Report from the Commission on the feasibility of a positive list of feed materials
Date: 2003-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal nutrition, feasibility study, food safety, labelling, traceability

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.4.2003
COM(2003) 178 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A POSITIVE LIST OF FEED MATERIALS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 5

Current and future legislative situation in respect of feed......................................................... 5

The reason for this report........................................................................................................... 7

The concept of a positive list of feed materials.......................................................................... 8

The feasibility study.................................................................................................................... 9

The purpose of the present report .............................................................................................. 9

II.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A POSITIVE LIST.............................................................. 9

Preamble .................................................................................................................................... 9

Exclusive list............................................................................................................................... 9

Categories of feed materials .................................................................................................... 10

Criteria for authorisation......................................................................................................... 11

Labelling................................................................................................................................... 11

Nutritional characteristics ....................................................................................................... 12

Definition of the feed and method of production...................................................................... 12

Non-food-producing animals ................................................................................................... 13

III.

ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A POSITIVE LIST..................... 13

Establishment of an initial list.................................................................................................. 13

Maintenance of the positive list................................................................................................ 14

IV.

IMPLICATIONS OF A POSITIVE LIST ................................................................. 15

Status of the existing lists ......................................................................................................... 15

Traceabilty and labelling. ........................................................................................................ 16

Implications for trade – overview of the feed sector................................................................ 16

Regional and national implications ......................................................................................... 18

Implications for a feed safety policy ........................................................................................ 18

Implications for innovation ...................................................................................................... 19

Implications for the environment ............................................................................................. 20

2

V.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO GUARANTEE FEED SAFETY ........................... 20

Lists of feed materials .............................................................................................................. 20

Actions dealing with manufacturing processes........................................................................ 20

The Codex Alimentarius approach........................................................................................... 20

Codes of practice...................................................................................................................... 21

VI.

POLICY ORIENTATION ......................................................................................... 22

Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 22

Measures to take....................................................................................................................... 22

Current legislative situation in respect of feed......................................................................... 24

3

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A POSITIVE LIST OF FEED MATERIALS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During  the  conciliation  procedure  concerning  the  adoption  of  Directive  2002/2/EC  which
changed the rules on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs, the Council and the Parliament
agreed on a recital stating the following:

"On  the  basis  of  a  feasibility  study,  the  Commission  will  submit  a  report  to  the  European
Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2002, accompanied by an appropriate proposal
for the establishment of a positive list, taking into account the conclusions of the report".

The Commission reacted to such a statement considering that it affects its right of initiative
making  a  statement  for  the  record  of  the  conciliation  committee.  In  the  same  statement  the
Commission also drew attention to the complexity of the establishment of such positive list.

The present report clarifies the concept of a positive list of feed materials: it is an exclusive
list of  materials  that  upon  assessment  are  considered  safe  for  human  and  animal  health  and
can therefore be used in animal feed. This means that only feed materials included on the list
can be used by business operators.

It  also  analyses    the  implications  of  the  adoption  of  such  a  list  by  the  European  Union,  in
relation to trade, labelling, national and regional diversity, and innovation on the feed sector
and environment,in particular highlighting its implications for feed and food safety.

The  report  examines  different  ways  to  guarantee  feed  safety  as,  for  example,  lists  of  feed
materials, legislation regarding manufacturing processes and codes of practice to be used by
feed business operators.

Finally the report concludes that the establishment of a positive list is not decisive in ensuring
feed safety. However the Commission recognises the interest of a list of feed materials for the
purposes of trade, labelling, traceability and fraud prevention.

Therefore  the  conclusion  of  the  report  is  that  the  establishment  of  a  positive  list  does  not
contribute to feed safety and, in consequence, the Commission will not present a proposal in
order to make such a list.

It considers that the improvement of the safety of feed requires measures:

–  to lay down provisions for feed hygiene;

–  to improve existing provisions for feed controls;

–  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  the  legislation  concerning  the  list  of  ingredients  whose  use  is

prohibited in feed;

–  to  extend  the  existing  non-exclusive  list  of  feed  materials  for  labelling  and  traceability

purposes; and

4

–  to recast feed labelling provisions.

The Commission already presented a proposal on food and feed controls, a proposal on feed
hygiene and will shortly present initiatives on the other issues.

I.

BACKGROUND

Current and future legislative situation in respect of feed

1. 

2. 

Feed safety is guaranteed by a corpus of legislation that together forms a coherent set
of rules. Detailed description of feed legislation is given in Annex I.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council EC/178/2002 laying down
the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food
Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety1, the "general
food  law",  deals  with  general  feed  safety  requirements,  responsibilities  of  feed
businesses operators, implementation of the rapid alert system for feed, traceability,
reaction to crises and the role of science when ensuring food and feed safety.

3. 

Existing  legislation  on  feedingstuffs  provides  for  a  comprehensive  set  of  rules  on
different areas:

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Circulation  and  use  of  feed  materials  and  compound  feedingstuffs:  feed
materials and compound feedingstuffs may be put into circulation only if they
are  sound,  genuine  and  of  merchantable  quality.  They  may  not  represent  any
danger  to  animal  health,  human  health  or  to  the  environment  and  may  not
mislead  the  purchaser  about  the  real  identity  of  the  feed.  Some  specific  feed
materials that need specific risk assessment requires approval before placing on
the market e.g. protein form bacteria fermentation

Non-exhaustive list of feed materials: there is a non-exhaustive list of the main
feed materials used in the European Union. Each feed material is described and
accompanied by a name and the level of certain constituents. Although the list
contains  the  most  common  feed  materials  used,  about  166,  it  is  necessary  to
complete  the  list  in  order  to  improve  traceability  and  to  ensure  informative
labelling.  Currently,  Member  States  allow  the  circulation  of  other  feed
materials  not  listed  provided  that  they  are  safe  and  do  not  mislead  the  user.
This may cause discrepancies with the names and characteristics of some feed
materials.

Negative list of feed materials: Since 1991 there is a list of feed materials that
cannot be used in compound feedingstuffs. Nevertheless, that prohibition was
not  applicable  when  those  feed  materials  were  used  directly.  The  legal  basis
has  been  changed  to  extend  the  prohibition  or  restriction  to  the  use  of  those
feed materials directly and incorporated into compound feedingstuffs.

(d) 

Positive  list  of  additives:  rules  for  authorisation,  use  and  marketing  of  feed
additives are laid down in the legislation.

1

OJ L 31, 1.2.02. p. 1

5

                                                
(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

Labelling and traceability: there are provisions for labelling feed materials and
compound feed as well as additives. The rules have been changed recently to
include on the label of a compound feedingstuff the list of feed materials with
an  indication  of  the  percentages  by  weight  with  a  tolerance  of  +/-15%.
Traceability  requirements  are  not  developed  for  all  types  of  feeds,  only  for
certain  categories  the  traceability  of  the  manufacturing  process  was  required
before the adoption of the “general food law”.

Undesirable substances: since 1974 there is legislation laying down maximum
limits  of  undesirable  substances  in  feeds.  The  incoming  legislation  will
improve the current system: prohibits dilution of contaminated feed, establishes
limits of undesirable substances in additives (before was only in feed materials
and  compound  feedingstuffs)  and  introduces  thresholds  on  the  presence  of
undesirable  substance  that  must  trigger  intervention  by  the  competent
authorities.

Controls:  the  principles  governing  the  organisation  of  official  inspections  are
established.  The  legislation  was  amended  in  2001,  notably  to  introduce  legal
basis for safeguard measures with respect to third countries and for on-the spot
inspections  by  the  Food  and  Veterinary  Office  inside  and  outside  the
Community.

Conditions for feed establishments and intermediaries: the production and use
of some feeds requires registration by the competent authorities of the Member
States and to comply with certain conditions. For other feeds deemed sensitive,
the  establishments  require  approval  by  the  competent  authorities  subject  to  a
mandatory on-the-spot verification and compliance with very strict conditions
on facilities and equipment, personnel, quality control, storage, documentation,
complaints and product recall. Nevertheless, no hygienic requirements are laid
down.

Safety  of  feed  from  animal  origin:  a  new  Regulation  has  strengthened  the
safety requirements for animal by-products by defining the source material for
animal by-products that can be used for feed, and then, only on condition that
they meet safety  requirements and are produced by establishments complying
with specific conditions.

4. 

