91997E3281

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3281/97 by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Use of alternative raw materials for the production of yeast - reduction of environmental pollution

The use of molasses for yeast production results in residues which must be disposed of. Some of these residues are disposed of with waste waste in municipal sewage treatment plants. The costs incurred by yeast producers in connection wtih the large additional strain on public sewage treatment plants is now threatening their existence in Germany.

1. Does the Commission consider that the yeast manufacturing sector in Germany is at a competitive disadvantage because of discrepancies regarding environmental legislation within the EU?

2. Does the Commission consider that yeast should be included under Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86? In the Commission's view what are the arguments for or against such a move?

3. Was the inclusion of yeast in Regulations (EEC) Nos 1009/86 and 1010/86 discussed in previous years in the EU Management Committee on Sugar? If so, what conclusions were drawn?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

The production of yeast in the Community uses a number of raw materials, the most important of which for large-scale production purposes are glucose, molasses and sugar. The choice of raw material is for each yeast manufacturer to make alone and until now, as indicated by the Honourable Member, molasses has predominated in view of its lower price.

This situation is however slowly changing in view in particular of the 1992 reform in the arable crops sector, which has brought down the market price for cereals and its derived product glucose. The adaptation process is however taking place slowly in view of the large scale and long term capital commitments required to change from one raw material base to another.

1. The Commission has been aware for a long time of the additional effluent disposal costs associated with the use of molasses as a raw material and would emphasize that yeast manufacturers, like all other manufacturers, must bear the consequences of their actions in ensuring that the environment is protected.

Considerable progress has been made in improving and harmonizing environmental policy and legislation in the Community, but it is inevitable that Member States have sought to go even further by imposing stricter environmental standards for their most vulnerable areas.

Where this is the case, the yeast manufacturers are in a similar position to the other manufacturers located in the areas concerned and the Commission cannot see any justification for an exception to be granted.

2. When the Council decided in April 1995, with Regulation (EEC) No 1101/95 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry ((OJ L 94, 9.4.1986. )), after consulting the Parliament, to extend the common market organization in the sugar sector for a further six years until 30 June 2001, it also examined the possibility of including yeast as an eligible product for receiving the production refund which is granted for the manufacture of certain chemical industry products in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry ((OJ L 110, 17.5.1995. )).

In view of the important effects, both positive and negative, that inclusion would have on the functioning of the common market organization in the sugar sector directly concerned by any change to the production refund rules, the Council felt that no decision should be taken without first consulting the competent experts meeting in the management committee for sugar.

3. The consultation took place in February 1996 and the management committee for sugar concluded that the best course of action, in view of concerns over possible market distortions in the sales of glucose, molasses and sugar, would be to postpone any decision for a further two marketing years, after which the situation will once again be reviewed. The production refund arrangements applicable in the cereals sector have similarly continued to exclude yeast as an eligible product.