|
|
Doc. 8453
22 June 1999
Dioxin crisis and food safety
Report
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Mr Bill Etherington, United Kingdom, Socialist Group
Summary
The contamination of food products by dioxin is a further example of the serious shortcomings which remain in European laws and regulations. The Assembly believes that it is now a matter of urgency to consider the functioning of the agri-foodstuffs sector in European countries and take the necessary measures.
The proposals made in the report aim in particular at reviewing and strengthening food legislation (controls, traceability, sanctions), to develop a new food information policy towards the consumer and to carry out an in-depth study of the animal feed sector.
I. Draft recommendation
1. Referring to its Recommendation 1389 (1998) on consumer safety and food quality, the Assembly once again expresses its profound concern at the repeated threats to food safety in Europe. The contamination of food products by dioxin is a further example of the serious shortcomings which remain in European laws and regulations with regard to the prevention and, where necessary, effective management of food crises.
2. By removing national barriers, our economic (trade liberalisation) and institutional (European integration) context can also give a European or even international dimension to any problem in the food chain that cannot be brought under control. Above and beyond the major economic implications of any breakdown in the food production and distribution circuit, the protection of public health must remain the public authorities' primary and priority concern.
3. The dioxin crisis has once again revealed a succession of errors which led to contaminated food being put on the market and distributed without our legislative system's preventive and early response mechanisms having functioned in time. Whether in terms of prior checks or subsequent verification, assessment of potential risks, management of actual risks, information, responsibilities or co-ordination, the handling of this crisis should be judged in very severe terms.
4. The Assembly fears that similar situations might occur again in future, and the possibility of having to face up to even more serious food crises cannot be ruled out. The current agro-industrial system has many advantages, even as regards food safety, but it still entails risks which must be kept under control and reduced to a minimum. Beyond any self-regulation practised by the companies and economic sectors concerned, the public authorities bear the ultimate responsibility for guaranteeing food safety and are accountable to citizens in this respect.
5. The development of this agro-industrial system has led in particular to food production on a mass scale which often combines the advantage of making a whole range of food products available at affordable prices with the disadvantage of a decline not in the intrinsic quality of foodstuffs, but in their nutritional and organoleptic properties.
6. The Assembly believes that it is now a matter of urgency to consider the functioning of the agri-foodstuffs sector in European countries and take the necessary measures. Following the recent food crises (BSE and dioxin) which have called into question our stockfarming methods, further delays are no longer acceptable and the steps to be taken include a very thorough review of the production of compound animal feeds and, if necessary, a ban on the use of animal meal.
7. The Assembly wishes to draw attention to its recent activities in this field, in which certain proposals, which it now renews, were already put forward ; in particular, in its Recommendations 1142 (1991) on the labelling of quality food products, 1244 (1994) on food and health, and 1389 (1998) on consumer safety and food quality.
8. Consequently, the Assembly calls on the governments of member states:
i. to consider the proposals made in its Recommendation 1389 (1998);
ii. to apply the precautionary principle systematically where food is concerned, in order to protect public health as fully as possible, and to request all necessary scientific advice before passing legislation in this field;
iii. to review and strengthen their food legislation, especially with regard to the traceability of foodstuffs and the ingredients used for making them, to provide for strict controls and frequent spot checks at all stages of the food chain, as well as severe penalties in cases of fraud (which could extend to withdrawal from the market or loss of a trademark);
iv. in particular, to review the systems for monitoring the animal feed industry and the raw materials used in the manufacture of compound feeds;
v. to set up national food safety agencies on the lines of those established in some member states, if possible with an independent status, which would include representatives of the public authorities, scientific bodies, the economic and professional sectors, and consumers, and would be responsible for food quality and safety;
vi. to improve co-ordination and clarify the division of responsibilities between the ministries and departments responsible for food questions and, in particular, to assign control of food safety to the Ministry of Health;
vii. to set up a national early warning network, co-ordinated at European level, enabling the other member states (and, where appropriate, the European Commission) to be informed immediately of any risk to food safety, however small;
viii. to develop a new food information policy characterised by complete openness and a sense of responsibility towards the consumer;
9. The Assembly calls on the governments of European Union member states,
i. to allow intervention by the inspection services of the European Commission in national food sectors, without any restrictions or prior notice, at any time and at all stages in the manufacture of food products;
ii. to bring their legislation into line with and apply as soon as possible the Community regulations relating to food questions;
10. The Assembly urges the European Union:
i. to strengthen its regulations relating to food (particularly with regard to traceability, controls and sanctions) and to set up, in co-operation with the Council of Europe, a European food safety agency (with sole responsibility at European level for food quality and safety), as proposed in its Recommendation 1389 (1998);
ii. to improve its system for issuing early warnings and applying the protective clause in the food sector, in co-operation with the member states, and to lay down penalties for offending states;
iii. to expand its inspection services for the food sector, in order to be able to monitor this sector properly throughout the European Union, both preventively and in emergencies, and to ensure that the possibility of checks being carried out is a sufficient deterrent for potential offenders against food regulations;
iv. to monitor more closely the application or transposition of Community regulations by member states, particularly in the food sector;
v. to carry out an in-depth study of the animal feed sector, to introduce better and stricter standards for the manufacture of compound feeds, to assess the need for, and if necessary prohibit the use of, animal meal and fats and, should there be the slightest doubt about the health properties of animal meal, declare an immediate moratorium on its use;
vi. to promote the development of oil seed crops in order to reduce Europe's dependence on foreign imports, whether in the member states or, with the agreement of the countries concerned, as alternative crops in the countries of central and eastern Europe.