There  have  been  substantial  developments  in  the  past  decades  in  the  production,
marketing  and  control  of  feeds.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  has  identified  some
areas that are necessary to improve food safety, in particular, the following areas of
existing legislation have to be brought up to date:

(a) 

Feed hygiene: A proposal for a Regulation laying down requirements for feed
hygiene  is  a  milestone  to  ensure  food  safety.  This  proposal  will  extend  the
registration by the competent authorities to all feed business operators and will
establish the obligation for feed business operators, other than those operating
at primary production, to comply with the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP). The proposal encourages the development of national guides
to good agricultural practices and for the application of a HACCP system and
provides for the establishment of Community guides.

6

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Negative list of  feed  materials:  the negative list of  feed materials  needs  to  be
completed by a comitology procedure in accordance with the new legal basis.
This  will  allow  banning  or  restricting  the  use  of  feed  materials  that  may
compromise  food  safety  in  an  efficient  way.  The  comitology  procedure
provides  for  flexibility  and  efficiency  to  be  incorporated  in  the  list  feed
materials that should not be authorised.

Labelling, traceability and authorisation of feed materials: recast legislation on
feed materials and compound feedingstuffs with the objective to adapt approval
procedures  for  certain  categories  of  feed  materials  according  to  the  new
responsibilities  of 
the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  (e.g.
bioproteins), to harmonise labelling requirements, to delete certain derogations
to the labelling provisions, to introduce provisions for nutritional claims. Also
foreseen  is  to  extend  the  current  non-exhaustive  list  of  feed  materials  by
comitology.  These  provisions  will  enable  the  users  to  have  more  accurate
information  on  the  label  and  will  facilitate  the  traceability  requirements  laid
down  in  the  “general  food  law”  and  withdrawal  of  products  that  may  have
adverse effects on human health, animal health and the environment.

Controls:  The  Commission  has  adopted  on  February  2003  a  proposal  for  a
Regulation of the EP and of the Council on official feed and food controls that
shall  replace  Directive  95/53/EC,  fixing 
the
organisation  of  official  inspections  in  the  field  of  animal  nutrition.  This
proposal  is  a  comprehensive  piece  of  legislation  that  recasts  different  control
requirements,  introduces  a  harmonised  Community-wide  approach  to  the
design  and  development  of  national  control  systems  and  improves  the
efficiency of the control services of the Commission and of the Member States.

the  principles  governing 

The reason for this report

5. 

6. 

7. 

Directive 2002/2/EC changed the rules concerning the labelling of feed materials on
compound  feedingstuffs.  In  general  terms,  the  listing  of  feed  materials  is  now
required  with  an  indication,  in  descending  order,  of  the  percentages  by  weight.  As
regards  these  percentages,  a  tolerance  of  around  15%  of  the  declared  value  is
permitted.

During  the  conciliation  procedure  concerning  the  adoption  of  this  Directive  the
Council and the Parliament agreed on a recital stating the following: "On the basis of
a feasibility study, the Commission will submit a report to the European Parliament
and the Council by 31 December 2002, accompanied by an appropriate proposal for
the establishment of a positive list, taking into account the conclusions of the report".

In this context the  Commission  made  the  following  statement  for  the  record  of  the
conciliation committee:

"The Commission declares that it cannot guarantee that it will be possible to respond
to the request laid down in recital 10(a), which affects its right of initiative.
The  Commission  emphasises  that  establishing  a  positive  list  is  a  complex  issue  in
which  Member  States  and  stakeholders  are  involved.  For  this  reason,  the
Commission  launched  a  feasibility  study  on  the  establishment  of  a  positive  list  of
feed  materials.  The Commission  will send a  report  on  the outcome of this  study to
the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  before  31  December  2002.  Taking  the

7

outcome of this report into account, the Commission intends to make the appropriate
proposals in due course"2.

The concept of a positive list of feed materials

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

A positive list of feed materials is an exclusive list of materials that upon assessment
are considered safe for human and animal health and can therefore be used in animal
feed.  This  means  that  only  feed  materials  included  on  the  list  can  be  used  by  feed
business operators.

Prior  to  the  European  feed  legislation,  some  Member  States  such  as  Germany,
Denmark  and  Sweden  had  positive  lists.  Directive  96/25/EC  prohibits  more
restrictive  national  measures.  Recently,  Germany  has  developed  a  list  pursuing  the
objective  that  feed  materials  used  in  animal  feed  should  be  duly  authorised.
Nevertheless,  the  German  list  is  applicable  by  operators  only  on  a  voluntary  basis,
since Community legislation does not allow for the implementation of real  positive
lists in Member States.

Lists  of  feed  materials  are  also  used  in  non-EC  countries  such  as  Switzerland,  the
United States (the AAFCO list 3) and Canada. However, the only one that is positive
(meaning exclusive and legally binding) is Switzerland’s.

In  the  1970s,  the  purpose  of  EC  feed  legislation  within  the  framework  of  the
Common  Agricultural  Policy  was  to  guarantee  transparency  throughout  the  feed
chain, while improving the quality of agricultural production, in particular livestock
production.  Council  Directive  77/101/EEC  of  23  November  1976,  subsequently
replaced  by  Directive  96/25/EC,  recognised  that  Member  States  still  had  different
traditions as regards regulating the marketing of raw materials and allowed them to
provide for derogations in certain cases.

Directive 96/25/EC provided for a harmonised definition of feed materials: "various
products of vegetable or animal origin, in their natural state, fresh or preserved, and
products  derived  from  the  industrial  processing  thereof,  and  organic  and  inorganic
substances,  whether  or  not  containing  additives,  which  are  intended  for  use  in  oral
animal  feeding  either  directly  as  such,  or  after  processing,  in  the  preparation  of
compound  feedingstuffs  or  as  carriers  of  premixtures".  The  same  Directive  also
clarified (recital 8) that the term "feedingstuffs" could be used in EC legislation as a
general concept that includes raw materials and compound feedingstuffs.

13. 

In  this  report  the  term  "feed  material",  as  defined  by  Directive  96/25/EC,  will  be
used. Additives used in feed fall therefore outside this definition and are not included
in the discussions concerning the list of feed materials.

2

3

OJ C 27, 31.1.02, p. 2
The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) list is incorporated into feed law in all
States  in  the  USA  with  the  exception  of  Alaska.  Although  Canada,  Puerto  Rico  and  Costa  Rica  are
members of AAFCO, their legal systems are different from those of the USA and they therefore  may
have their own official list.

8

                                                
The feasibility study

14. 

On 7 June 2001, the Commission launched a general invitation to tender No 2001/S
107-072830 relating to an evaluation of the feasibility of a positive list of authorised
feed materials at Community level. The intention was to evaluate that feasibility by
describing different options to create and manage (including amend) the list, as well
as  the  resources  required  for  appropriate  implementation.  The  advantages  and
disadvantages  of  the  different  options  should  also  be  included.  The  following
information was requested:

Background:  information  on  other  positive  lists  of  feed  materials  already  in  place,
describing the responsible entities for those lists, principles, objectives, establishment
and management procedures, etc.

Different options for preparing and establishing the list: principles, objectives, status,
criteria, to amend the list, criteria for describing products on the list, level of detail,
etc.

Management  of  the  list  (different  options):  maintenance,  accessibility,  mechanisms
to amend the list, electronic support, etc.

Resources  (different  options):  precise  data  on  human,  economic,  and  technical
resources to maintain the list.

15. 

This feasibility study can be consulted on the web site of the Health and Consumer
Protection Directorate General.

The purpose of the present report

16. 

The  present  report  fulfils  the  obligation  of  the  Commission  towards  the  Parliament
and  the  Council  referred  to  in  Directive  2002/2/EC.  Taking  into  account  the
feasibility study just mentioned, it expresses the Commission's views concerning the
scope of an eventual positive list of feed materials, the implications of such a list for
feed safety policy and for trade.

II.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A POSITIVE LIST

Preamble

17. 

This  chapter  aims  at  examining  the  requirements  that  a  positive  list  might  fulfil  in
order  to  become  operational.  Different  parameters  are  under  consideration:
exclusivity,  categories  of  feed  materials,  criteria  for  authorisation,  labelling,
nutritional  characteristics,  definition  of  the  feeds,  method  of  production  and  use  of
the list for non-food producing animals.

Exclusive list

18. 

An  exclusive  list  must  make  reference  to  all  products  that  are  used  within  the
Community as a feed material for animals, regardless of their scale of production or
marketability. The positive list, if adopted, should apply in all Member States.

9

19. 

