from
domestic and institutional kitchens, restaurants, retailers etc.

Catering waste may contain materials from ruminants

4.2.
and should therefore be considered category 2 materials.

4.3.
Category 2 material comprises manure from all animal
species and the digestive tract content from mammalian
It therefore
species, except manure from ordinary farms.
includes manure and the stomach and intestinal content from
ruminants in slaughterhouse waste. Under Article 5(2)(e),
manure, stomach and intestinal content etc. may be used in a
biogas plant with no special requirements. This reflects current
practice and is of particular importance.

4.4.
Under Article 5(2)(c), Category 2 material which has
undergone pressure sterilisation may be used as organic
fertiliser or soil improver, or treated in a biogas or composting
plant (cf. Article 12). If treated in a biogas plant, pasteurisation
is required with specific time and temperature requirements.
As the material has already undergone pressure sterilisation
thereby eliminating the relevant contaminants, there is no
need to impose specific pasteurisation requirements before
biogas treatment of Category 2 animal by-products. The
requirement for a special pasteurisation unit in Annex IV,
Chapter II(A)(1)(a) should therefore be deleted, but it should
continue to be mandatory for the biogas reactor to be equipped
with installations for monitoring temperature etc. It is also
proposed that Chapter II(B)(1) be deleted for the same reason.
In Chapter II (C) on heat treatment conditions, the term
‘pasteurisation unit’ should be replaced with ‘reactor’. It should
also be stated that treatments with an equivalent effect to
60 minutes at 70 °C may be used.

According to Article 5(2)(e), manure or digestive tract
4.5.
content or material collected in slaughterhouses, as mentioned
in Article 5(1)(b), may be spread on land in accordance with
the regulation, provided that there is no danger of spreading a
serious transmissible disease. A reference is needed to the EU
and international definition of serious transmissible diseases,
such as classical swine fever, foot and mouth disease etc.

C 193/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

The Committee recommends that proteins from rumi-

4.6.
nants should not be used as fertiliser.

5. Conclusion

4.7.
According to Article 6(2)(f), Category 3 material may
be transformed in a biogas plant or in a composting plant
approved in accordance with Article 12, which entails pasteur-
isation with special requirements regarding time and tempera-
ture. But it is unnecessary to impose specific pasteurisation
requirements for the transformation of Category 3 material in
biogas plants, since the material in question shows no signs of
diseases that can be transmitted to animals and humans.

On 9 March 2001 the ESC organised a wideranging
5.1.
hearing to get a clearer picture of the scientific, veterinary,
inspection, consumer, industrial and agricultural aspects of the
BSE problem. In the light of this hearing, the ESC feels that the
current proposal on animal by-products and the ‘TSE proposal’
lay solid foundations for a farsighted, well-balanced solution
for the future use of animal by-products in line with the
recommendations contained in this opinion.

4.8.
Article 6(1)(d) should provide that only blood from
animals recognised as fit for human consumption can qualify
as category 3 materials and be used for feed purposes.
in order to ensure that all animal protein from
However,
mammals that is to be used in feedingstuffs undergoes pressure
sterilisation, blood from Category 3 material should also be
treated in this way.

5.2.
Subject to the reservations and recommendations made
above, the ESC is therefore able to endorse the individual
elements of the proposal. They will considerably improve
safety in the disposal of the various categories of animal by-
products, including feedingstuffs for productive livestock since
only the healthy parts of healthy animals declared fit for
consumption may be used.

Brussels, 26 April 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/37

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received more than one-quarter of the votes cast, were defeated in the course of
the debate:

Point 3.3

To be amended as follows:

‘The key question now is whether the temporary ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal for productive livestock
should be extended or made permanent. The Committee considers that there should be no further discussion of
whether to extend the temporary ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal in feed for productive livestock, including
cows, goats and sheep but rather of a permanent ban. The reason for this is the continuing danger of the development
of BSE among productive livestock and the transmission of CJD to humans. Everything must therefore be done to
eradicate BSE.’

Reasons

Fits in with the view expressed in earlier Committee opinions.

Result of the vote:

For: 28, against: 36, abstentions: 9.

Point 3.7

The first two sentences of 3.7 should be kept without being amended, i.e. but take out the footnote for a new
point 3.8:

‘It is necessary to recognise the technical, ecological, economic and commercial problems which will inevitably arise
as a result of implementing the proposal. However, these problems will be much less substantial than if the total ban
on the use of meat-and-bone meal were to be extended.’

Result of the vote:

For: 40, against: 47, abstentions: 5.