11. The Assembly calls on national parliaments :
i. to pass legislation and carry out continuous monitoring of legislation in the area of food safety and quality;
ii. where the parliaments of European Union non-member states are concerned, and in particular the applicant states, to be guided by Community food regulations, or even incorporate them into their national legislation, in order to ensure uniform and compatible legislation in this field throughout Europe.
12. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers take action on the request which it made in its Recommendation 1389 (1998) for the drawing up of a European framework convention on food safety.
Explanatory memorandum by Mr Etherington
1. Introduction
1. At the beginning of June a new food crisis emerged in Europe. Three years after the BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) affair - isolated cases still occur several years after the outbreak of the disease - the news of serious contamination of food by dioxin in Belgium set alarm bells ringing in public opinion across Europe.
2. It is extremely worrying to see that, after all the measures taken following the BSE crisis, there can be further serious threats to food safety and consumer health without a sufficiently prompt response in terms of preventive or precautionary measures, information, controls or sanctions. The result of this is one that is not easy to accept, since we are forced to conclude that our populations can find themselves at the mercy of such episodes as the current dioxin crisis without the necessary measures having been triggered in time.
3. As is often to be seen in such cases, this new instance of contamination by dioxin cannot be attributed to one single cause but is due to the accumulation of several dysfunctions: inadequate controls, misjudgments on the part the responsible authorities, lack of transparency, failure to provide information in good time, fragmentation of decision-making, and absence of co-ordination. In short, inadequate control of the food chain and mismanagement of the crisis.
2. Chronology
4. The crisis first came to light on 28 May 1999 when the Belgian authorities banned sales of eggs and chickens produced in Belgium in view of the risk of contamination by dioxin (a carcinogenic substance). This measure was taken, only after a considerable delay, following the discovery of high concentrations of dioxin in chickens fed with products containing suspect fats. On 1 June the ban was extended to include products containing egg or chicken (prepared foods, sauces, biscuits, ice-cream etc). At the same time the Community authorities declared a ban on exports of these products.
5. It has now been established that the origins of the contamination go back to January 1999, when animal feed companies manufactured cattle feed using contaminated fats which they had received from their supplier. A judicial investigation was subsequently opened to determine the causes of this contamination and those responsible for it, but it is not yet known whether the contamination was accidental or fraudulent.
6. In February anomalies were detected in chickens on a number of poultry farms.
7. On 18 March 1999 one of the animal feed manufacturers carried out laboratory tests on samples and informed the inspection services at the Ministry of Agriculture.
8. On 26 April the Ministry of Agriculture was informed that the tests had revealed the presence of dioxin.
9. On 3 and 12 May respectively, the Belgian Minister for Agriculture informed the French and Netherlands governments that potentially contaminated fats had been exported to their countries.
10. On 5 May samples were officially seized by the Ministry of Agriculture for tests.
11. On 26 May the Ministry received positive results for some of the samples, placed the poultry farms under supervision and notified the relevant departments at the European Commission on 27 May. After consultations with the Belgian authorities and the relevant experts (Veterinary Commission), the Commission adopted protective measures with regard to chicken, eggs and products derived therefrom.
12. On 1 June the Belgian authorities prohibited the slaughter of poultry and the European Commission began to take measures:
- Decisions on protective measures with regard to contamination by dioxins of certain animal products intended for human or animal consumption [199/363/EC of 3 June 1999 (OJ L 141), 1999/368/EC of 4 June 1999 (OJ L 142), 1999/390/EC of 11 June 1999 (OJ L 147)].
Initially these decisions applied to poultry, eggs and products derived therefrom, but were subsequently extended to cover pork and beef and related products (dairy products) which might have been affected by the use of tainted animal feed.
