WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/02 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Microfiltration of raw milk.
Date: 2002-03-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, dairy industry, food technology, foodstuffs legislation, raw milk

C 92 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

(2003/C 92 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Microfiltration of raw milk

is true to say that
With reference to Mr Byrne’s answer
microfiltration is an advanced technology when practised in dairies, as it is used there for special
purposes, e.g. to separate certain milk fractions.

to Written Question E-3071/01 (1),

it

It is not true, however, to say that microfiltration is used only by industry and requires expensive
equipment. It is possible to buy all the technology needed to separate the somatic cells in raw milk on a
producer’s holding for as little as EUR 1 500. Simple technology requiring no specialist know-how suffices,
and a wide selection is available via the internet. The technology quickly pays for itself in the case of
suppliers producing as little as 100 litres of milk per day, and even more quickly in the case of those who
produce large quantities of milk. If technology is used to reduce the cell count of raw milk before it is
delivered to dairies, suppliers get more money for their milk than is warranted by its actual quality. This is
because they remove the measurable parameter for the cell count before the raw milk is sampled. And
they are doing so to the detriment of honest suppliers.

Such suppliers are also circumventing the rules on limit values for raw milk which may be supplied
pursuant to Directive 92/46/EEC (2) (Annex A, Chapter IV). They can avoid a possible supply ban, which
would mean financial losses for suppliers.

It is extremely difficult to prove that microfiltration has been carried out on the farm, as small devices are
used which can be used when needed and are easily removed. Milk suppliers mostly use microfiltration
equipment only during a milking period. Otherwise, the cell count would be too low, as microfiltration
can reduce the cell count by up to 80 %. However, even if it is possible to prove that microfiltration is
being used, dairies have scarcely any grounds for action if its use is not expressly prohibited by law.

The issue is not microfiltration at milk-processing establishments, where its use is of course justified and is
often required to ensure high-quality products.

The issue here is the introduction of an explicit ban on the use of microfiltration on production holdings,
so that milk must be delivered in an unaltered state to milk-processing establishments.

Will the Commission provide an answer regarding this matter and do its utmost to stop the use of
microfiltration on production holdings?

(1) See page 1.
(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0809/02, E-0810/02 and E-0812/02
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The definition of raw milk and linked thereto, the technique of micro-filtration of milk, is a subject that is
under debate in the Parliament and the Council as a consequence of the Commission proposals on food
hygiene (1). In both institutions amendments are proposed to the original Commission proposal with a
view to clarifying the definition of raw milk and the micro-filtration thereof. These clarifications tend to re-
introduce the definition of raw milk that is included in current Community legislation, and in particular in
Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing
on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (2). Such definition would be drafted
along the following lines:
‘Raw milk means milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of
farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40 °C or undergone any further treatment.’ In that
definition the reference to micro-filtration is deleted.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/25

The Commission is re-considering its position on this matter and recognises the force of the argument that
the standards for raw milk must apply to the milk before collection from the farm without being altered
artificially.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.

(2003/C 92 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 March 2002)

Subject: European Maritime Safety Agency

What stage has been reached in deciding on the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency?
Is Galicia a candidate? What location does the Spanish presidency of the EU favour?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European
Maritime Safety Agency, proposed by the Commission at the end of 2000 as part of the second ‘Erika’
package, was adopted in June 2002 (1) and was published in the Official Journal on 5 August 2002.
It entered into force 20 days later.

The Regulation contains no provision regarding the location of the Agency. A decision on this has yet to
be taken. It is up to the Spanish Government, if it so wishes, to make an official bid, along with any other
Member States which may be interested.

In any event, Article 23 of the Regulation lays down that the Agency shall be ‘operational within twelve
months of the entry into force of this Regulation’, i.e. by no later than 28 August 2003. It will, therefore,
be for the Community institutions, and more especially the Commission, to take the steps needed to
ensure that the Agency is operational within the timeframe set by the Regulation, even in the absence of a
decision on the Agency’s definitive location.

(1) PE-CONS 3637/02.

(2003/C 92 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0843/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Natural disasters in Latin America

As a member of the Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico, the author
of this question wishes to obtain information on the EU’s interventions in the countries of Latin America
in the area of the cooperative handling of natural disasters.

Can the Commission state what interventions have occurred in the countries of Central America and South
America and in Mexico over the last five years, and provide a breakdown by country, type of intervention,
cost and financial allocation, indicating the relevant budgetary details and heading? Can it also indicate the
nature of any likely future action in this field in the short term?