The scope and the level of detail of the positive list will depend on the objectives. If
feed safety is the only objective, certain aspects need not be taken into account such
as  the  need  to  apply  the  list  to  non-food-producing  animals  or  the  level  of
differentiation  between  different  feed  materials.  If  the  purpose  is  also  to  facilitate
trade, labelling will have to be taken into account. The implementation of Directive
2002/2/EC  imposes  the  obligation  to  list  all  feed  materials  present  in  a  compound
feedingstuff by their specific names. The obligation to list feed materials on the label
will also facilitate the implementation  of the traceability requirements  laid down in
the General Food Law but, at the same time, will require a detailed harmonised list of
feed materials.

Categories of feed materials

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

In  principle,  the  choice  of  categories  has  no  safety  implications:  the  basis  for  the
choice  of  categories  is  to  make  the  list  as  easy  as  possible  to  manage  while
minimising confusion to users, bearing in mind that the legal obligation to list feed
materials on the labelling would require a high level of detail.

Directive  96/25/EC  establishes  12  categories.  Current  lists  of  feed  materials  in
Germany and Switzerland are based on the same basic structure as that of Directive
96/25/EC; both lists have 18 categories. The AAFCO (Association of American Feed
Control  Officials) 
include  substances  or
these 
microorganisms which in the EU are regarded as additives.

list  has  35  categories,  but 

In  establishing  a  framework  for  the  list,  it  is  essential  that  the  general  approach  be
practical  and  pragmatic  rather  than  theoretical.  The  German  and  North  American
lists  provide  examples  of  a  practical  approach,  offering  room  for  flexibility  in
difficult  areas  of  naming.  The  German  list  has  what  could  be  called  “general
purpose”  categories,  i.e.  where  feeds  can  be  listed  when  they  have  a  potentially
similar  safety  status  but  would  be  unnecessarily  complicated  to  describe.  This
approach  is  used  for  forages  and  also  for  feed  materials  originating  from  the
manufacture of human food. In the German list, these are assumed to be safe unless
other regulations apply.

Forages would increase the complexity of the list, although for feed safety purposes
they  may  only  need  to  be  listed  in  broad  categories.  In  most  cases,  these  feeds  in
themselves  present  little  or  no  risk  to  feed  and  food  safety  although  inappropriate
handling,  storage  or  preservation  can  compromise  their  safety.  The  list  would
therefore  need  to  reflect  this.  The  presence  of  noxious  weeds  in  forages  and
undesirable  substances  resulting  from  processing  would  be  regulated  by  legislation
on  undesirable  substances.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  Canadian  list  does  not  include
fresh  or  ensiled  forages,  although  it  details  a  number  of  dry  forage  and  roughage
feeds. This reflects the importance of the list for traded products.

With  a  few  exceptions,  the  current  list  established  by  Directive  96/25/EC  does  not
include moist and liquid feed materials. Those products are normally by-products (or
co-products) of food and drink processing industries, which are used as animal feed
and have a long history of safe use.

Feedingstuffs  of  animal  origin  are  regulated  by  two  sets  of  specific  legislation:
general legislation on feedingstuffs on the one hand, and veterinary legislation on the
other.  To  prevent  divergences  between  feedingstuffs  legislation  and  veterinary

10

legislation  it  is  necessary  to  establish  a  specific  category  for  these  products  with  a
flexible  mechanism  to  update  the  list  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  provisions  in
veterinary legislation.

Criteria for authorisation.

26. 

In  order  to  comply  with  EC  legislation,  a  feed  which  is  to  be  included  on  the  list
should meet the following criteria:

–  it  does  not  have  adverse  effects  on  human  health,  animal  health  and  the

environment.

–  it does not mislead the user;

–  it does not harm the consumer by impairing the distinctive features of the animal

products;

–  its normal consumption would not be nutritionally disadvantageous for animals.

27. 

28. 

In  addition  to  these  basic  requirements,  the  nature  of  the  feed  material  should  be
known with sufficient precision to ensure that it can be properly identified and that
its nature will be consistent over time.

In approving feed materials for inclusion on the list, primary consideration should be
given to the feed’s safety rather than to its nutritional value, since this may not be the
rationale  for  giving  certain  feeds  to  animals.  For  example,  products  may  have
beneficial  properties,  such  as  to  provide  bulk,  which  are  not  strictly  nutritional.
However,  that  scientific  risk  assessment  alone  may  not  be  the  only  or  the  most
appropriate basis on which to approve feed materials in all cases. Other factors such
as  societal,  economic  and  animal  welfare  concerns  may  legitimately  be  taken  into
consideration on a case-by-case basis.

Labelling

29. 

30. 

31. 

Directive 2002/2/EC amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on  the  circulation of
compound  feedingstuffs  establishes  that,  as  from  6  November  2003,  all  feed
materials  used  in  a  compound  feedingstuff  for  food-producing  animals  should  be
listed  by  their  specific  name  and  in  descending  order  of  the  percentages  by  weight
present in the compound feedingstuff. As regards the percentages, a tolerance of +/-
15% of the declared value is permitted. For non-food-producing animals it is possible
to  replace  the  specific  name  of  the  feed  material  by  the  name  of  the  category  to
which the feed material belongs.

The labelling of the feed requires certain standardisation of the feed names in order
not to give misleading information to the user. The feed name should be the common
name to be used on labels, accompanying documents and other documentation.

It  is  argued  that  if  feed  safety  were  the  only  objective,  there  would  be  no  need  to
differentiate  between  many  different  feed  materials.  For  example,  whole  potatoes,
liquid  potato  products,  mixtures  of  mashed  potato  and  peelings,  potato  pieces  and
potato  peelings  could  all  be  given  a  generic  name  (e.g.  ‘potatoes  and  potato  by-
products’). This is not completely true in all cases: animals consume plants and plant
parts where the concentration of toxins and undesirable substances may be different

11

and differentiation is therefore necessary in those products. The feed safety approach
would  not  reflect  the  innovation  and  developments  in  processing  in  many  of  these
industries  and  would not  be suitable for  trade and labelling purposes. Nor  would  it
allow  potential  purchasers  to  differentiate  between  feed  materials  derived  from  the
same manufacturing process but having different composition and nutritional value.
For  example,  it  is  important  to  differentiate  between  grape  pulp  and  grape  pips,
maize  gluten  feed  and  maize  gluten  meal,  potato  peelings  and  peeled  potatoes.  In
practice, it is useful for labelling purposes that the main feed materials be specified
individually,  although  there  is  likely  to  be  a  need  for  a  ‘miscellaneous’  or  ‘other
products’ category to accommodate a few minor feeds. This would permit flexibility
where  new  or  different  by-products  became  available.  They  may  not  remain  in  the
‘other’ category for long, but this could be the ‘entry level’ prior to separate listing.

32. 

A  number  of  similar  or  identical  feed  materials  are  labelled  and  traded  under
different names within the Community, while in some instances the same name may
be  used  for  different  feed  materials.  Failure  to  recognise  this  would  lead  to
discrimination against certain feed materials that may have a long history of safe use,
and result in distortion of trade. Local names should also be considered where these
differ from the generally accepted names, provided that in all other respects the feed
materials are similar. This will be a major challenge and the problems of achieving
this should not be underestimated.

Nutritional characteristics

33. 

Current  feed  lists  include  references  to  certain  nutritional  characteristics,  e.g.  in
Directive  96/25/EC  there  is  the  following  specification  for  soya(bean)  dehulled,
extracted and toasted: “maximum crude fibre 8%”. The AAFCO and the Swiss lists
than  Directive  96/25/EC  and  contain  nutritional
are  much  more  detailed 
specifications  which  are  necessary  for  trade  and  labelling  purposes  and  to  protect
against  fraud,  but  not  for  safety  purposes.  These  are  primarily  intended  to
differentiate one feed from another, both as an aid to purchasers and to prevent fraud.
Lists  of  feed  materials  which  include  considerably  more  detail  on  nutritional
characteristics  have  been  developed  and  are  in  use  in  a  number  of  Member  States.
These,  however,  are  primarily  used  for  feed  formulation  purposes.  There  is  no
justification  to  include  references  to  specific  nutritional  characteristics  unless  it  is
clearly  necessary  to  differentiate  one  feed  material  from  another  or  is  justified  for
safety purposes.

Definition of the feed and method of production

34. 

35. 

The  feed  definition  must  describe  unambiguously  the  biological  nature  (species  or
chemical  formula,  plant  or  animal  part  used)  and  the  process  to  which  the  feed
material has been subjected. In order not to prejudice free movement and use of feed
materials  the  definition  must  reflect  the  wide  variety  of  processes  and  terminology
employed throughout the EU.

