3.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/504

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?

3.

Do the businesses in question reroute such imports via ports and airports where it is assumed that 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?

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?

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.

5.

The control at import of food and food products of animal origin is harmonised. It means that the 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 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.