WRITTEN QUESTION E-2937/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Antibiotics as additives in animal feedingstuffs.
Date: 2002-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU production, Food and Veterinary Office, World Trade Organisation, animal nutrition, antibiotic, food additive, food safety, food standard, restriction on competition

C 110 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

examination or qualifying training course. Therefore, unless they have this further qualification, musicians
who have graduated from the Italian conservatories cannot benefit from the Directives in order to exercise
the teaching profession in other Member States, in which this profession is regulated. As far as concerts
and orchestras are concerned, to the Commission’s knowledge, the relevant professions are not regulated in
other Member States. Therefore, graduates from the Italian conservatories should encounter no legal
obstacle related to their diplomas in gaining access to these professions.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years & apos duration,
OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional

education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2003/C 110 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2937/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Antibiotics as additives in animal feedingstuffs

The Commission recently put
to remove antibiotics as a category from the
regulation on additives in feedingstuffs and to ban by 2006 those antibiotics currently authorised for use
as additives in feedingstuffs on the European market. There would appear to be broad support for such a
ban.

forward a proposal (1)

The Task Force on Animal Feedingstuffs set up by the Codex Alimentarius is currently holding
negotiations on the same topic, negotiations in which a number of countries have intimated that they
regard antibiotics as a normal additive IN animal feedingstuffs. Given that the PROVISIONS laid down in
the Codex Alimentarius are ultimately employed as trade rules within the World Trade Organisation, the
acknowledgement in the Codex Alimentarius of antibiotics as normal additives will place producers in the
European Union at a competitive disadvantage.

1.
Does the Commission expect the proposed total ban on the use of antibiotics as additives in animal
feedingstuffs ultimately to be incorporated into the Codex Alimentarius? If not, which countries have
objections to such a step?

Does the Commission regard a competitive disadvantage stemming from such disparities in legal

2.
provisions as acceptable?

To what extent is European food safety law brought into line with agreements under the Codex

3.
Alimentarius with a view to ruling out competitive disadvantages of this kind?

4. What steps will the Commission take should European law ultimately not be consistent with the
Codex Alimentarius as regards the use of antibiotics as additives in animal feedingstuffs?

Does the Commission plan to put forward measures to protect the European market against products

5.
which contain additives banned in Europe?

(1) COM(2002) 153, OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

There are currently four antibiotics authorised that can be used as feed additives: monensin sodium,
salinomycin sodium, flavophospholipol and avilamycin.

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/131

The Commission proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on additives for use in
animal nutrition proposes that:

(a) no more authorisations of antibiotics to be used as feed additive are to be accorded.

(b)

the placing on the market and use of the currently authorised four antibiotics will not be permitted
after 1 January 2006.

With this proposal the Commission follows the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee, that stated in
its opinion of 28 May 1999: ‘regarding the use of anti-microbials as growth promoting agents, the use of
agents from classes which are or may be used in human or veterinary medicine (i.e. where there is a risk of
selecting for cross-resistance to drugs used to treat bacterial infections) should be phased out as soon as
possible and ultimately abolished’. The second opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on anti-
microbial resistance adopted on 10-11 May 2001 confirmed the need to provide sufficient time to replace
those anti-microbials by alternative products:
‘Thus, the phase-out process must be planned and co-
ordinated since precipitous actions could have repercussions for animal health’.

The Commission proposal based on a scientific opinion in an area where the EC Treaty requires
Community action (Article 152 paragraph 4b on measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields which
have the protection of public health as their main objective).

The Codex Task Force on Animal Feeding has a mandate to prepare a Draft Code of Practice on good
animal feeding. The discussions on this code are still ongoing but its final purpose is to establish a feed
safety system for food-producing animals in order to minimise risks to the health of consumers.

Concerning the use of antibiotics as feed additives, the position of the Community in the Codex has been
for the inclusion of the following statement:

Antibiotics should not be used for growth promoting purposes in the absence of public health safety
assessment. The Competent Authorities may decide not to allow antibiotics for growth promoting
purposes.

Concerning the consequences at international
level of the phasing out of antibiotics proposed by the
Commission, the measure will apply not only to the imports of feed additives but also to the import of
feed containing these additives. The residue testing policy provided by existing legislation allows checking
for compliance with Community requirement and effective monitoring is also ensured through on-the-spot
controls by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office where third countries have officially
implemented measures at least equivalent to those provided by Community legislation.

It is relevant to mention that Codex Alimentarius has not the authority to ban a substance from the
market. Codex Alimentarius only produces recommendations to be taken into account by national
governments. National governments are allowed to have different measures that are not based on Codex
recommendations if they can demonstrate that those measures are necessary to guarantee a higher level of
protection of human health. In this case the measures taken must be justified under the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement.

As regards the Codex Alimentarius activities, it is also worth mentioning that a Codex Committee on feed
was never created. Feed matters are dealt with at Codex level only if they may influence human health. The
Codex Task Force, mentioned in point 1 above, is a first attempt to draw up a reference document on feed
at Codex level.

Since the seventies the Community has set up legislation on the feed sector, namely the rules on
authorisation and use of feed additives.

The draft proposal on feed additives for use in animal nutrition, mentioned above, was notified under SPS
agreement and if comments are made by SPS members, the Commission will need to justify the proposed
measures, following the line expressed under point 1 above.

C 110 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

As mentioned under point 2, if the Parliament and the Council adopt the Commission proposal, the rules
on controls on imports will apply. The Commission has no intention of proposing specific rules
concerning the control of the four substances aimed to be phased out by 2006. However, in the new
legislative proposals foreseen in the White Paper on Food Safety (1) the concerns of the Honourable
Member will be addressed in a more general context.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2003/C 110 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2938/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Polish import restrictions on cut flowers from the European Union

The pre-accession negotiations have included talks with the applicant countries concerning the ‘double
profit’ for cut flowers. Although satisfactory agreements have been reached with a number of applicant
countries, including Hungary, on a reciprocal zero tariff for cut flowers, Poland is still refusing to agree to
any reduction in its tariffs, so that the Polish cut-flowers market is still protected against exporters from
the European Union by means of tariffs of between 35 and 45 %. Exporters from the European Union are
feeling the adverse effects of this situation every day.

Is the European Commission aware of the existence of tariff barriers hampering the export of cut

1.
flowers from the European Union to Poland?

2.
Can the Commission state what approach is being employed vis-à-vis the Polish authorities with a
view to persuading them to agree to a ‘double profit’ system, as applied to the cut-flower trade with
Hungary since 1 July 2002?

Can the Commission state when the problems are likely to be resolved, clearing the way for free

3.
trade in cut flowers between the European Union and Poland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The second round of ‘double-profit negotiations’ was launched in December 2001. Agreements have so far
been reached with nine of the ten Central and Eastern European Countries (cid:1) the negotiations with Poland
have not yet been concluded. A liberalisation of live trees and plants except cut flowers (CN 0603) came
into force on 1 January 2001, both as regards Community imports from Poland and Polish imports from
the Community.

1.
Poland applies a duty of 35 % on imports of most of the cut flowers originating in the Community.
Poland also applies the special safeguard clause (SSG) under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on
flowers.

2.
The Community suggested already during the negotiations of 2000 a full liberalisation of live trees
and plants including cut flowers. The same proposal has been put on the negotiation table for the current
round of negotiations.

A new trade liberalisation package will be concluded if and when the two parties are ready to

3.
conclude, and that has not yet been the case.

However, at the latest, upon Poland’s accession to the Union, trade in flowers will be free.