WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed.
Date: 2003-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal protein, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, health control, veterinary legislation

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/51

(2004/C 70 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (1) concerning control measures

the
Annex I
implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) concerning certain protection measures with regard
to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein lays down the conditions
under which the Member States may authorise the feeding of fishmeal to animals other than ruminants.
Even though the measures taken in Decision 2000/766/EC allow the use of fishmeal in the feeding of pigs,
poultry and aquatic species, the measures laid down in Annex I to Decision 2001/9/EC are so restrictive as
to render such use virtually impossible.

required for

Is the Commission aware of the economic harm which these measures are causing for the European fishoil
and fishmeal industry?

What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to resolve these problems and mitigate the damage
caused?

Bearing in mind that the Commission must review the application of these measures by 30 June 2003,
their precautionary nature and the fact that they were adopted without any scientific basis, and taking
account of the adverse socio-economic impact on the EU industry and the suitability of this raw material
for animal feed, does the Commission not consider it appropriate to repeal these measures and lift the
consequent temporary ban on the use of fishmeal in animal feed?

(1) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Council Decision 2000/766/EC (1) (the extended feed ban), implemented by Commission Decision 2001/
9/EC (2), both last amended by Commission Decision 2002/248/EC (3), aims at preventing cattle from being
exposed to ruminant meat-and-bone meal, potentially contaminated with prions causing bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy (BSE). It is a crucial tool in the control and eradication of BSE in cattle and therefore
necessary to guarantee safe beef.

Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is a matter of
control. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-
and-bone meal in feed. Preliminary results of a recent ring trial indicate that it is difficult to detect a
contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the present detection
method. However, by modifying the microscopic test, an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of
fishmeal from other animal proteins may become available on short term.

The extended feed ban applies as a transitional measure until 30 June 2003, pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the
prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (4). The
Commission has submitted a proposal to the Parliament and to the Council to extend all the transitional
measures pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, due to certain delays in establishing the BSE status of
countries. As regards the feed ban however, the Commission is at the same time proposing to end its
transitional character and to introduce the current provisions into Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. This is
because in the current situation it is considered appropriate to maintain the feed ban in all Member States

C 70 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

regardless of their future BSE status and because the preconditions for lifting the ban are not fulfilled.
In particular, appropriate validated analytical methods to differentiate ruminant proteins from proteins of
other species are not yet available and the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office is still reporting
deficiencies in the control of the feed ban.

The Commission is aware that the conditions to use fishmeal
in non-ruminant feed have presented
difficulties, resulting in a reduction of the market for fishmeal in non-ruminant animal nutrition since
2001. The proposal aims to simplify some of the conditions for using fishmeal. A step-by-step lifting of
the feed ban on a prudent and scientifically justified basis may be considered in the light of development
of analytical tests over the next six to twelve months.

(1) 2000/766/EC: Council Decision of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to

transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(2) 2001/9/EC: Commission Decision of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures

the
implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (Text with EEA relevance) (notified
under document number C(2000) 4412), OJ L 2, 5.1.2001.

required for

(3) 2002/248/EC: Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 amending Council Decision 2000/766/EC and Commission
Decision 2001/9/EC with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal proteins
(Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 1277), OJ L 84, 28.3.2002.

(4) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2004/C 70 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1610/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Conductivity and an ecologically sound rate of flow in the case of the Ebro diversion proposed

under the Spanish National Water Resources Plan

In its reply of 28 March 2003 to this Member’s Written Question E-0509/03 (1) on water quality and the
the Commission acknowledged the conductivity problems
Spanish National Water Resources Plan,
affecting the waters of the lower Ebro but it took the view that the recommended maximum salinity
levels would not be exceeded under the plan submitted by the Spanish Government. This assertion has
been rebutted by a number of scientists and experts who have studied the last few years’ average
conductivity levels for the stretch of river in question and have concluded that there is no guarantee that
the 1 000 microSiemens per centimetre level can be maintained. This would mean that if the river is
indeed diverted the recipient river basins will be required to use poor-quality water rendered expensive by
the cost of making it drinkable.

In addition to the question of conductivity, the proposal for the diversion of the Ebro does nothing to
settle the issue of the minimum rate of flow required in order to maintain a healthy environment (cid:1) this
being a matter of contention for all the social, political and ecological players concerned, including the
Catalan Regional Government. Under the Spanish National Water Resources Plan it has been decided that
preserving the environment in the Ebro Delta will require a flow rate of 100 m3/second (equivalent to
approximately 3 100 hm3/year), together with a Comprehensive Delta Protection Plan which has yet to be
drawn up. For its part the Catalan Government is proposing to increase the suggested flow rate to 135 m3/
second (4 200 hm3/year) (cid:1) an improvement on the proposal contained in the original National Water
Resources Plan but still not sufficient to protect the biodiversity of the Delta and its environment (2).

If the diversion is carried out on the basis of a 100-135 m3/second flow rate, this will swiftly lead to a
reduction in the volume of water which can be diverted and to a greater need for regulation in the Ebro
river basin (cid:1) facts which will undoubtedly have an impact on the price ultimately charged for the diverted
water (higher depreciation and operating costs).

What data has the Commission used as a basis for asserting that the water conductivity levels will not
under any circumstances exceed the limits laid down in Directives 75/440 (3) and 98/83 (4)? Given the high
salinity level of
the Ebro’s waters, does the Commission consider such permissive practices to be
compatible with the framework directive on water?