WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/03 by Massimo Carraro (PSE)and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission. Poultrymeat imports.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: foodstuffs legislation, fraud, health legislation, import (EU), poultrymeat, restriction on competition, single market, tariff nomenclature

C 78 E/700

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0748)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/03

by Massimo Carraro (PSE)
and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Poultrymeat imports

In the last two years there has been a huge increase (109 % a year) in the volume of poultrymeat (chicken
and turkey) imported onto the Community market, which has risen from 244 000 to 790 000 tonnes. The
meat in question falls under tariff headings 0210, 1602 31 11, and 1602 31 19 (fresh meat and meat
preparations).

Does the Commission know that the meat is being imported in such a way as to circumvent the prevailing
tariffs, as laid down by the WTO, because, merely by adding small quantities of salt and/or other spices,
exporters can benefit from unlawful tariff reductions, resulting in unjustified losses to the Community
budget?

What practical steps will the Commission take to protect consumers, bearing in mind that inspections
carried out in various parts of the Union have shown that the imported meat contains nitrofurans and the
farms of origin use types of animal meal prohibited under Community rules?

Is the Commission aware that this continuing trading aberration has seriously disturbed the Community
market, from both the health and the economic point of view, and considerably damaged European
producers, who are having to contend with distorted, unfair competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission has indeed noted a significant increase in imports of certain types of poultrymeat and
poultrymeat preparations. Nevertheless the figures quoted by the Honourable Members do not relate to the
past 24 months or to the products concerned, but seem to relate to other reference periods and to imports
of all poultrymeat and poultrymeat preparations, expressed in carcase weight. In 2000-2001, imports
increased from 397 000 tonnes to 576 000 tonnes. In 2002, they comprised an estimated 550 000 tonnes.

Certain types of chicken meat were classified by some Member States’ customs authorities as salted meat
under tariff heading 0210, although the meat in question was frozen chicken meat containing insufficient
quantities of salt for long-term preservation and which therefore, by the mere fact of being frozen, fell
under tariff heading 0207. Faced with divergent interpretations of the general rules on tariff classification
in the Community, the Commission as quickly as possible took appropriate legal measures by means of
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) in order to clarify the tariff classification of this type of product and to
ensure that they are classified uniformly as frozen chicken meat under heading 0207.

Although the Commission is not aware at present of illicit circumvention under tariff heading 1602
covering inter alia uncooked, seasoned meat, the Honourable Members can be sure that appropriate
measures would be taken immediately to combat this type of fraud if it was identified.

The Commission is aware of the health and economic risks and has taken a range of practical measures to
protect consumers and producers. Third countries must present residue control plans to the Commission,
including measures to prevent abuse. Tests of substances are also carried out at the point of import to the
Union. Inspection missions by the Food and Veterinary Office also address the control measures in place in
relation to residues of banned substances.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/701

Where it is evident that there are problems, further measures are considered. These range from the
imposition of increased testing, from 20 % to 100 % of imported consignments, to an outright ban on
imports. There are at present measures of this nature in place in relation to imports of poultrymeat from
several third countries, including Brazil, Thailand and China.

Finally, the Commission has recently adopted a proposal concerning the official controls on food and
feed (2) and is preparing a proposal on feed hygiene where provisions to prevent health hazards to human
health, animal health and the environment will be further harmonised and strengthened. Both proposals
are also applicable to third countries that want to export to the Union.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the

Combined Nomenclature, OJ L 179, 9.7.2002.

(2) Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls, COM(2003) 0052

final.

(2004/C 78 E/0749)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Reception centres and ‘human traffickers’

‘The Pendeli reception centre in Greece: tin shacks awash in a sea of rubbish and sewage, … 80 kilometres
from Athens, a camp run by Doctors of the World, an NGO which is doing everything possible to help the
desperate immigrants in Greece (cid:1) in vain. The influx of desperate people becomes larger every day.
Afghans, Iraqis and Kurds arrive in Turkey and from there move on to Greece, where they have to pay the
“mafia” at least USD 2 500 in order to continue their journey. They hide in lorries carried on fast ships or
in “coffin boats”. At least 15 thousand foreigners have passed through this camp and all of them have only
one idea in their heads: to reach the real Europe’ (the 6 February 2003 edition of Panorama). ‘The voyage
of hope of Turkish Kurds starts in Istanbul and takes various directions … They might travel through the
Balkans in lorries or on foot, until they reach Italy, or to Kosovo and Albania, from where they travel to
Italy on rafts, or on shabby old vessels from Izmir to the Calabrian coast. Or there is the “new route” by air
to Tunisia, where they embark on fishing boats bound for Sicily. Whatever the chosen route, the “fare” is
between EUR 3 000 and 6 000, depending on the final destination, amounting to a turnover of
EUR 18 million in two years. The price is paid in cash in Turkey’ (from the same edition of Panorama).
These two excerpts from the Italian weekly magazine are ample evidence of the degrading, miserable,
degenerate and barbaric conditions in certain reception centres, devoid of even minimal respect for human
dignity, and the fact that there are obviously criminal organisations of ‘human traffickers’ who greedily
exploit the desperation of these refugees.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the existence of these camps in a Member State and the conditions there have anything to do

with the provisions on immigration set out in the Schengen agreement;

2. what instruments the Union has at its disposal to prevent the degradation of the camps and criminal
exploitation from making the immigrants’ existence even more barbaric and totally destroying their
human dignity;

3. whether it does not consider it necessary and appropriate to prevail upon the government of a
country which is a candidate for accession to bring its legislation on immigration into line with that of
the much-vaunted European Union,
in order to ensure that phenomena such as those described
cannot occur with impunity on its territory?