WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring them into Member States with the strictest controls.
Date: 2003-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: customs cooperation, customs fraud, customs inspection, exchange of information, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, health control, illicit trade, import (EU), surveillance concerning imports

C 84 E/504

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

it seeks to increase the production and processing of, and trade in,
Instead through its activities,
agricultural products, and to strengthen local associations. In addition, efforts will be made in the longer
term to support the national ministries concerned and consolidate the decentralisation of decision-making.

For a number of reasons the Commission does not share the view that the humanitarian situation in
Angola has deteriorated. First, an increase in the number of recipients of emergency assistance is not
necessarily an indicator of a worsening humanitarian situation; the increased number rather reflects
improvements in access throughout the country, following the consolidation of the peace process.

Second, as peace leads to greater security throughout the country, refugees from neighbouring countries
are returning home. While this has increased the caseload, it does not indicate an aggravation of the
humanitarian situation.

Third, food security is subject to regular, seasonal reductions, since Angola still suffers limited harvests and
poor agricultural yields. Once the harvest has been gathered, what little food is produced is quickly
consumed. Furthermore, the country’s crumbling infrastructure means that with the onset of the rainy
season, it becomes much more difficult to distribute food effectively. The rains and the harvest are twice-
yearly events, so the resulting reduction in food security has been a regular,
if wholly undesirable,
phenomenon. It is best addressed through the rehabilitation of the agricultural sector, and in this the
Community is actively engaged in Angola.

Nevertheless, the Commission is prepared to assist further in emergency situations, should the need arise.

(2004/C 84 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring

them into Member States with the strictest controls

1.
Is the Commission aware that many relatively cheap packaged foodstuffs which originate outside the
EU contain remarkably high levels of residues of toxic preservatives, antibiotics and veterinary medicines,
including nitrofurans in prawns, chloramphenicol in pigs and chickens which have been fed on fish waste,
and, increasingly, the carcinogenic malachite green in farmed salmon?

2.
Should such imported goods be destroyed in the EU once they have been identified? Where Member
States do destroy them, do they come under pressure from exporting states and importing businesses,
partly because in other EU Member States such consignments are not destroyed but sent back to the
country of origin on the basis of a promise that they will not be exported again, in which case there is no
way of checking whether the promise has been honoured?

Do the businesses in question reroute such imports via ports and airports where it is assumed that
3.
the technically least sophisticated methods of checking goods are in use, smaller samples are taken or there
is greater tolerance of any contaminants detected? Does such food consequently by a roundabout route
reach Member States which would have rejected it if they had performed the checks themselves?

4. Where do shortcomings exist in cooperation between national food inspection authorities and
customs services? Are there instances in which consignments of packaged food which have been rejected
at one EU port are released and sent on to other EU Member States where they are placed on the market
for human or animal consumption or ultimately return to the Member State which previously rejected
them?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/505

5. What will the Commission do to improve checks on food which could make people ill and to
combat imports, so that these measures comply with the most stringent requirements throughout the EU?
If this proves impossible, will the scope be increased for Member States to reject imports of food
originating outside the EU which has wrongly been permitted to enter other Member States?

Source: TV Nederland 3, Zembla, 30 October 2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

1.
Through its rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF), the Commission is informed about the
findings by the Member States of certain risks in food and food products of animal origin that are checked
in the border inspection posts at import. These risks are also associated with residues of certain veterinary
drugs in food and food products. It is correct that residues of nitrofurans and chloramphenicol have been
identified in certain imported food products such as poultry meat and fishery products and malachite
green in imported salmon.

2.
In accordance with Community legislation, consignments that are found not to comply with the
Community import requirements are seized and may either be sent back to their origin, be used for
another purpose or be destroyed. It is the competence of the Member State that carries out the import
checks to decide on the measure it considers the most appropriate. However, destruction is compulsory
when a serious risk for public health or animal health has been identified. From the substances mentioned
above, chloramphenicol and nitrofurans fall into the category for which Member States have agreed that in
the case of positive findings destruction of the consignments must take place. During the last year
consignments of, among others, poultry meat and fishery products from third countries have been
destroyed for this reason.

