52001AE0522

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption

(2001/C 193/08)

On 10 November 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 152(4)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 March 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Nielsen.

At its 381st plenary session on 25 and 26 April 2001 (meeting of 26 April), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to seven with three abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. Since the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle in 1986 and identification of the link with the new strain of Creuzfeldt-Jakobs disease (nv-CJD) described in 1996, a series of measures have been taken with a view to blocking the routes of BSE infection and eliminating the risk of transmission to humans. In all probability, BSE has been spread through animal feed containing material contaminated with the agent of infection. Therefore, the tougher restrictions primarily concern the production and use of meat-and-bone meal. These include:

- a ban in mid-1994 on feeding protein derived from mammalian tissues to ruminants, which was supplemented with more restrictive provisions in certain Member States(1),

- since 1 April 1997, the requirement for production of meat-and-bone meal to conform to minimum parameters which are considered sufficient to inactivate the agents of Scrapie(2) and BSE(3),

- since 1 October 2000, removal of specified risk material(4) from the food and feed chain,

- the introduction of measures concerning the identification, control and eradication of BSE on 1 May 1998.

1.2. In December 2000 the Council approved a temporary ban during the first half of 2001 on the use of meat-and-bone meal in feed for productive livestock and a requirement to test for BSE when slaughtering all cattle over 30 months as a condition of their use for human consumption. In addition, in January 2001 the Council adopted provisions requiring the removal of the entire vertebral column of ruminants. The Commission's proposal laying down rules for the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE)(5) is expected to be adopted in the near future. This will have the effect, inter alia, of tailoring the requirement to remove risk material according to the particular Member State's BSE/TSE status.

2. Summary of the Commission proposal

2.1. The draft regulation(6) is mentioned in the White Paper on Food Safety and lays down new framework provisions for animal by-products. Fallen animals and condemned animal material are removed from the feed chain. The only raw material allowed to be used for the production of meat-and-bone meal would then be material derived from animals declared fit for human consumption. The proposal lays down alternative methods for the use or disposal of animal by-products. It also establishes a link with Community environmental legislation.

2.2. The proposal thus replaces the current rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, as well as the production of feedingstuffs of animal origin, with the aim of preventing the presence of any pathogens. Animal waste is here defined as carcasses or parts of animals, including fish, or products of animal origin not intended for direct human consumption. These are divided into high- and low-risk materials, the latter category consisting of products which are approved for consumption. The proposal introduces the collective term "animal by-products" which is then divided into three categories with differing requirements regarding subsequent use.

2.3. The Scientific Steering Committee has given a number of scientific opinions on animal by-products. According to these, the exclusion of material from dead animals or condemned animal material in the feed chain will further reduce the risk of disease transmission and the risk of unacceptably high concentrations of chemical residues in animal feed. Alternatives other than incineration, co-incineration or landfill are restricted to certain animal by-products.

2.4. Category 1 is the highest risk category, including animal by-products presenting a risk related to a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) or an unknown risk or a risk related to the presence of residues of prohibited substances (i.e. hormones, beta-agonists, etc.)(7) or residues of environmental contaminants (i.e. dioxins, PCBs, etc.) above permissible thresholds. The animal by-products belonging to this category may only be disposed of as waste by incineration, co-incineration or landfill.

2.5. Category 2 includes animal by-products presenting a risk related to animal diseases other than TSEs or a risk related to the presence of residues of veterinary drugs. Manure, digestive tract contents and slaughterhouse sludge are also included in this category. The animal by-products belonging to this category may be recycled for certain uses other than animal nutrition after heat treatment (i.e. biogas production, composting, fertilisers or oleochemical products).

2.6. Category 3 includes animal by-products derived from healthy animals (i.e. animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, which have been declared fit for human consumption). Only animal by-products belonging to this category can be used as feed material. Therefore, this category establishes the "positive list" of materials for the preparation of ingredients of animal origin which can be incorporated in animal feed. Furthermore, this category includes products, such as wool, hides, fur and feathers, intended for purposes other than animal or human consumption (i.e. technical products).

2.7. The proposal contains detailed controls to guarantee a clear separation during collection and transport and the traceability of the different categories by means of a record-keeping system, accompanying documents and health certificates. At the same time it introduces a system for the identification and registration of the final products (e.g. dying of rendered fats and animal protein meal with an appropriate marker).

2.8. According to the Commission proposal, products of rendering (meat-and-bone meal and rendered fats) are not regulated by Directive 90/667/EEC. When subject to waste disposal or recovery, such products are regulated by the Framework Directive on Waste(8) which lays down provisions for the handling, disposal and recovery of waste.

