Strasbourg, 05/10/2000 (Agence Europe) - With the adoption of two reports by Swedish Liberal Marit Paulsen, the European Parliament approved, with amendments, two draft directives aimed at strengthening EU legislation concerning animal feed. During this first reading (codecision procedure), it subscribed, with around 500 majority votes, to the European Commission proposal concerning undesirable substances in animal feed, and to the proposal on strengthened inspections. Regarding undesirable substances, it mainly supports the abolition of the Member States' right to grant exemptions or authorise the dilution of substances that do not respect the limit values of toxicity. Following its environment committee, it hoped, however, that limit values would be introduced concerning dioxin, pcbs, mercury and cadmium. As far as these controls are concerned, it calls for inspections to be made by Community inspectors and hopes they will be carried out without warning.
The Parliament also adopted the report by German Green Friedrich Graefe zu Baringdorf whereby it approves, at first reading (codecision), with some amendments, the changes to the 1979 Directive on the marketing of compound feeding stuffs for animals. The proposal aims to introduce compulsory and detailed labelling giving the composition of animal feeding stuffs.
During the debate, Ms Paulsen stressed the importance of animal feed in the context of food safety. While giving her support to the European Commission's proposals, she defended the Parliament's amendments aimed to strengthen them. She insisted on the need to eliminate all the undesirable substances and to fix limit values for such substances, mainly for cadmium (which is nephrotoxic in Man after long term concentrations in the organism). While urging for respect of the precautionary principle and the establishment of an effective early warning system, she said that one should not panic but react rapidly in order to protect consumers.
Presenting its report on the marketing of animal feedingstuffs, Mr Graefe recalled the recurring opposition of the forage industry to labelling of ingredients, because it "composes products by computer using the cheapest components". "We have always asked for transparency but we were told that it was too difficult to implement and that this posed competition problems", he said, stressing that even the ESB scandal was not enough to have compulsory ingredient labelling accepted by the Commission. "This proposal finally corresponds to what we wanted", continued Mr Graefe, stressing that it is only the subject of "small amendments" on the part of the EP. He went on to stress that the "industry is still trying to sink this proposal via the Council".
Speaking on the reports by Ms Paulsen, rapporteur for opinion in the agriculture committee, French Green member Danielle Auroi strongly criticised the EPP's attitude which introduced amendments aimed at making the principle of non-dilution disappear. "Despite the dioxin and sewage sludge scandals, the EPP wants to continue poisoning consumers", allowing the use of a polluted or toxic substance by diluting it so that its rate within the finished product is at an acceptable level, although it is known that substances like dioxin accumulate in the body. German Christian Democrat Christa Klass considered it of no use to strengthen the Commission's proposal but acknowledged the need for more effective controls without warning. She urged for the fight against criminal behaviour to be stepped up. She also pointed out that the EPP would withdraw its amendments contrary to the principle of non-dilution. German Social Democrat Dagmar Roth-Behrendt welcomed withdrawal of these amendments. She expressed the hope that registers concerning dioxin would be established, including, for example, the rates of pollution along motorways and other road infrastructures. Such a system would mainly allow farmers to obtain compensation for contamination for which they are not responsible. Belgian Liberal Frédérique Ries expressed his group's agreement for stricter norms, including for dioxin, and for the ban on dilution. Belgian Green member Paul Lannoye regretted that the initial European Commission's text had not taken into account the dioxin crisis in Belgium and is restricted to envisaging a limit value for citrus pulp. Dioxin was found in cows' milk in Germany in 1998 following the use of animal feedingstuffs based on products containing citrus pulp originating in Brazil. He called for stricter standards for dioxin and pcbs as well as for mercury, cadmium and lead. Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN, France) was also opposed to any harmonisation concerning on-the-spot checks. Franz-Xaver Mayer (CSU) and Heinz Kindermann (SPD) gave the support of the EPP/ED and PES groups to the proposal on compulsory labelling of components.
"The farmers must know what they use", said Mr Mayer adding that the EPP would vote for the report by Mr Graefe with not for the amendment by the TDI group, which wanted to introduce a specific procedure for traceability and labelling of foodstuffs containing genetically modified cereals.
Commissioner David Byrne underlined the importance to the three innovations concerning undesirable substances, inspections and labelling of animal foodstuffs. He considered it essential the respect for the principal of non-dilution which "enables to reduce the contamination of products". He noted the Commission's agreement for most of the parliamentary amendments, notably except those that aim to: - include water; - ban re-exporting (he proposed to foresee the prior informing of the national authorities): - introduce maximum levels of cadmium, mercury or even PCBs (he explained that it is necessary to await the results of the scientific studies). "I think that it is necessary to carry out a regular revision of the annexes", in order to take into account the new information on dangerous substances and the maximum acceptable levels, he said before insisting on the need "to very rapidly identify the sources of contamination" and to react accordingly. With regards to the labelling. He told the Council "a good number of Member States have moved against the obligation of indicating the precise make-up" but, he added, this is a case of a: legitimate right for farmers" and of a fundamental requirement for food safety. He added that the Commission cannot accept the amendment that covers genetically modified cereals as it does not enter into the scope of application of this proposal.