WRITTEN QUESTION P-1318/02 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Boycott of Dutch agricultural products by China in connection with meat conflict.
Date: 2002-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Netherlands, agricultural product, economic sanctions, food contamination, food safety, health control, import, veterinary legislation

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/97

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Commission follows with interest the census process in all the candidate countries, including the
national census in Poland. In this context, the Commission has been in contact with the Polish authorities
and in particular with regard to the, parallel, agricultural census. The Commission would recall that the
legal basis for the census and its constituent elements is Polish domestic legislation.

(ethnic origin/affiliation) This asks the
The Polish census form contains one question on ‘nationality’
respondent to indicate whether he/she is Polish or other ‘nationality’ by means of ticking one of two boxes
‘Polish’ or ‘Other’. If ‘Other’ is chosen, a blank space is provided on the form to insert the ‘nationality’. The
choice of ‘nationality’ is left to the individual and the Commission has been assured that there will be no
guidance or instruction on the part of the census takers. It will, therefore, be perfectly possible for a
respondent to put down any ‘nationality’ they so wish.

The second concern raised in the question concerns the treatment of the data during processing. The
Commission has been assured that the nationalities indicated on the form will be the ‘nationalities’ which
will be used to prepare the final census data. If, to use the example raised by the Honourable Member,
‘Silesian’ is the ‘nationality’ used in the form then ‘Silesian’ will be accepted as the ‘nationality’ and there
will be no attempt to categorise the information under ‘Polish’.

The above should ensure that the census will provide an accurate representation of the information
provided. The Commission will remain in close contact with the Polish authorities as the work to collect
and process the date continues.

(2003/C 28 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1318/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Boycott of Dutch agricultural products by China in connection with meat conflict

Since 19 April China has been boycotting Dutch agricultural products in reaction to the destruction of
eleven consignments of Chinese rabbit meat and fish in the port of Rotterdam. The reason for the
destruction was that the products contained too much chloramphenicol, a carcinogen, to meet European
standards.

Is the Commission aware of the boycott of Dutch agricultural products by China?

Does the Commission take the view that
consignments of Chinese rabbit and fish in the port of Rotterdam,
regulations?

the Netherlands authorities were right

to destroy eleven
in accordance with European

Does China’s boycott violate WTO rules? If so, what does the Commission propose to do about it?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The Commission is aware of recent Chinese measures which include a ban on animal products coming
from the Netherlands, and is also aware of the decision by the Netherlands to destroy some consignments
of products from China.

The precise details of each consignment destroyed by Netherlands are not known, so the Commission
cannot comment on the specific cases. However, since August 2001, Member States have continued to
find chloramphenicol, nitrofurans and other
residues of veterinary medicines or contaminants or
prohibited substances in certain products of animal origin, notably crustaceans, aquaculture products,

C 28 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

honey, casings, poultry meat, etc imported from some south eastern Asian countries and in particular from
China. In order to ensure that all Member States were taking the same action for such contaminated
consignments, and in the light of the Community legislation the issue was discussed with the Standing
Veterinary Committee on 19 December 2001. The following statement was entered in the minutes of the
Committee:

The Commission and the Member States agree that, following Article 5 of Council Regulation 2377/
90/EC (1), the presence of chloramphenicol, at whatever limit, in foodstuffs of animal origin constitutes
a hazard to the health of the consumer. Therefore all consignments found positive to the presence of
this antibiotic following a chemical test shall be destroyed in application of Article 22.2 of Council
Directive 97/78/EC (2).

The key elements of this statement are that:

1)

the Community has zero tolerance for the presence of chloramphenicol in food (and feed) products,
because of its highly toxic nature, (this zero tolerance is in conformity with the international rules
(Codex Alimentarius) on the matter),

2)

a confirmatory test is required before destruction is considered, and

3) Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC provides for no alternatives to seizure and destruction when a

danger to human or animal health is detected.

Assuming that the Netherlands acted in accordance with this statement, or the competent authority had
other reasons to believe that a consignment was likely to present a danger to human health, the action
would be in accordance with EU rules.

The Commission recalls that the Community allowed imports of Chinese products to continue, despite
finding chloramphenicol repeatedly in a high percentage of cases, and did not ban imports for a period of
over 5 months, until the results of a Community inspection revealed serious systemic problems in the
Chinese residue control system. During that time, China had ample time to investigate the matter and to
improve their system thus ensuring that consignments intended for export to the EU would be in
conformity with EU legislation. Moreover, a transitional period of 6 weeks was introduced, with intensified
testing, to overcome the problems of shipments already en route.
In contrast, China introduced an
the Netherlands after one interception of chloramphenicol. The
immediate ban on the whole of
Commission, in a letter from the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade to Minister Shi of
April 2002, expressed the Commission’s views and concerns regarding this course of action which seems
disproportionate. The issue will be raised bilaterally whenever appropriate in an effort to resolve the
situation and the Commission, if considered necessary, may take further steps within the framework of the
WTO.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment

of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of

veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2003/C 28 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Transfer of Steffen Smidt

Can the Commission state what happened over the weekend of 19-21 April 2002, given that Steffen Smidt
was not on the transfer list for Directors-General on 19 April, but appeared in the list on 22 April?