WRITTEN QUESTION P-2863/03 by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Urgent alert notification from the Commission concerning salmonella in Danish pigmeat.
Date: 2003-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Sweden, food industry, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, meat processing industry, pigmeat, public health, zoonosis

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/207

(2004/C 58 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2863/03

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

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

On 16 September, I received an answer from the Commission concerning the issuing of a warning to the
Danish slaughterhouse Tican about salmonella (answer to Written Question P-2618/03 (1)).

I thank the Commission for its review of the rules but I am still without answers to my questions.

My questions are largely concerned with how the Commission interprets and applies the rules in force and
I would therefore reiterate them:

1. What checks did the Commission carry out to verify the facts of the matter before issuing an urgent

alert concerning products from TiCan?

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. What is the Commission’s view on the extent to which the Swedish authorities’ actions were based on

health rather than on competitive considerations?

4. The Commission’s answer of 16 September raises another question (cid:1) how is it possible that at the
very time the Commission issued the urgent alert, a number of articles appeared in the Danish press
concerning the accusations of salmonella against Tican when ‘the public does not have access to
information concerning companies or brand names’?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 260.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Further to its answer to Written Question P-2618/03 and taking into account the additional information
supplied by the Swedish authorities, the Commission is now able to provide the following details.

As explained in the answer to Written Question P-2618/03, in line with its obligations the Commission
issued the original notification, followed by additional notifications, on the basis of its review of the initial
elements and of the additional information supplied by the Swedish authorities. The Commission cannot
cast doubt on the accuracy of elements supplied by a competent authority which is best placed to carry
out such checks. In any event, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the applicable food
safety legislation does not provide for such a role for the Commission.

According to the results of the investigations carried out in Sweden, salmonella was detected not only in
kebabs prepared with meat from the TiCan slaughterhouse, but also in a pack of meat from this
slaughterhouse which was used by a restaurant in the preparation of kebabs. In the light of these results
and of the conditions of preparation in the restaurants concerned, the Swedish authorities concluded that
‘There was reasonable ground for the assumption that the source of the infection (human outbreak) was
the pork collar meat produced in the TiCan slaughterhouse, not properly prepared in a number of Swedish
restaurants’.

C 58 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

As for the detection of two strains of salmonella (DT 108 and DT 170), the competent laboratory services
agree that these strains are virtually identical and hence extremely difficult to differentiate.

The Commission would like to reiterate that the sole purpose of the Rapid Alert System is to protect the
health of consumers. The Commission publishes a weekly overview of alert and information notifications
at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/ras_index_en.html). Companies and brand names do not figure
on these lists but are supplied to the competent authorities of the Member States so as to enable them,
where necessary, to take the appropriate protective measures.

(2004/C 58 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2949/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Indication of frozen products

Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to adopt rules requiring public commercial
establishments in the Union to indicate clearly, for the purpose of consumer protection, any use of frozen
products in the preparation of food offered to customers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission does not consider that it would be appropriate to oblige restaurants, canteens, etc. to
indicate the use of frozen products in the preparation of the food they serve, as a measure of this kind is
not justified from a food safety perspective in particular. In any case, the adoption of such measures would
come under the competence of the Member States.

However, the Commission plans to make it compulsory for foods sold frozen or defrosted to bear a label
to this effect, together with a warning that the food in question should not be refrozen.

(2004/C 58 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Draft REACH regulation

The recent
evaluation and authorisation of chemicals (REACH) elicited over 6 300 contributions.

Internet consultation on the Commission’s draft regulation concerning the registration,

The vast majority of contributors expressed concern about the financial and bureaucratic implications of
these measures for the European chemical industry, and also about the damaging impact on competitive-
ness, employment and European know-how. SMEs in the chemical industry will be particularly affected.
The knock-on effect will mean that the economic impact on sectors downstream from the chemical
industry will be strongly felt across the board. The cessation or relocation of certain production activities,
combined with the desire to avoid excessive red tape in Europe will lead some operators to downsize and/
or relocate some of their R & D expertise in the long term. Lastly, the registration of polymers on the basis
of the options laid down by the regulation could stifle innovation in a field whose vibrancy is almost
unrivalled.