WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/04 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Incineration of meat-and-bone meal.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cereal substitute, consumer protection, food safety, waste incineration

C 84 E/418

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The lack of knowledge of an official language of the host Member State for the establishment of lawyers
under their home-country professional title poses a problem with regard to Directive 98/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.
Besides, practise in that State under a home-country professional title ensures that consumers are properly
informed (1).

In the case of Luxembourg, the Commission asked it so submit its comments on this requirement.
Luxembourg’s reply is being examined in order to determine what action should be taken in this case.
The Commission will certainly inform the Honourable Member of any action taken.

The Commission has no knowledge of similar requirements in other Member States, but is prepared to
examine any information the Honourable Member might submit concerning this matter or any other
obstacles.

(1) As pointed out in recital 9.

(2004/C 84 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Incineration of meat-and-bone meal

Various European media have recently reported on uncertainties about the incineration of meat-and-bone
meal in Spain in 2003. According to official government figures, 400 000 tons of meat-and-bone meal
was disposed of by means of incineration. According to the Spanish organisation representing operators of
incinerators, however, the figure was only 40 000 tons.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this issue?

2. Will the Commission call on Spain to explain the 360 000 ton discrepancy? If not, why not?

3. Will the Commission take measures to protect the health of European consumers and prevent this
meat-and-bone meal from entering the food chain, in accordance with the current ban on feeding livestock
with meat-and-bone meal? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States on 29 March 2001 asking for details of current
disposal routes, the amount of animal by-products disposed of via each route and the disposal costs. As a
result of the questionnaire the Commission issued a:
‘Commission services paper on the processing,
disposal and uses of animal by-products in Member States’ (1).

The Spanish authorities indicated that there was an estimate annual output of just less than 400 000
tonnes of processed animal protein, part of which was stored in Spain and part was sent to other Member
States as trade, for incineration, co-incineration or petfood. Burial in landfill sites and use as fertilisers on
land were also possible disposal routes, as well as transformation in biogas and composting plants to
produce biogas and biofertiliser/compost. The reply did not give a breakdown of the figures.

Figures from the industry revealed that just over 8 000 tonnes of meat and bone meal were being sent for
incineration, and that there was a lack of incineration capacity in Spain.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/419

The above disposal outlets used in Spain are in line with the current Community health rules concerning
animal by-products not intended for human consumption in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the
Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (2), and do not contravene the provisions of the current
feed ban in 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 encephalo-
pathies (3).

(1) MEMO/01/378 of 20.11.2001.
(2) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
(3) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0489)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Use of meat-and-bone meal in animal feed

In the European Union, the use of meat-and-bone meal as animal feed is banned, even if it is derived from
healthy animals.

In 2004, do the grounds on which the ban was originally based still apply, even in the case of feed

1.
for omnivores?

Can the Commission guarantee that animal products exported to the Community from third

2.
countries are not derived from animals which have been fed with meat-and-bone meal?

If the answer to question 2 is negative, does this constitute fair competition? Is the Commission

3.
concerned about the possible impact on public health in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

1.
The high number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases arising after the introduction of
a prohibition against using mammalian proteins in feed intended for ruminants in 1994 indicated a
significant degree of contamination between ruminant feed and feed intended for other species and
containing these proteins. Therefore, a prohibition on the use of animal proteins in the feeding of all
farmed animals was necessary.

if non-ruminant proteins are being used in feed,

It has also proved necessary to ban the use of non-ruminant protein in feed for control reasons.
In particular, analytical methods to differentiate ruminant from non-ruminant proteins in feed are not
it is not possible to detect the
available. Therefore,
presence of potentially infected ruminant proteins. The current extended feed ban can only be reconsidered
when methods detecting heat treated species specific proteins are validated. Such methods are currently
not available and therefore the arguments to keep the extended feed ban are still applicable. The
Commission continues to provide financial resources to support research on such methods (Stratfeed
project, ring trials in 2003 and 2004).

2.
The import of animal products derived from animals fed with animal proteins in third countries is
not prohibited. This is because the prohibition to use processed animal proteins in feed for non-ruminants
from
is a control measure aimed at preventing the spread of BSE to ruminants in the EU. Meat
non-ruminants having been fed processed animal proteins is not considered to be a human health risk.

3.
The most important measure to protect consumers’ health against BSE is the removal of specified
BSE risk material, such as brain and spinal cord, from food. These measures apply equally to Member
States and third countries. The aim of the feed ban is to eradicate BSE, which has had serious economic