91997E3613

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3613/97 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission (6 November 1997)

Subject: Quality of EU foodstuffs, freedom from salmonella and accuracy of food certification

Finland was granted the right to remain salmonella-free, but in spite of this salmonella is present in imported meat. Who is falsifying the certificates?

The import into Finland from the EU area of meat containing salmonella is contrary to our accession treaty. Nevertheless turkey meat containing (inter alia) salmonella has been imported into Finland. According to published information meat contaminated with salmonella has also been imported into Sweden, which was granted the same rights as Finland to keep itself salmonella-free. France, from which turkey containing salmonella was most recently imported, has refused to take the meat back, and its destruction thus remains the importer's responsibility.

The EU ought to pay much more attention to the salmonella problem because it will get worse if nothing is done. The Commission has made readjustments to its food monitoring procedures in the interest of greater food safety for EU consumers. However, real life experience shows that it has not been possible to solve the problems. The certificates of freedom from salmonella issued when meat is imported have thus been falsified, or are the inspection procedures really so poor?

The problems in the European Union with BSE and swine fever have swept away consumer confidence in meat. The situation has been made still worse by TV programmes showing the cruelty of animal transport with animals being seen to be treated in a very rough manner. The incidence of salmonella is so common in some EU countries that it may be impossible to do anything about it. In the newest EU Member States the animal health situation was excellent at the time of accession, with a salmonella incidence of under 0.5%, while in a number of Member States it is present in between 20% and 70% of meat produced!

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve the health protection of European consumers? Does it even really intend to try to reduce the incidence of salmonella in foodstuffs in the EU? What is done to prevent the falsification of certificates? How can the credibility of the above-mentioned certificates guaranteeing freedom from salmonella be improved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

With the completion of the internal market in 1992, checks are made at the place of production of meat according to the rules laid down in Community veterinary legislation. At the place of destination, the authority may check the goods by means of non-discriminatory spot-checks to verify compliance with the checks at origin. These rules should ensure that health is protected.

In conformity with the Treaty of accession, some additional guarantees with regard to salmonella have been laid down for consignments of certain animals and certain products of animal origin intended for Finland and Sweden. For poultrymeat these guarantees have been laid down in Council Decision 95/411/EC laying down the rules for the microbiological testing for salmonella by sampling of fresh poultrymeat intended for Finland and Sweden ((OJ L 243, 11.10.1995. )). Similar guarantees were laid down for fresh beef and veal and pigmeat by Council Decision 95/409/EC2.

The control at destination of products of animal origin is laid down in Council Directive 89/662/EEC concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )). In particular Article 8 specifies the procedure to be followed if the control measures at origin are considered inadequate by the Member State of destination. As a first step, the two Member States together seek ways and means of remedying the situation. In case of repeated irregularities, the Member State of destination shall inform the Commission and the veterinary department of the other Member States.

At the request of the Member State of destination or on its own initiative, the Commission may organise a mission, or instruct an official veterinarian who is acceptable for the various parties concerned, to check the facts. The Commission can also request the Member State to intensify its sampling of the products concerned. Pending the Commission's findings, the Member State of dispatch must, at the request of the Member State of destination, intensify checks on products coming from the establishment in question and, if there are serious animal or public health grounds, suspend approval. The Member State of destination may, for its part, intensify checks on products coming from the same establishment.

The Community has also undertaken action for the eradication of certain zoonotic diseases and in particular salmonellosis. In the so called 'Zoonosis-Directive' 92/117/EEC of 17 December 1992 concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications ((OJ L 62, 15.3.1993. )), rules are laid down for the collection of information on zoonoses (and in particular salmonellosis) and zoonotic agents and the relevant measures to be taken in the Member States and at Community level.

The detailed rules for the certification are laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC on the certification of animals and animal products ((OJ L 13, 16.1.1997. )). The Commission is concerned to ensure that Member States fulfil their obligations and that any extra guarantees given by their control authorities are sound. The Commission has recently reminded the French minister and the ministers of the other Member States about this. Further the veterinary inspection service of the Commission will be asked to investigate the circumstances which caused the problems.