WRITTEN QUESTION P-2618/03 by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Urgent alert from the Commission concerning salmonella in Danish pigmeat.
Date: 2003-08-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Sweden, exchange of information, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, health control, intra-EU trade, pigmeat, zoonosis

C 51 E/260

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2004/C 51 E/282)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2618/03

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject: Urgent alert from the Commission concerning salmonella in Danish pigmeat

In connection with a current outbreak of salmonella in Sweden, the Swedish authorities have been
investigating pigmeat from the Danish abattoir of TiCan as a possible source of infection. This led the
Commission (Directorate for Health and Consumer Protection) to issue an ‘urgent alert notification’
concerning products from TiCan.

I fully recognise the value of rapid and resolute action in cases such as these, which concern citizens’
health and the quality of foodstuffs. At the same time, in the light of the very serious PR and economic
consequences this negative publicity has for the TiCan abattoir, this course of events gives rise to a number
of questions:

1. What checks did the Commission carry out to verify the facts of the matter before issuing an urgent
alert concerning products from TiCan? For example, the Commission warns against type DT 108
salmonella in TiCan’s products. It subsequently appeared that the salmonella type which had been
found in Sweden was actually DT 170.

2. What measures did the Commission take to investigate the possibility that the salmonella in the
infected kebab derived from other sources than TiCan products? Were isolated samples taken from
products from TiCan or is the whole affair based on samples from the prepared kebab? Had the
unprocessed products from TiCan undergone further processing which could have been the cause of
the salmonella outbreak? Has it been shown that the meat products were kept in the restaurants (cid:1)
and had been repackaged and sent on by the wholesalers (cid:1) under proper hygienic conditions?

3. As we know, Sweden is not involved in EU cooperation concerning foodstuffs checks in this area.
In the case of Danish pigmeat exporters such as TiCan, this means that some 60 samples per batch of
meat are taken for analysis. This intensive checking procedure results in the fresh pigmeat having to
be kept an extra 3 days before being exported to Sweden. At the same time it is clear that falling pig
prices have placed Swedish pig producers in a difficult situation as regards competition. What is the
Commission’s view on the extent to which the Swedish authorities’ actions were based on health
rather than on competitive considerations?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

By virtue of Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), the Commission is under an obligation to
transmit rapid alert system notifications it receives from Member States, duly verified by them on the basis
of the information at their disposal, if it has been established that there is a risk to human health.

The details of these notifications (including the identity of the producing companies) are reserved for the
official control authorities. The public has no access to information on companies and brand names.

The notifications refer to the product lots concerned and not to the company’s entire production, which
puts the authorities in a position to take the appropriate steps to withdraw the lots concerned.

In the case of all notifications, the Member States are required to notify any developments or additional
information via the rapid alert system. In the case in point, the Swedish authorities are still in the process
of clarifying the situation, and all developments are immediately passed on to the authorities in all Member
States.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/261

Trade in fresh pork meat destined for Sweden is subject to additional guarantees in respect of salmonella
granted at the time of Sweden’s accession to the Union. Finland benefited from identical additional
guarantees. Under the Community provisions applying to salmonella in respect of consignments of fresh
pork meat destined for Sweden and Finland (2) the goods are certified as having been found free of
salmonella in tests on the consignment concerned in the forwarding country, performed in accordance
with a defined sampling and test protocol. This protocol gives a degree of reliability considered to be
similar to that under the national legislation.

Sweden and Finland were granted the additional guarantees on the grounds of the low prevalence of
salmonella and strict controls in force there. In the Commission’s view, these guarantees are based solely
on health considerations.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 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 safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2) Council Decision 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 laying down the rules for the microbiological testing by sampling of
fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden, OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, as amended by Council
Decision 98/227/EC of 16 March 1998, OJ L 87, 21.3.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2699/03

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Subject: Status of assistance dogs in the Union

In several Member States people suffering from various forms of disability use dogs specially trained to
help them. Guide dogs for the blind and visually impaired are the most familiar example of animals
providing help of this kind, which give their owners both independence and security. Guide dogs are
recognised to be necessary to their owners and in the EU are now admitted to almost every place where
their owners might need to go. However,
in European Year of People with Disabilities it might be
appropriate to draw attention to the newer ways in which dogs are increasingly being used to improve the
quality of life for the disabled. People with reduced mobility have assistance dogs to make the course of
their day-to-day lives easier by opening doors, turning lights on and off, picking up objects that have been
dropped, bringing necessary items within reach, and helping to support or pull their owners along when
they move about. People can be more independent when they do not always have to rely on other human
help. To help the hard of hearing and the deaf, dogs can also be trained to warn of sounds that demand
action. Hearing dogs alert their owners when a warning signal or fire alarm sounds, the doorbell or
telephone rings, water or food is boiling on the stove, and when they hear signs of many other significant
everyday occurrences. In addition, all assistance dogs act as ‘standard-bearers’ for their owners at the social
level, reducing the isolation caused by disability.

1. What will the Commission do to ensure that life runs smoothly for citizens who use assistance dogs,
without the inconvenience of explanations or delays to which they are subjected at present?

2.
Can the Commission provide some form of aid to the disabled in the new Member States by already
starting to support social, employment, and public health initiatives and programmes to train guide,
assistance, and hearing dogs in those countries?

3.
Can the Commission recommend to the Member States that they adopt common standards and a
distinguishing emblem to enable all citizens who use assistance dogs to move about, study, seek and do
work, and engage in social intercourse without obstacles and delays? Such a ‘passe-partout’ symbol, which
would have a very considerable impact on everyday life, should lead to an increase in dog training and
help the disabled to live more normal lives.