In  order  to  achieve  a  comprehensive  list  of  definitions,  it  is  necessary  to  examine
both  the  range  of  feed  materials  available  and  the  processes  to  which  they  are
exposed. The AAFCO list contains over 250 different terms and associate definitions
relating  to  feed  materials  (e.g.  grain,  bran,  etc.),  and  processes  (e.g.  extruded,  dry-
milled, etc.). In contrast, Directive 96/25/EC lists only 17 definitions.

12

36. 

The safety of a feed material may be influenced as much by the processing to which
it is exposed as the  nature  and quality  of  the  original  material.  The  entry  of  a  feed
onto a positive list should therefore be accompanied by a description of the process
applied. At first sight some of these processes appear to be relatively standard,  e.g.
“dried”,  but  even  this  is  not  a  standard  process  and  changes  in  the  amount  and
duration of heat applied can significantly affect the quality and safety of a feed. This
is  clearly  a  complex  issue  where  a  safety-oriented  classification  is  required.  The
effect  of  processing  on  the  safety  of  a  particular  feed  should  be  an  underlying
principle  in  determining  the  degree  of  detail  required.  Nevertheless,  it  should  be
noted that in general feed scares are linked to manufacturing practices that have been
incorrectly implemented. These problems may be overcome by the strict enforcement
of  HACCP  (Hazard  Analysis  and  Critical  Control  Point)  principles  and  Good
Manufacturing Practices.

Non-food-producing animals

37. 

38. 

39. 

Currently, Directive 96/25/EC and other Community legislation in the field of animal
nutrition  do  not  make  a  distinction  between  feed  intended  for  non-food-producing
animals and feed intended for food-producing animals. Nevertheless, there are some
specific  rules  for  feeds  intended  for  non-food-producing  animals,  such  as  specific
provisions for labelling and presentation or authorisation of feeds intended to satisfy
certain  particular  nutritional  purposes  for  pets.  It  should  be  noted  that  veterinary
legislation  allows  the  use  of  certain  feed  materials  of  animal  origin,  which  are
forbidden for food-producing animals, to feed non-food-producing animals.

In addition to this, manufacturers of petfoods use a number of feed materials that are
not  used  by  other  feed  manufacturers  or  by  livestock  farmers.  These  include
slaughterhouse by-products and a wide range of speciality feed materials, including
nuts, insects, crustacean shells,  plankton (fresh or dried) etc.  Many  of  these  have  a
long history of use.

Pet food manufacturers have pointed out that since pet foods do not form part of the
human food chain, they pose no risk to the safety of food for human consumption. It
was therefore questionable whether they should be part of a positive list established
for  food  safety  purposes.  This  approach  appears  to  have  been  adopted  in  the
development of the German and Swiss lists; in contrast, the AAFCO list does contain
descriptions of feeds approved - in some cases exclusively so - for the manufacture
of pet foods.

III.

ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A POSITIVE LIST

Establishment of an initial list

40. 

The establishement of the initial positive list would imply the following steps:

– 

The process of compiling a list is highly technical and would best be achieved
by experts in different areas of animal nutrition and from different countries.

– 

It would require safety assessment by a competent body (EFSA).

13

– 

It would require a decision legally binding on all feed-business operators. The
decision  on  the  positive  list  should  take  into  consideration  not  only  risk
assessment but also other legitimate factors.

41. 

The  current  Community  legislation  on  feed  materials  does  not  allow  for  the
establishment of a positive list. The adoption of a legal basis for positive list would
therefore  require  a  Regulation/Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the
Council to be adopted by co-decision procedure.

Maintenance of the positive list

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

It  is  clear  that  a  list  of  feed  materials  cannot  be  a  static  document.  A  flexible
mechanism should be established for approving and withdrawing feed materials from
the list.

In Switzerland, there are about 20 applications per year to have new feeds approved
and included on the official list, which already contains more than 300 feeds. About
half  the  requests  are  rejected,  usually  on  the  basis  of  lack  of  information  or  the
general unsuitability of the proposed feed material. While it is difficult to extrapolate
these figures to the whole of the EU, it may be reasonable to assume that at EU level
there would be significantly more applications each  year. Countries such as France,
Spain,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Germany  and  the  UK  have  highly  innovative  feed
industries, on a much larger scale than Switzerland.

A long lead-time to include a feed material in the list would be a disincentive to use
many  feed  materials  and  would  have  consequent  adverse  effects  on  livestock
production, trade and the environment. In the USA, it takes a minimum of about 12
months  for  a  feed  to  be  classified  as  GRAS4,  although  it  can  be  longer  in  some
instances.

The information submitted by the applicant for approval needs to be proportionate to
the risk. A degree of flexibility may be appropriate for the majority of feed materials,
while others may require more detailed information. Directive 82/471/EEC5 provides
for a special system of authorisation for certain sources of proteins that are produced
using certain technologies.

Existing  systems  such  as  those  in  Switzerland  and  USA  implement  a  tentative
provisional  list.  For  feed  materials  with  a  low  risk  and  where  there  is  a  high
probability  of  them  being  approved  and  accepted  provisionally,  this  facility  allows
them  to  be  used  and  marketed  before  full  approval  is  granted.  The  decision  on
whether or not an application follows this ‘fast-track’ approach is based on an initial
assessment  of  the  risk  that  the  new  feed  material  is  likely  to  pose  to  animals  or
consumers  of  animal  products.  Taking  into  account  the  experience  with  Directive
70/524/EEC,  the  provisional  authorisation  of  feed  materials  may  be  problematic  in
the long term if the final assessment results in withdrawal from the list.

47. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  use  of  feed  materials  within  the  EU  that  are
frequently  only  available  in  small  quantities,  on  an  irregular  basis,  and  which  are
only used locally. Seeking  approval for these feed materials may be disproportionate

4

5

Generally Recognised As Safe
OJ L 213, 21.7.1982, p 15.

14

                                                
to  their  use,  with  potentially  adverse  effects  on  livestock  systems  and  the
environment.  One  approach  would  be  to  adopt  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  with
respect  to  feed  materials  that  are  available  and  used  only  within  a  region  or  an
individual  Member  State.  Any  local  approval  procedure  would  need  to  adopt  the
same  principles  relating  to  safety,  labelling  etc.  as  would  apply  at  EU  level.  If  the
particular feed material were to be traded or used outside the local region or Member
State for which approval had been granted, then full EU approval would be required,
as described above. This approach has been adopted in the USA, where the AAFCO
list is used for regulatory purposes and trade across all States, but where individual
States  may  approve  additional  feeds  that  are  produced  and  used  exclusively  within
that State.

IV.

IMPLICATIONS OF A POSITIVE LIST

Status of the existing lists

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

Prior to the European feed legislation some Member States developed positive lists.
Nevertheless,  those  lists  cannot  satisfy  the  current  necessities  of  the  feed  sector,
taking into account that innovation in the feed industry has incorporated a lot of new
feeds  to  improve  feed  efficiency  and  to  reduce  cost.  Those  lists  were  applicable  in
one  Member  State  with  limited  production  systems  and  weather  conditions  that
cannot represent the wide variety of production in the European Union.

The  lists  used  in  other  non-EU  countries  such  as  the  USA  are  not  really  legally
binding  lists.  The  same  applies  for  the  current  German  list.  For  this  reason,  it  is
difficult to extrapolate the consequences for the implementation of a positive list at
EU level. An example of a real positive list is Switzerland.

The Swiss list contains more than 300 feed materials while, for example, an expert
group,  created  to  prepare  Directive  96/25/EC,  identified  at  that  moment  620  feed
materials. The production in this country is mainly orientated to dairy products, beef
and pork meat. For other productions such as poultry meat and eggs the production is
very low and they need to import from other countries. Those examples show that the
implementation of a positive list in the EU is on a different scale of magnitude and
complexity.

The Swiss positive list did not prevent a big incidence of  BSE in that country.  It is
impossible  to  include  in  a  positive  list  thousands  of  different  products  that  are
produced  in  different  sites  with  different  technologies  and  that  may  have  different
safety  status  and  nutritional  and  technical  characteristics.  For  these  reasons,  the
positive  list  is  simplified  and  products  are  grouped  in  accordance  with  a  potential
similar  safety  status.  This  simplification  cannot  ensure  food  safety  in  all  the  cases.
Similarly, the question is that for a product listed it should be produced in accordance
with  adequate  hygienic  conditions.  The  implementation  of  the  rapid  alarm  system
and  the  recent  feed  scandals  have  showed  that  the  origin  of  the  problem  in  the
majority of the cases was not the feed material per se but the contamination during
the production, storage and transport with substances that are not allowed in animal
nutrition. For example, the contamination of glucose syrup with hormones (medroxy
progesterone  acetate)  is  a  problem  of  residues  of  prohibited  substances  in  a  feed
material.  Glucose  syrup  is  per  se  a  safe  feed  material  that  was  contaminated  by  a
substance which is not authorised in feed.