2.9. The proposal therefore seeks to clarify the relationship between the Animal Waste Directive and the Framework Directive on Waste by creating a logical link between the two. There are to be only three potential outlets for both unprocessed and processed animal by-products, namely:

- a waste disposal operation (landfill, burial, incineration),

- a waste recovery operation (co-incineration)

- "placing on the market" (production of processed animal protein and rendered fats to be used in animal feed or fertilisers or in cosmetic or pharmaceutical products etc.).

2.10. If an animal by-product is consigned to a disposal or recovery operation, it shall be treated as waste. Therefore, the controls on these disposal and recovery operations must ensure that the objectives of Article 4 of the Framework Directive on Waste are achieved and that human health and the environment are protected.

2.11. The Commission admits that the disposal of meat-and-bone meal by means of incineration or landfill does involve extra costs, considerable ecological disadvantages and problems arising from the lack of capacity at local level. In contrast, the co-incineration of fats provides a limited economic return. The composting and use of meat-and-bone meal as fertiliser could provide certain ecological benefits and would make for a similarly limited recovery of costs. According to the Commission, biogas production is an evolving technology, which, in addition to the many beneficial effects for the environment, offers the prospect of partial cost recovery through the production of "green" energy.

3. General comments

3.1. The uncertainty surrounding the BSE crisis has to a large extent been reflected in the Council's decisions and successive legislative measures taken by the EU and the Member States since 1986. It is now a recognised fact that the extent of the crisis is due to delays in the adoption and implementation of provisions, as well as patchy compliance. Community inspection missions to the Member States carried out since 1996 by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) have revealed that in a number of cases the provisions are not being complied with. In the ESC's view, far stricter enforcement of existing rules in all Member States would have been decisive in halting the further spread of the disease and preventing further transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacobs to humans. There is also a very clear need for measures to train all categories of persons concerned.

3.2. The ESC previously proposed a ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal for productive livestock followed by a thorough risk analysis and assessment of risk management in the Member States before any decision is taken on resuming its use As early as 1996, in its own-initiative opinion on the consequences of BSE(9), the ESC proposed an investigation into whether the ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal based feedingstuffs for ruminants should be extended to include non-ruminants. The proposal was reiterated in the ESC's 1999 opinion on the TSE proposal(10). In the same context, the ESC stressed the need for a far-sighted strategy in the field and the close link between the TSE proposal and the handling of animal by-products.

3.3. The key question now is whether the temporary ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal for productive livestock should be extended or made permanent, which will remove the justification for some of the provisions in the present proposal. By the same token, the provisions on waste disposal and recovery will encompass far greater quantities of animal by-products(11). As long as all risks to animal health and any danger of transmission to humans cannot be excluded, and particularly as long as the risks of BSE and CJD persist, the Committee considers that the ban on meat and bone meal as feed for non-vegetarian single stomach animals must be strictly maintained and enforced. It must in any event become permanent in the case of normally vegetarian animals, which presupposes the adoption of emergency measures for mass production of substitute plant proteins.

3.4. The ESC feels that, as a matter of principle, the use of healthy parts of healthy animals approved for human consumption may be considered completely safe provided that the relevant provisions are complied with, as well as ensuring the recovery of resources. However, for the purposes of risk management, the current ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal for ruminants should remain in place and ruminant material should be removed from the feed chain so that only the use of materials derived from, or intended for, single stomach animals is permitted. In addition, a ban on intra-species recycling ("cannibalism") could be introduced. However, the temporary ban should definitely remain in place until adequate safety standards are achieved in the production and use of meat-and-bone meal.

3.5. It is clearly necessary to eliminate the risk of the rules being circumvented. This can be achieved by means of HACCP programmes, certification or accreditation of individual enterprises (slaughterhouses, meat feed factories, feedingstuff companies etc.), as well as mandatory separate production chains, in order to ensure completely safe production of meat-and-bone meal. Here total traceability in all production chains and clear indication of feedingstuffs containing meat-and-bone meal are a necessary consequence. This is not only important for the market in beef and veal but also in the interests of consumers, who must be confident of being able to buy meat which does not damage their health.

3.5.1 The Commission should take immediate steps to recall urgently and forthwith all products which are potentially contaminated or suspected of such risks. Further, for ethical reasons and out of respect for the very nature of animals, the Committee takes the view that omnivorous or carnivorous animals should not be fed by-products of animals of their own species, thereby helping to avoid the risk (which is more direct and frequent than inter-species contamination) of transmission of disease within the same species.

