WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious minorities eating these products.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cereal substitute, consumer information, food standard, food technology, foodstuffs legislation, labelling, meat product, religious group

C 78 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious

minorities eating these products

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has recently urged the Commission to cap the amount of water that
may be added to chicken products to 15 % and to ban the use of non-chicken proteins such as beef and
pork in those products. This follows the carrying-out of two surveys during December 2001 and March
2003 which revealed that some chicken pieces had as much as 55 % added water. There is no other use for
these additional non-chicken animal proteins except to retain very high levels of added water. This
practice, in turn, is liable not only to deceive consumers but to cause problems for members of religious
communities such as Jews, Hindus and Muslims who do not eat beef or pork even if they do not
specifically buy meat products prepared and approved by their respective religious authorities.

Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is correct that there is no limit to the amount of water that
can be added to chicken and poultry products, and, if so, whether the Commission believes that some kind
of limit should be set? Further, does the Commission accept that this would be entirely compatible with
WTO rules, given that Article 2.2 of the Agreement to technical barriers to trade (TBT) require only that
labelling requirements be ‘not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking
account of the risks non-fulfilment would create’ and that such objectives include inter-alia ‘the prevention
of deceptive practices’?

Can the Commission also clarify whether or not it is compulsory or voluntary to indicate on the label of
any food product whether or not animal ingredients have been added to the product or, in the case of
livestock, nurtured on food containing animal protein? If not, does the Commission believe that consumers
have a right to be informed in this way?

(2004/C 78 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2440/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Addition of water and protein to chicken meat

The Commission is well aware of the scandalous situation where adulterated and incorrectly labelled
chicken meat is being imported in large quantities into the UK. Trading Standards Officers in Hull have
been pursuing this racket for six years. Most of this processed meat is exported from the Netherlands. In
the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, the Dutch authorities claimed to have
ended fraudulent practices on 13 June 2002, but this is clearly not the case. Indeed, the problem is getting
worse as the processors are now using blocking agents to produce a negative PCR result for most tests.

Consumers and certain religious communities are being misled by the immoral practice of adding beef and
pork proteins to chicken meat which is then labelled Halal. This is completely unacceptable. What
immediate action will the Commission take to suspend exports of such products? Will the Commission
bring forward urgently-needed legislation to limit the maximum allowable percentage of added water to
15 % and ban the use of protein additives?