15

Traceabilty and labelling.

52. 

53. 

54. 

According  to  the  principles  of  the  General  Food  Law  laid  down  in  Regulation
EC/178/2002,  traceability  of  feed  must  be  established  at  all  stages  of  production,
processing  and  distribution.  Feed  business  operators  must  be  able  to  identify  any
person from whom they have been supplied with a feed and the businesses to which
their  products  have  been  supplied.  The  General  Food  Law  also  recognises  the  link
between labelling and traceability by saying that feed must be adequately identified
or  labelled  to  facilitate  its  traceability.  These  provisions  will  become  applicable  in
January 2005.

Within the current legislative framework, Directive 95/69/EC includes requirements
relating to traceability of the manufacturing process for certain establishments using
or  producing  certain  feed  materials  and  additives.  Directive  2002/2/EC,  amending
Council  Directive  79/373/EEC  on  the  circulation  of  compound  feedingstuffs  has
introduced the obligation to include the batch number on the label, the packaging, the
container  or  in  an  accompanying  document  (in  bulk  products)  of  compound
feedingstuffs.  Directive  96/25/EC  does  not  provide  for  similar  provision  for  feed
materials; the batch number is required only for certain categories of feed materials.
In addition to this some operators are exempted from certain labelling provisions.

Therefore,  traceability  systems  need  to  be  able  to  link  a  unique  batch  of  feed  with
information about when and where it was produced, and the source of feed materials
used, throughout the food chain. Clearly, traceability systems have the potential to be
very effective in enhancing feed and food safety. An effective and comprehensive list
of feed materials (not specifically a positive list in  the  meaning of  this report) may
facilitate this process, since it would allow precise feed names and descriptions to be
used throughout  the  chain  and  would  apply  to  a  much  larger  number  of  feeds  than
those  in  the  current  list.  Even  those  opposed  to  the  establishment  of  a  positive  list
indicated  that  they  would  welcome  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  list  for
labelling purposes.

Implications for trade – overview of the feed sector

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

The  value  of  livestock  production  (amounting  to  108  369  million  €)  accounts  for
41% of the overall EU-15 agricultural output, which amounted to 267 019 million €
in 19996

EU feed consumption in 2001 was approximately 394 million t. Half was forage and
roughage  produced  on-farm,  10%  were  grains  produced  on-farm  that  may  be
potentially traded, 10% purchased feed materials and 30% industrial compound feed.
See figure 1 of the Annex.

The  level  of  commercially  traded  feed  (Figure  2  of  the  Annex)  remained  stable  in
recent years at around 200 million t (this quantity includes all feed except forage on-
farm) .

Industrial compound feed production by species of animal shows that the majority of
production  is  intended  for  pigs,  followed  by  poultry.  From  1996  the  BSE  crisis
resulted in a reduction in cattle feed that has been offset by a parallel increase in feed

6

Source Eurostat

16

                                                
59. 

60. 

61. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

65. 

for pork and poultry meat production as a result of the increase of consumer demand
for that type of meat.

Feed materials and  compound  feed are the  main  input  into  livestock production.  In
1999  there  were  3  794  enterprises  manufacturing  feedingstuffs,  with  a  production
value of 30 248 million €. These figures exclude the production value at farm level
or  the  production  of  other  feed  ingredients  such  as  additives.  See  Table  1  of  the
Annex.

The  EU  is  the  biggest  world  importer  of  feed.  The  most  representative  products
imported  during  the  period  1990-2000  are  soybean  meal,  oilseed,  corn  gluten  feed
(CGF), manioc, molasses, cereals and citrus pulp. See table 2 of the Annex.

The  1990s  introduced  important  changes  in  the  EU  agricultural  policy  that  has
affected  world  trade.  Lower  cereal  support  prices  and  the  increasing  value  of  the
dollar have closed the gap between EU and world prices. Prices on the EU market of
certain products such as CGF and manioc have followed cereal prices and the use of
these products as substitutes for grains fell. EU cattle production (except dairy cows,
which  also  consume  significant  quantities  of  concentrate)  is  based  largely  on
pastures. During recent years the trend in European agriculture has led to a shift in
production  from  animals  consuming  grass  to  animals  consuming  concentrate  (pigs
and poultry). In the 1990s there was an increase in soybean meals and a shift away
from  CGF  and  manioc  in  the  feed  rations.  The  increased  use  of  feeds  during  the
1990s was not  accompanied  by  a  rise  in EU imports:  in 1998-2000 they  were only
2% greater than in the EU-12 in 1990-1992.

The increase in feed use required significantly greater imports of protein feeds (soya
meal).  Soybean  imports  rose  from  39%  of  total  imports  to  50%.  The  increase  in
protein feeds was offset by a significant reduction in imports of CGF and manioc.

The  disruptions  caused  by  epidemic  diseases  and  other  feed  scandals  make  all
forecasts difficult. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that lower grain prices and
lower poultry and pork meat prices would lead to a period of growth in consumption
of  such  meat.  With  the  accession  of  eastern  countries,  grains,  sunflower  seed  and
rapeseed may become available at relatively cheap prices.

The forecasts for beef consumption are slightly below to those of 1995 but this does
not  seem  to  affect  pork  and  poultry  meat  consumption.  Although  forecasts  are
difficult,  the  trend  for  the  next  decade  indicates  an  increase  in  imports  of  soybean
meal, while CGF and manioc may decline.

The adoption of an exclusive list would, by definition, prevent the importation or use
of any feed materials into the EU until such time as their safety had been determined
and they had been entered in the positive list. As seen in the previous paragraphs, this
is  not  going  to  pose  major  problems  as  the  majority  of  imports  are  materials
traditionally  used  in  the  EU.  However,  certain  feed  materials  are  imported  which,
although  they  represent  a  relatively  small  proportion  of  the  total  feeds  used  in  the
EU,  are  very  important  both  for  niche  markets  in  the  Community  and  for
manufacturers in third countries.

66. 

The  importation  from  third  countries  of  compound  feeds  and  feed  mixtures
containing feed materials that are not on an EU positive list would be prohibited. In

17

67. 

68. 

particular, this would apply to a number of pet foods that are manufactured in third
countries from feed materials that are not available in the EU.

The recent BSE scare in the beef sector resulted in a shift in demand towards other
kinds  of  meats.  Poultry  production  increased  by  around  3.7%  in  2001  and  was
accompanied  by an increase  in  poultry  imports  (407  000  t  between  1999  and  2001
from  Brazil  and  Thailand).  It  is  assumed  that  poultry  imports  will  continue  to
increase and the EU may become a net importer  of  poultry meat. The  medium and
long-term outlook for pork meat consumption is in general positive. Imports of pork
meat are expected to increase over the medium term.

In  conclusion,  over  the  coming  years  the  expected  increase  in  pork  and  poultry
production  will  depend  on  an  increase  in  the  use  of  feed  materials  produced  in
Europe  (cereals),  and  an  increase  in  soybean  imports,  but  not  on  an  increase  in
imports  of  manioc  and  corn  gluten  feed.  In  order  to  be  competitive  with  the
production of animal products on the world market, the European feed industry will
continue to search for and use new sources of feed materials.

Regional and national implications

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 

Exclusive positive lists have been produced at national level (Swiss list and lists of
some  Member  States  applied  prior  to  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation),
frequently involving one or few languages. The number of feed materials involved,
and the  processes to which they  have  been exposed, has been relatively  small. The
AAFCO  list  of  the  USA  (which  is  not  an  exclusive  list)  is  more  complex,  and
includes a very extensive list of feed materials7.These lists are generally effective and
well received by the feed and farming industry. However, they are mainly based on a
single language and require human resources to manage them.

  A  positive  list  at  Community  level  would  need  to  accommodate  all  regional  and
local feed manufacturing practices.

Standardisation of the feed names would be essential. However a number of similar
or identical feed materials are traded under different names, while in some cases the
same  name may be used for different feed materials.  Local names  may  differ  from
the generally accepted name.

There  are  also  feed  materials  within  the  EU  that  are  frequently  only  available  in
small  quantities,  on  an  irregular  basis,  and  which  are  only  used  locally.  Different
approaches to address this issue should be also taken into consideration.

Implications for a feed safety policy

73. 

74. 