3.6. As regards the concrete assessment of the present proposal, the ESC is in no doubt, both from the ethical point of view and considering the scientifically documented evidence concerning diseases, that fallen animals and condemned material from animal by-products should no longer be used for the production of feedingstuffs and that the current lack of clarity in provisions on waste should be rectified. The ESC therefore feels that the proposal should be implemented as soon as possible. However, it must be a clear prerequisite that all Member States be able to comply in practice as soon as it comes into force, thereby precluding any distortions of competition.

3.7. It is necessary to recognise the technical, ecological, economic and commercial problems which will inevitably arise as a result of implementing the proposal. However, these problems will be much less substantial than if the total ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal were to be extended(12).

3.8. The disposal option involves considerable environmental implications, not least in the form of nitric oxide, dioxin and other harmful substances released during incineration. It is therefore very important to promote the research effort so as to reduce the environmental impact to a minimum. High priority must be given to the risks for the environment (pollution) and human and animal health, including those associated with the uncontrolled disposal of fallen animals.

3.9. According to the proposal, imports of animal by-products are subject to EU provisions. Yet it is questionable whether imports of meat and meat products for consumption meet consumer safety requirements to the same degree as the EU's own production, whether it is possible in practice to check compliance with these requirements and to what extent such requirements conform to WTO provisions.

3.10. The proposed simplification will bring greater transparency with regard to the specific health rules applicable to animal products not intended for human consumption. However, in the ESC's view, simplification should under no circumstances entail deregulation. When human and animal health is at stake, it is imperative to uphold and tighten up the more explicit health rules concerning animal by-products.

3.11. Opposition to the building of plants to incinerate meat-and-bone meal makes it difficult to build new ones; similarly, incinerating meat-and-bone meal in power stations and cement kilns is far from straightforward for the same reasons. In several Member States there are incentives to use waste for energy production and recycling, and this should be promoted as much as possible through the exchange of experience and relevant initiatives at EU level. Research findings and decisions relating to the rules applicable to incineration plants must be in the public domain.

3.12. The need for alternative use and disposal options depends on the relevant country's BSE status and therefore varies from one Member State to another. The situation regarding tax legislation, including taxes on energy and pollution, is also quite complex. The ESC also calls for appropriate forward-looking solutions at EU level in this respect.

3.13. Pursuant to Article 36 of the draft, the Commission is to prepare a report on financial support for the processing and disposal of animal by-products. The form of this financial support varies enormously from one Member State to another, inter alia because of differing legal and judicial situations. In order to prevent any impact on mutual competition, the Commission should undertake this analysis without delay and take the requisite steps. This is necessary to ensure that the proposal is implemented effectively with no risk of distortions in competition between the Member States and with third countries.

4. Specific comments

4.1. It makes sense to coordinate the proposal with any other rules on products of animal origin used for feed. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the proposal contains the relevant derogations, references, coordination etc. with products such as animal fat, protein partial hydrolysate and dicalcium phosphate, as well as other food waste from domestic and institutional kitchens, restaurants, retailers etc.

4.2. Catering waste may contain materials from ruminants and should therefore be considered category 2 materials.

4.3. Category 2 material comprises manure from all animal species and the digestive tract content from mammalian species, except manure from ordinary farms. It therefore includes manure and the stomach and intestinal content from ruminants in slaughterhouse waste. Under Article 5(2)(e), manure, stomach and intestinal content etc. may be used in a biogas plant with no special requirements. This reflects current practice and is of particular importance.

4.4. Under Article 5(2)(c), Category 2 material which has undergone pressure sterilisation may be used as organic fertiliser or soil improver, or treated in a biogas or composting plant (cf. Article 12). If treated in a biogas plant, pasteurisation is required with specific time and temperature requirements. As the material has already undergone pressure sterilisation thereby eliminating the relevant contaminants, there is no need to impose specific pasteurisation requirements before biogas treatment of Category 2 animal by-products. The requirement for a special pasteurisation unit in Annex IV, Chapter II(A)(1)(a) should therefore be deleted, but it should continue to be mandatory for the biogas reactor to be equipped with installations for monitoring temperature etc. It is also proposed that Chapter II(B)(1) be deleted for the same reason. In Chapter II (C) on heat treatment conditions, the term "pasteurisation unit" should be replaced with "reactor". It should also be stated that treatments with an equivalent effect to 60 minutes at 70 °C may be used.

