WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Salmonella infection in spite of veterinary certificate.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, Sweden, health certificate, health control, import, pigmeat, zoonosis

C 147 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

There is a wide degree of flexibility to use ESF to meet changing labour market needs through: advice and
guidance; training for those under threat of unemployment or already unemployed to improve their
employability; help to those in work adapt to new ways of working and new skills demands. Support for
workers who lose their jobs as a result of major redundancies such as those in civil aviation can be
provided within the framework of existing programmes. Although all the Structural Funds must work
within the existing framework of Community competition policy, ESF regulations do not discriminate
between workers in different industries.

There are no additional Community funds through ESF above the € 60 billion already allocated for the
2000-2006 period. Support to deal with industrial restructuring must be done within existing budgets.

As with all the Structural Funds, the implementation of ESF is decentralised. National and regional
authorities take responsibility for the more detailed content of the programmes and have sole responsible
for implementation change in ways which best suit their needs and circumstances. Access to ESF is via the
relevant national and regional authorities in each Member State. Any discussion about re-focusing activities
and funding to meet changing labour market conditions must take place within national and regional
partnership arrangements for individual programmes.

(2002/C 147 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Salmonella infection in spite of veterinary certificate

In mid-November 2001, 22 tonnes of pork loin from Spain arrived at a cold store in Skåne. All the
certificates as to the meat’s salmonella-free status were in order.

However, it turned out that the meat was not salmonella-free. Checks carried out from time to time by the
Swedish National Food Administration have always shown some consignments of meat delivered to
Sweden to be infected with salmonella in spite of veterinary certificates to the contrary.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that those who issue incorrect veterinary certificates have their
licences withdrawn and that action is taken to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

In response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission would refer to its answer to
his written question E-3304/01 (1) which broadly covers the same subject.

In addition, it should be pointed out that under the rules on salmonella applying to consignments of fresh
pigmeat intended for Sweden (2), certification is issued to the effect that no salmonella was found when the
consignment concerned was analysed in accordance with an established sampling and analysis protocol.
This protocol offers a degree of reliability regarded as similar to that under legal provisions at national
level. The detection of salmonella when products reach their destination therefore does not necessarily
mean that they have been incorrectly certified.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/225

As regards the measures to be taken against anyone issuing incorrect veterinary certificates, certain
requirements are laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of
animals and animal products (3). These measures are the responsibility of the Member States. As part of its
brief, the Food and Veterinary Office regularly looks at checks on certificates issued by the competent
authorities.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 250.
(2) Council Decision 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 (OJ L 243, 11.10.1995), as amended by Council Decision 98/227/EC

(OJ L 87, 21.3.1998).

(3) OJ L 13, 16.1.1997.

(2002/C 147 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Gap in Sweden’s checks for salmonella

Since 12 November 2001, meat preparations imported into Sweden have not been covered by checks for
the presence of salmonella. This means, for instance, that no marinated meat and poultry products are
subject to checks.

Owing to an oversight during the membership negotiations, meat preparations have never been covered
by the guarantees concerning the checks carried out by Sweden. It was, however, universally assumed that
the Swedish National Food Administration issued a
such preparations were covered and,
regulation which included them. But the Food Administration did a U-turn when a Danish import firm
pointed out that its regulation had no legal basis.

in 1998,

Can Sweden extend the guarantee concerning salmonella at the earliest opportunity so as to close the gap
in the checks for salmonella that came about simply because of an oversight during the membership
negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Finland and Sweden were granted additional guarantees for salmonella in the context of their Act of
Accession to the European Union. In Annex I to this Act, these additional guarantees cover trade of live
poultry, eggs, fresh meat and fresh poultry meat to Finland and Sweden. The necessary amendments were
introduced by the Act into the relevant Council Directives.

A corresponding provision was included in Article 3 of Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994
laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat
preparations (1), when Community legislation in this field was revised. This provision applies only to trade
of minced meat intended for Finland and Sweden. Thus, the rules on additional guarantees for salmonella
are applicable to minced meat, but not to meat preparations.

In order to extend the additional guarantees of salmonella to meat preparations Council Directive
94/65/EC should be amended accordingly. However, it is noteworthy that Directive 94/65/EC already lays
down salmonella criteria both for minced meat and meat preparations. These criteria apply to all Member
States.