Table  3  of  the  Annex  lists  the  notifications  which  have  been  issued  since  the
implementation of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed in February 2002:

From  the  analysis  of  recent  alerts  in  the  feed  sector,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the
majority  concern  the  use  of  forbidden  substances  such  as  chloramphenicol  or
undesirable  substances  whose  use 
to  Directive
1999/29/EC. There have been a large number of notifications relating to the presence

in  accordance 

is  restricted 

7

The annual publication runs to some 450 pages

18

                                                
of  chloramphenicol  in  skimmed  milk  powder.  Skimmed  milk  powder  is  an
authorised feed material  that  is  included  on  the  non-exclusive  list  of  the  main  feed
materials (Council Directive 96/25/EC). Chloramphenicol is included in Annex IV to
Council Regulation  (EC) 2377/908,  so the administration  of  this  substance  to  food-
producing  animals  is  prohibited  throughout  the  Community.  A  recent  case  in
Germany of contamination of bakery products (those products were included in the
current list agreed by the German operators) with dioxins is another example that the
adoption of a list of feed materials is not the solution for all the incidents.

As to the BSE crisis, the positive list established in Switzerland since 1975 has not
prevented  a  significant  incidence  of  BSE  in  that  country.  In  2001,  the  Court  of
Auditors in its Special report No. 14/20019 has included certain recommendations to
prevent the incidence of BSE. Those recommendations do not contemplate the need
to  develop  a  positive  list  of  feed  materials.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  report
concludes that the second BSE crisis has to be seen in the context of Member States’
poor implementation of existing EU legislation, poor surveillance (control) and poor
implementation of the mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM) feed ban. The report
indicates that the institutional legislative process has also caused long delays  in  the
implementation of BSE measures.

There has been a comprehensive body of legislation in the feed sector to avoid feed
crises. In many cases, if rigorously implemented, it is sufficient to protect against the
risks associated with feed. Nevertheless, the Commission has recognised the need to
improve existing feed legislation and has developed many initiatives (see paragraph
13) to that end.

In conclusion, recent crises were caused by the presence of contaminants, illegal use
of drugs or additives or fraudelent use of forbidden feed materials. Consequently, the
existence of a positive list would not have prevented the incidents referred to in table
3.

75. 

76. 

77. 

Implications for innovation

78. 

79. 

80. 

Each  authorisation  for  inclusion  on  the  positive  list  should  be  preceded  by  an
assessment  based  on  a  dossier.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  positive  list
might well hamper innovation in the use of new substances or products  in the  feed
sector.

In  the  USA,  it  takes  a  minimum  of  about  12  months  for  a  feed  to  be  classified  as
“GRAS”. This is likely to be the minimum amount of time for any approval process
linked to the EC regulatory mechanism.

A degree of flexibility may be appropriate, with individual feeds dealt on a case-by-
case basis. In the case of feed materials, a certain amount of basic information would
be  required  for  the  authorisation.  Additional  information  would  be  necessary
depending on the potential risk associated to the use of the feed.

8

9

OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
OJ C 324, 20.11.2001, p.1

19

                                                
81. 

The financial margins on many feeds, in particular livestock feeds, are minimal and
may  not  support  the  cost  of  gaining  approval.  Many  feed  materials  are  generic  by
nature so that companies would be reluctant to pay the cost of the approval.

Implications for the environment

82. 

The exclusion of a feed material from the positive list  will increase the pressure for
the disposal of those materials.

V.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO GUARANTEE FEED SAFETY

Lists of feed materials

83. 

The purpose of the legislative measures to be taken is to guarantee feed safety. The
Commission considers that the introduction of a positive list of feed materials would
not in itself achieve that aim. Reference  has  been made to  a number of  recent  feed
safety incidents that have occurred  since the  entry into  force  of  RASFF that  would
not  have  been  prevented  by  the  existence  of  a  positive  list.  The  Commission
considers that the proposal to establish a positive list as an answer to feed safety is a
political answer rather than a technical one. Therefore, with regard to the substances
that  may  and  may  not  be  used  in  animal  nutrition,  the  management  of  the  existing
lists of prohibited substances can achieve the objective of ensuring feed safety.

Actions dealing with manufacturing processes

84. 

The field of animal feeding is already subject to a large and complex corpus of EU
and national  regulations.  However  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  are  no  rules
applicable to feed hygiene, apart from the general rules of Regulation EC/178/2002
(Food  Law)  and  specific  rules  applicable  to  operators  dealing  with  particular
categories of additives or feed materials (Directive 95/69/EC).

85. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  top  priority  is  to  fill  this  gap,  in  order  to
guarantee the safety of manufacturing processes and hence the safety of the feed.

The Codex Alimentarius approach

86. 

87. 

The  Codex  Alimentarius  is  a  joint  FAO/WHO  Food  Standards  programme  whose
main  purpose  is  to  protect  the  health  of  consumers  and  ensure  fair  practices  in  the
food trade.  In  2000, the Codex Alimentarius Commission established a  Task  Force
on  Animal  Feeding  to  complete  the  work  (begun  in  March  1999  by  an  FAO
consultation) on drafting the  Code  of  Practice  on  Good  Animal  Feeding.  The  Task
Force was given four years to complete this work.

inspection  and  procedures 

labelling,
The  draft  proposals  contain  recommendations  on  feed  materials, 
traceability, 
(including  sampling  and  analytical
procedures),  industrial  production  of  animal  feeds  and  on-farm  production  of  feed
materials. One component of the control procedure is HACCP analysis as described
by  FAO/WHO10.  HACCP  is  a  production  control  system  that  identifies  where

10

FAO/WHO. 1997. Report of the 30th session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, Appendix IV.
ALINORM 99/13. Rome.

20

                                                
hazards might occur in a food production process and identifies actions that prevent
the  hazards from occurring.  By strictly  monitoring  and  controlling  each  step  of  the
process,  there  is  less  chance  for  hazards  to  occur.  It  therefore  has  considerable
potential  to  contribute  to  the  safe  manufacture  of  feed  materials.  The  Commission
considers it necessary to follow such an approach in EU feed legislation.

88. 

During  the  second  session  of  the  ad  hoc  Intergovernmental  Codex  Task  Force  on
Animal  Feeding  (March  2001)  an  open-ended  meeting  was  organised  to  discuss,
amongst  other  things,  the  positive/negative  lists.  The  meeting  recognised  the
arguments  in  favour  and  against  each  of  the  two  approaches.  The  meeting
acknowledged that there were time constraints on compiling any such listing which
would  need  to  be  dynamically  maintained  within  the  discussion  on  the  draft  code
given  the  four  year  duration,  therefore,  the  group  did  not  recommend  the
establishment of a positive list.

Codes of practice

89. 

90. 

91. 

92. 

A number of Member States already have, or are in the process of developing, farm
assurance  schemes  and  codes  of  practice  for  the  handling  and  manufacture  of  feed
materials  and  compound  feeds  and  for  the  storage  and  transport  of  feeds.  Many  of
these codes are based on risk assessment and HACCP analysis and are increasingly
being  demanded  by  retailers  and  consumers  of  milk,  meat  and  eggs  and  derived
products.

The  Commission  considers  that  the  adoption  of  codes  of  practice  and  quality
assurance schemes would be more effective than the introduction of a positive list in
ensuring safe  feed. These codes and assurance schemes are defined and maintained
by  the  operators  in  response  to  market  demands.  They  are  effective  because  they
apply  to  the  whole  production  process  and  provide  a  means  of  traceability  in  the
event of any breakdown in feed safety.

However, before these codes can be fully effective within the EU, national schemes
need  to  have  a  legal  existence,  be  rationalised  at  EU  level,  and  be  adopted  by  all
producers  and  manufacturers  of  raw  materials.  Future  EU  legislation  must  provide
the legal base for this purpose. The concept of codes of good manufacturing practices
is already included in the proposals on food and feed hygiene.

The  EU  framework  for  these  codes  must  take  into  account  that  farmers  or  small
producers should not have to bear substantial costs if they are compelled to adopt the
codes.  However,  where  a  risk  exists  there  should  be  effective  regulation,  and  the
HACCP approach provides  a means of addressing this. Rather,  the extent to  which
the  HACCP  approach  is  applied  should  be  commensurate  with  the  degree  of  risk
associated  with  the  production  process.  Undoubtedly,  codes  of  practice  and  farm
assurance  schemes  are  making  a  major  contribution  towards  ensuring  feed  safety.
They  provide  a  framework  for  minimising  the  risk  of  unsafe  feed  reaching  the
consumer  and  raise  awareness  throughout  the  feed  production  chain  of  the  major
issues that can affect feed quality. Where effective, they can provide consumers with
assurance of the quality of livestock foods and of their methods of production.