3. and 4.
The Commission is monitoring, by inspections of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), that
the Member States execute their competence in accordance with the relevant Community legislation.
Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC of the Council of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing
the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), states
clearly that customs authorities shall not allow the importation of animal products unless proof is supplied
that the relevant sanitary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results, and that the relevant
veterinary entry document has been issued. The Commission has not identified important shortcomings
concerning the co-operation between the custom services and the sanitary authorities in this respect. The
Commission has also adopted a number of decisions to ensure that the Member States test certain products
from certain third countries for some banned substances, such as chloramphenicol and nitrofurans, with
an agreed frequency and that all Member States test for these substances to a very high level of
performance. The FVO, at the end of 2002, has carried out a range of missions to Member States to
inspect that Community legislation applicable to import checks and related safeguard measures is correctly
applied. Through the RASFF, the Member State involved informs all the other Member States and the
Commission of its rejection and the follow-up decision concerning the consignment. With this internal
notification system, the inspections by the Commission, the described harmonisation and the obligation of
Member States to destroy consignments in certain cases, the Commission is confident that the risk of
circuitous routes at import as described in the question is contained.

The control at import of food and food products of animal origin is harmonised. It means that the
5.
documents including the health certificate and the identity of all consignments have to be checked.
Depending on the risk, a certain percentage of the consignments are physically checked, which may
include laboratory testing. In case of identified failures, the controlling Member State is obliged to test all
following 10 consignments from the same origin and this Member State informs the other Member States
and the Commission through the RASFF system. Furthermore, the Commission and the Member States
must take any safeguard measure they consider necessary to protect the health of the consumer and
animal health. In this way, the Commission has repeatedly taken safeguard measures at import from third
countries. These measures vary from total or partial import bans or a suspension of approval of certain
establishments to establishing a 100 % testing regime for consignments from certain origins. In case of
total loss of trust in the competent authority of the exporting third country, the Commission may remove

C 84 E/506

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

the country from the list of approved third countries from which Member States are authorised to import
the product in question. To further improve the import control system, the Commission is preparing a
new database system called Traces (Trade Control and Expert System). This new system will integrate the
functionalities of the existing Animo system and of the delayed Shift system. A feasibility study has been
presented in August 2003. Recently, Member States have agreed on financing the development of the
system. It is planned that Traces will be operational on 1 April 2004.

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2004/C 84 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3363/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Socio-economic impact of extractive industry in northern Europe

The mineral resources of the Baltic (Fennoscandian) Shield region are among the richest in the world.
Many lucrative orebodies have been found there, containing, among other things, platinum, native gold,
diamonds, and the like, and high-quality building stones as well as industrial minerals. As the area has still
not been fully explored, there may be more orebodies to be found and profits to be had.

Given that it is the world’s largest consumer of minerals, Europe would gain by exploiting the region’s
mineral deposits. At present, 75 % of the minerals used in Europe are imported from other parts of the
world.

Fennoscandian orebodies lie mainly in sparsely populated areas, where the employment situation is
unremittingly poor. One medium-sized gold mine, for example, could provide direct employment for
between 100 and 150 people. Expanding extractive industry would also bring substantial benefits for the
supply of services and the local economy.

The Union should take account of the opportunities offered by the Fennoscandian mineral deposits when
it draws up regulations and legislation. It is important that the new directive on mining waste should not
make it difficult to open new mines. The concept of waste should be so defined that harmless by-products
of mining operations are not, as such, encompassed within the definition. Fennoscandian extractive
industry has always observed stringent environmental guidelines, and the technology that it uses is highly
advanced. Consequently, neither the mines existing in the region nor any future mines constitute a threat
to the environment.

It is vital for the future of primary production that the Commission draw up a special action programme
for extractive industry so as to allow not only for environment-related requirements, but also for the
sustainable economic use of natural resources and the possible regional impact. What is the Commission
doing to achieve those ends? Is it willing to pursue a specific action programme for extractive industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is actively working to ensure that the Union’s extractive industries operate within the
framework of sustainable development. This means achieving an appropriate balance between enhancing
the social and economic importance of the industry and protecting the environment. The Raw Materials
Supply Group, chaired by Directorate General (DG) Enterprise, provides a forum for dialogue between
Member States, Candidate Countries, the extractive industries and other stakeholders, to identify the key
issues affecting the competitiveness of the industry and to agree on actions to take this forward. The
Communication on ‘Promoting sustainable development in the EU non-energy extractive industry’ (1) made
a first step to develop this dialogue, and has been followed by work to develop sustainable development
indicators for the industry. A first report on this work is to be published on the Europa website in 2004.