4.5. According to Article 5(2)(e), manure or digestive tract content or material collected in slaughterhouses, as mentioned in Article 5(1)(b), may be spread on land in accordance with the regulation, provided that there is no danger of spreading a serious transmissible disease. A reference is needed to the EU and international definition of serious transmissible diseases, such as classical swine fever, foot and mouth disease etc.

4.6. The Committee recommends that proteins from ruminants should not be used as fertiliser.

4.7. According to Article 6(2)(f), Category 3 material may be transformed in a biogas plant or in a composting plant approved in accordance with Article 12, which entails pasteurisation with special requirements regarding time and temperature. But it is unnecessary to impose specific pasteurisation requirements for the transformation of Category 3 material in biogas plants, since the material in question shows no signs of diseases that can be transmitted to animals and humans.

4.8. Article 6(1)(d) should provide that only blood from animals recognised as fit for human consumption can qualify as category 3 materials and be used for feed purposes. However, in order to ensure that all animal protein from mammals that is to be used in feedingstuffs undergoes pressure sterilisation, blood from Category 3 material should also be treated in this way.

5. Conclusion

5.1. On 9 March 2001 the ESC organised a wideranging hearing to get a clearer picture of the scientific, veterinary, inspection, consumer, industrial and agricultural aspects of the BSE problem. In the light of this hearing, the ESC feels that the current proposal on animal by-products and the "TSE proposal" lay solid foundations for a farsighted, well-balanced solution for the future use of animal by-products in line with the recommendations contained in this opinion.

5.2. Subject to the reservations and recommendations made above, the ESC is therefore able to endorse the individual elements of the proposal. They will considerably improve safety in the disposal of the various categories of animal by-products, including feedingstuffs for productive livestock since only the healthy parts of healthy animals declared fit for consumption may be used.

Brussels, 26 April 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) Decision 94/381/EC implemented in all 15 Member States. In addition, Sweden, France, the United Kingdom and Portugal voluntarily introduced stricter provisions.

(2) Scrapie has been known as a disease affecting sheep since the 18th century and has been detected in all countries with the exception of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand.

(3) Council Directive 90/667/EEC and Decisions 92/562/EEC, 95/348/EC and 99/534/EC.

(4) Specified risk material (SRM) is defined as the skull, tonsils and spinal cord etc. from cattle, sheep and goats. Furthermore, in the UK and Portugal, the entire head, thymus, spleen, intestine and spinal cord of cattle over six months and the vertebral column of cattle above 30 months must be removed. The Commission proposal on the removal of SRM was presented as long ago as 1996.

(5) "TSE proposal" - COM(98) 623, OJ C 214? 10.7.1998, p. 11.

(6) COM(2000) 574.

(7) The substances in question are defined more precisely in Council Directive 96/22/EC, OJ L 125, 13.5.1996.

(8) Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.

(9) OJ C 295, 7.10.1996, p. 55.

(10) ESC opinion on COM(98) 623, OJ C 258, 10.9.1999, pp. 19-23.

(11) According to the Commission, animal waste in the EU totalled 16,1 million tonnes in 1998. Of this, 14,3 million tonnes was derived from animals declared fit for consumption and 1,8 million tonnes from fallen animals or condemned animal material. A permanent ban would mean a nine times greater quantity of animal by-products to be disposed of or recovered than if only fallen animals and carcasses are treated as waste.

(12) The cumulative annual cost of a total ban is estimated to be at least two billion euros by the European meat meal manufacturers' association. However, the Committee thinks that it is completely wrong to use this as an argument in a situation where human and animal health can be harmed by BSE.

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received more than one-quarter of the votes cast, were defeated in the course of the debate:

Point 3.3

To be amended as follows:

"The key question now is whether the temporary ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal for productive livestock should be extended or made permanent. The Committee considers that there should be no further discussion of whether to extend the temporary ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal in feed for productive livestock, including cows, goats and sheep but rather of a permanent ban. The reason for this is the continuing danger of the development of BSE among productive livestock and the transmission of CJD to humans. Everything must therefore be done to eradicate BSE."

Reasons

Fits in with the view expressed in earlier Committee opinions.

Result of the vote:

For: 28, against: 36, abstentions: 9.

Point 3.7

The first two sentences of 3.7 should be kept without being amended, i.e. but take out the footnote for a new point 3.8:

"It is necessary to recognise the technical, ecological, economic and commercial problems which will inevitably arise as a result of implementing the proposal. However, these problems will be much less substantial than if the total ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal were to be extended."

Result of the vote:

For: 40, against: 47, abstentions: 5.