The Commission considers that taking into account the need for such codes in future
legislative  proposals  will  address  the  possibility  that  the  absence  of  EU-wide

21

schemes  is  creating  ‘uneven  playing  fields’  with  respect  to  products  produced  in
other Member States.

VI.

POLICY ORIENTATION

Rationale

93. 

94. 

95. 

96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 

Current legislation already ensures a high level of safety throughout the feed chain.
The Commission nevertheless considers that recent feed safety incidents have shown
the  need  to  improve  the  legislation,  with  the  overall  objective  of  improving  food
safety.

Recent food and feed safety crises have highlighted deficiencies in national systems
of  control  and  poor  implementation  of  Community  legislation  by  Member  States.
The Commission will adopt a  proposal  to harmonise and improve national controls
and consequently raise safety standards in the European Union.

Other horizontal measures already included in the General Food  Law  will certainly
contribute 
to  detecting  and  managing  emergencies  and  crises,  defining
responsibilities  for  feed  business  operators  and  ensuring  proper  information  to  the
user and competent authorities through the feed chain.

The  Commission  considers  that  provisions  concerning  hygiene  conditions  for  the
manufacture, transport systems and use of feed are the priority. They must include a
legal  framework  in  order  that  Codes  of  Good  Practice  have  a  legal  existence  and
operate without harming the working of the internal market.

The  Commission  considers  that  the  establishment  of  a  positive  and  exclusive  list
(permitting  the  use  of  only  feed  materials  on  the  list,  and  therefore  previously
assessed and authorised) is not decisive in ensuring feed safety and it will not prevent
the  occurrence  of  contaminations,  fraud  and  misuse  of  chemical  and  other
pharmaceuticals..

The Commission recognises the interest of a list of feed materials for the purposes of
trade, labelling and traceability  and  fraud prevention.  However  a  non-exclusive  list
of  feed  materials  already  exists  (Directive  96/25/EC)  but  it  is  limited  in  both  the
number and type of feed ingredients included.

The  fact  that  current  legislation  only  prohibits  the  use  of  certain  ingredients  in
compound feedingstuffs and does not prevent their circulation as feed materials is a
major shortcoming. The Commission considers  it necessary  to  address  this  issue in
future proposals.

Measures to take

100. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  extension  of  the  current  non-exclusive  list,
completion  of  a  list  of  prohibited  feed  materials  and  development  of  the  HACCP
approach and EU wide Codes of Practice  is the appropriate line to take in order to
ensure  feed  safety  together  with  the  relevant  proposal  to  improve  food  and  feed
controls. The Commission therefore intends:

22

a)  to  present  as  soon  as  possible  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  a

proposal for a Regulation laying down provisions for feed hygiene.

b)  to  adopt  by  comitology  procedure  a  Decision  concerning  the  list  of  prohibited
feed  ingredients.  The  purpose  is  to  extend  the  list  and  to  prohibit  the  use  of
ingredients either as single feed material or included in compound feedingstuffs.
The  scope  of  current  legislation  (Decision  91/516/EEC),  which  deals  only  with
the use of those substances in compound feedingstuffs, will thus be substantially
enlarged.

c)  to  amend  by  comitology  procedure  the  non-exclusive  list  of  feed  materials  laid
down  in  the  Annex  to  Directive  96/25/EC.  The  purpose  is  to  extend  the  list  of
feed materials to take into account the constant development of food technology
and the use of new raw materials by the feed industry. This will make it possible
to  give  to  the  buyers  or  users  of  feed  materials  accurate  and  valid  information
providing a clear distinction between the different feed materials. The indication
on  the  label  of  recognised  specific  names  of  feed  materials  will  therefore  be
possible.  As  in  the  case  of  current  legislation  feed  materials  listed  may  only
circulate under the names specified in the legislation and only on  condition that
they correspond to the descriptions in the legislation.

d)  to  recast  existing  legislation  on  feed  materials  and  compound  feedingstuffs  in
order  to  harmonise  labelling  and  delete  certain  derogations  to  the  labelling
provisions, to adapt approval procedures for certain categories of feed materials
in  accordance  with  the  new  responsibilities  of  the  EFSA  and  to  introduce
provisions for nutritional claims.

23

Current legislative situation in respect of feed

ANNEX I

101. 

102. 

Until the entry into force of Commission Decision 91/516/EEC, Member States were
able  to  require  that  compound  feedingstuffs  marketed  in  their  own  territories  were
free of certain ingredients that pose a danger to human or animal health. The need to
remove  barriers  to  intra-Community  trade  resulting  from  such  restrictions  was  the
reason for adopting, at Community level, a list of prohibited ingredients. That list of
ingredients  prohibited  in  compound  feedingstuffs  has  been  amended  several  times.
However, these ingredients were excluded from use only in compound feedingstuffs
and not from direct use as feed materials since until 2000 there was no legal basis to
ban  them.  The  new  legal  basis  was  created  by  Directive  2000/16/EC11  of  the
European Parliament and the Council amending both Council Directive 79/373/EEC
on  the  circulation  of  compound  feedingstuffs12  and  Council  Directive  96/25/EC  on
the  circulation  and  use  of  feed  materials13.  This  new  legal  basis  allows  the
Commission to draw  up a list  of  materials  whose  use,  directly  or  incorporated  into
compound  feedingstuffs, 
is  prohibited  or  restricted.  Accordingly,  Decision
91/516/EEC  should  be  replaced  by  a  new  list  drafted  in  accordance  with  the  new
legal  base.  When  operational,  this  list  will  be  a  true  negative  list,  which  will  be
adopted via the comitology procedure.

The circulation and use of feed materials is regulated by Council Directive 96/25/EC
on  the  circulation  and  use  of  feed  materials,  which  has  been  implemented  into
national law in each of the Member States. Feed materials may be put into circulation
only if they are sound, genuine and of merchantable quality. They may represent no
danger  to  animal  or  human  health  or  to  the  environment  and  may  not  be  put  into
circulation in a manner liable to mislead the purchaser as to the real identity of the
product  offered  to  him.  This  Directive  includes  a  non-exclusive  list  of  the  main
materials used as animal feed within the European Union. Each name is accompanied
by a description of the  feed,  and the levels of certain  constituents  (oil,  protein etc.)
which need to be declared when the product is traded and fed to animals. They may
be  put  into  circulation  only  under  the  names  specified  and  on  condition  that  they
correspond  to  the  descriptions  given  therein.  However,  in  order  not  to  restrict  the
freedom of choice of manufacturers and farmers, other feed materials not on the list
may be put into circulation, provided that the names or descriptions used differ from
those  on  the  list  so  that  the  purchaser  is  not  misled.  Thus,  any  feed  may  be  used
freely in the European Union as a feed material without any previous assessment or
authorisation, provided that the general rules of Directive 96/25/EC are met and that
the provisions of other feed legislation, if relevant, are also met.

103. 

In  conclusion,  this  list  has  the  only  objective  of  facilitating  trade  as  it  lays  down
labelling conditions for the main feed materials. Therefore it is not a list of the feed
materials that may or may not be used.

104. 

Feed safety is guaranteed by a corpus of legislation that together forms a coherent set
of  rules.  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  EC/178/2002

11

12

13

OJ L 105, 3.5.2000, p. 36
OJ L 86, 6.4.1979, p. 30
OJ L 125, 23.5.96, p. 35

24

                                                
105. 

106. 

laying  down  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  food  law,  establishing  the
European  Food  Safety  Authority  and  laying  down  procedures  in  matters  of  food
safety14,  the  "general  food  law",  deals  with  general  feed  safety  requirements,
responsibilities of feed businesses operators, implementation of the rapid alert system
for feed, traceability,  reaction  to  crises  and  the  role  of  science  when  ensuring  food
and feed safety.

Directive 96/25/EC deals with specific requirements for the labelling, circulation and
use  of  feed  materials.  Directive  79/373/EEC  on  the  circulation  of  compound
feedingstuffs  lays  down  provisions  for  the  marketing  of  compound  feedingstuffs,
namely  labelling.  Directive  2002/2/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the
Council amending Council Directive 79/373/EC15 changed  the rules  concerning the
labelling of feed materials in compound feedingstuffs. In general terms, the listing of
feed  materials  is  now  required  with  an  indication,  in  descending  order,  of  the
percentages by weight. As regards these percentages, a tolerance of  around  15% of
the  declared  value  is  permitted.  Special  rules  have  also  been  set  for  feed  materials
which may act as direct or indirect protein sources such as “bioproteins". Bioproteins
are  for  example  by-products  from  fermentation  processes.  Council  Directive
82/471/EEC concerning  certain  substances  used  in  animal  nutrition16gives  rules  for
the  authorisation  of  the  use  in  feed  of  those  feed  materials.  Council  Directive
93/74/EEC  on  feedingstuffs  intended  for  particular  nutritional  purposes17  sets  the
rules  for  the  marketing  and  labelling  of  feedingstuffs  intended  for  particular
nutritional  purposes, known as “dietetic feedingstuffs”, - as opposed to  ordinary  or
medicated  feedingstuffs.  This  is,  for  example,  special  feed  for  cats  and  dogs  with
diabetes.

Council  Directive  95/69/EC  lays  down  the  conditions  and  arrangements  for
approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the
animal feed sector18. This Directive is not applicable to all feed establishments, only
those  that  deal  with  certain  feed  materials  and  additives,  in  order  to  forestall  any
potentially  adverse  effects  on  animal  health,  human  health  and  the  environment,
given  the  risks  inherent  in  using  them.  In  function  of  the  risk  involved  in  the
production  and  use  of  the  substances  they  handle,  some  operators  require  only
registration, while others require approval following a mandatory on-the-spot check
by the competent national authority to verify that the establishment complies with the
conditions  of  the  Directive.  These  conditions  concern  facilities  and  equipment,
qualifications  of  personnel,  production  processes  and  quality  control,  storage,  and
documentation concerning materials used, controls, complaints and product recall.

107. 

Council  Directive  95/53/EC  fixing  the  principles  governing  the  organisation  of
official  inspections  in  the  field  of  animal  nutrition19,  requires  that  the  competent
national  authorities  regularly  inspect  feedingstuffs,  whether  imported  from  Third
Countries or produced within the EU and provides harmonised rules for carrying out
such inspections. Controls at the place of origin of feed materials and feedingstuffs
are  the  basis  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  controls  amongst  Member  States  as

14

15

16

17

18

19

OJ L 31, 1.2.02. p. 1
OJ L 63, 6.3.02, p 23
OJ L 213, 21.7.1982, p. 8
OJ L 237, 22.9.93, p. 23
OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p.15
OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17

25

                                                
108. 

109. 

110. 

111. 

common in internal market legislation. For reasons of efficiency, controls are mostly
carried out at the place of origin rather than destination. This is to avoid that a batch
of feed is already distributed to outlets in different countries before it is checked for
compliance  with  legislative  rules.  This  Directive  was  amended  by  Directive
2001/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council
Directive  95/53/EC  fixing  the  principles  governing  the  organisation  of  official
inspections  in  the  field  of  animal  nutrition20,  notably  to  introduce  a  legal  basis  for
safeguard measures with respect  to Third Countries and  for  on-the-spot inspections
by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office inside and outside the Community.

Basic  rules  for  authorisation,  use  and  marketing  of  feed  additives  are  set  out  by
Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs21.

Undesirable  substances  are  dealt  by  Council  Directive  1999/29/EC  on  undesirable
substances  and  products  in  animal  nutrition22,  which  will  be  replaced  as  from  1
August  2003  by  Directive  2002/32/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the
Council  on  undesirable  substances  in  animal  feed23.  This  Directive  includes
maximum  limits  for  heavy  metals  such  as  arsenic,  lead,  mercury  and  cadmium,  as
well  as  for  dioxin,  aflatoxin,  certain  pesticides  and  botanical  impurities  in  certain
feedingstuffs.  The  new  Directive  has  introduced  important  changes  in  order  to
improve feed safety. It sets out provisions to prohibit dilution of contaminated feed
materials  with  other  feed  materials,  to  add  rules  for  setting  maximum  limits  of
undesirable substances in feed additives, to remove any possibility of derogation to
the  provisions  of  the  Directive  and  to  introduce  thresholds  on  the  presence  of
undesirable substances that must trigger intervention by competent authorities if they
are exceeded.

The Commission made a  proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on Official  Feed and  Food Safety Control. This proposal will  recast
existing Community rules on the food, feed and veterinary sectors and will provide
for  a  Community  harmonised  approach  to  the  design  and  development  of  national
control  systems  and  define  the  role  of  the  Commission  so  as  to  ensure  the  most
efficient use of resources.

Regulation  (EC)  N°  1774/200224  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council
laying  down  health  rules  concerning  animal  by-products  not  intended  for  human
consumption  replaces  Council  Directive  90/667/EEC  laying  down  the  veterinary
rules for the disposal and processing of  animal waste, for its placing  on  the  market
and for the prevention of pathogens in feedingstuffs of animal or fish origin25. This
Regulation  will  strengthen  the  safety  requirements  for  animal  by-products  used  in
feed.  by  defining  the  source  material  for  animal  by-products  that  can  be  used  for
feed.  In  particular,  it  should  be  noted  that  only  by-products  from  animals  fit  for
human consumption can be used as feed, and then only on condition that they meet
certain safety requirements and are produced by  establishments complying with the
specific  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Regulation.  Regulation  of  the  European

20

21

22

23

24

25

OJ L 234, 1.9.2001, p. 55
OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1
OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 32
OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 10
OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p.1
OJ L363, 27.12.1990, p. 51

26

                                                
Parliament and of the Council 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control
and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)26 is also
relevant as it provides list of substances that are not allowed in animal feeding.

26

OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1

27

                                                
ANNEX II

FIGURE 1
EU feed sourcing in the EU

Forages on-farm

Grains on-farm

Purchased feed
materials

Industrial
compound feed

Source : FEFAC

FIGURE 2
Commercially traded feed

Source: European Commission.

28

FIGURE 3
Industrial compound feed by species in 2000

1%

6%

27%

30%

35%

Bovines (except
calves)

Pigs

Poultry

Calves

Pets

Others

Source: FEFAC

29

TABLE 1
Production value and number of enterprises manufacturing compound feedingstuffs in 1999.

COUNTRY

PRODUCTION VALUE

BELGIUM

DENMARK

GERMANY

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

LUXEMBOURG

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

PORTUGAL

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

TOTAL

(€ million)

1982.1

582.8

4584.7

NUMBER OF
ENTERPRISES

208

63

325

No information

No information

4526.2

6967.6

597.1

4348.3

No information

3879.6

274.3

926

415

300

5081

34464.7

704

617

62

670

No information

230 (in 1998)

46

112

74

85

598 (in 1997)

3794

Source: EUROSTAT (data for the number of enterprises in the NL relates to 1998 and for the
UK to 1997). For the production value Greece is excluded from the calculation.

30

TABLE 2
Imports 1990-2000

Type of feed

% of total imports
of feed

Soybean meal and meal equivalent

Oil seed meals and meal equivalent

Corn gluten feed (CGF)

Manioc

Molasses

Cereals

Citrus Pulp

Other

44

14

10

8

6

4

3

11

FIGURE 4
 Imports of feed in EU-15

36.3

37.2

39

40

30

Mio. t

20

17

14.7

14

6

10

0

Cereals

By-products (CGF,
manioc, molasses
etc)
Oilcakes and meals

1.4

2

1.5

2

1.9

other proteins

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002e

Year

31

TABLE 3

Cases of incidents in the feed sector notified in the Rapid Alert System

Cereal grains, products and by-products

Product

Oil seeds, oil fruits, products and by-products
Legume seeds, products and by-products
Tuber, roots, products and by-products
Other seeds and fruits, products and by-products

Forages and roughage

Other plants, products and by-products
Milk products
Land animal products

Fish, other marine animals, products and by-products

Feed Materials

Minerals

Others
TOTAL

TOTAL

Additives 
premixtures

and/or

Compound
feedingstuffs

Complementary feed

Complete feed

TOTAL

TOTAL

Cereals
Wheat starch water

Substance

Plant protection products (Nitrofen)
Hormones (MPA)

No Notifications
4
1

Lucerne meal
Grass (alfalfa) meal
Forage pellets

Dioxin
Dioxin
Dioxin
Dioxin and Fluorine

Skimmed milk powder

Chloramphenicol

Fish meal
Fish oil
Condensed dried fish solubles
Dried shrimp shells
Zincsulphate monohydrate
Copper salts
Premixtures of minerals
Glucose syrup

Dioxin
PCB’s
PCB’s
Dioxin
Cadmium
Dioxin
Lead
Hormones (MPA)

Copper di-oxide
Diatomaceous earth

Dioxin
Dioxin

Aflatoxins
PCB’s
Meat and bone meal
Meat and bone meal
Antibiotics and coccidiostatics
Sulphamides
Cyanide
Dioxin

32

1
1
1
2

17

2
1

2
1
1
4
1
39
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
12
2
1
3
28
69