13. Thereafter the Commission maintained contact and held regular consultations with the Belgian authorities, experts committees and other interested parties.
14. The Commission's decisions concern the application of the protective clause, ie the withdrawal from the market of all contaminated or potentially contaminated products from suspect farms. A dioxin surveillance plan is also envisaged, and it is planned to introduce a new single health certificate which would be issued by the Belgian authorities for exports of the products concerned.
15. At its 2190th session (Luxembourg, 14-15 June 1999), the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) stressed the need to improve and strengthen Community legislation on control of foodstuffs and animal feed and called on the Commission to take prompt action.
3. Malfunctions
16. It is regrettable that the Belgian authorities did not inform the Commission until 27 May (a delay of one month), although they had long been aware of the problem. Such a belated reaction shows at the very least a misjudgment of the risks involved, which could have serious public health implications. Moreover, the Commission started infringement proceedings against Belgium.
17. It is equally regrettable to see the difficulties with which the authorities were faced in tracing the supply and distribution channels not only of food products intended for human consumption but also of products used for making cattle feed, and especially fats. The Belgian authorities' delay in dealing with the crisis obviously made this tracing even more difficult, and this in turn made it impossible to determine the exact origin of the contamination.
18. It has once again become clear (as in the case of the BSE crisis) that the use and composition of animal meal raise problems and call for further consideration (probably at European level), application of the precautionary principle pending scientific assurances as to its safety, and the tightening up of national and European regulations.
19. Shortcomings have also come to light in the regulation and control of the production, distribution and export of fats (animal, vegetable or others) used in cattle feed.
20. It has been seen that there is no approved detection method or maximum acceptable limits for dioxin at national or European level (except in milk), and this factor also helped to delay checks on the food products concerned. The current tests for dioxin are slow and costly and valuable time was wasted pending approval of the PCB tests (indicators of the presence of dioxins). As a consequence of this, huge costs have been generated by the blocking of food stocks.
21. Where transparency is concerned, it is again regrettable that not everything was done to notify the population and the relevant authorities (Belgian, Community, other member states, non-member states). A serious breach of the duty to inform may be observed, not to say a culpable withholding of information.
22. Attention may also be drawn to the lack of co-ordination between the competent authorities (the various ministries concerned) and between them and the relevant departments at the Commission and in the other member states. This lack of co-ordination resulted in the taking of incomplete or conflicting measures as new facts became known or were disclosed.
23. Despite a prompt reaction on the part of the Commission in this case, one might nevertheless be surprised, particularly after the BSE crisis, at the lack of certain measures and rules, which suggests a certain degree of laxity, less on the part of the Community than on the part of the member states, which have not taken all the necessary and possible steps to avoid another serious food crisis.
24. Among other things, the Commission does not have all the necessary means of supervision and inspection in the member states, and the latter do not always apply Community regulations as they should; the early warning procedures did not operate satisfactorily; the Food and Veterinary Office planned in Ireland is not operational and only has partial responsibilities; no real European food safety agency has been set up despite many calls for such a body; and both European and national legislation and controls are inadequate, especially where animal feed is concerned.
25. These food crises have major economic and financial consequences, although these could be averted, or at any rate limited: produce destroyed or withdrawn from the market, ailing or bankrupt companies, exports prohibited or rendered impossible by the damage to a country's image, compensation, etc.
4. Food safety
26. Moreover, in the light of this crisis and the malfunctions described, one might doubt its isolated and fortuitous nature and suspect that similar situations might occur (and perhaps are actually occurring) elsewhere without the responsible authorities or consumers being aware, owing to the lack of the necessary regulations and controls. Beyond this dioxin crisis, what emerges once again is the wider context of food safety, food quality, the functioning of the food chain and the risks to the consumer.
27. Paradoxically, these serious crises which cast doubt on the entire food industry come at a time when the conditions in which food products are manufactured are safer than ever before in health terms and when cases of food poisoning have decreased drastically in number. In the European context, the Common Agricultural Policy has no doubt contributed to the establishment of an industrial and production-oriented form of agriculture which might once have been justified but which now calls for a certain amount of re-appraisal. Or at any rate, the setting up of adequate institutional and regulatory machinery that can counter the effects of possible errors and abuses.
28. By its very structure, the present system, dominated by large multinationals both in the production and the distribution field, leads to a situation where problems are difficult to contain and immediately take on an international dimension. This internationalisation also affects information, and this in turn has the effect of arousing public concern on a wider scale. The creation of a European single market and the free movement of goods also help to make these problems more widespread. This means that any measures taken must cover the whole of Europe if they are to be effective.
29. The advantages of this agri-food production system undoubtedly include lower prices for food products, a wider choice and greater accessibility to the market for consumers. But this has often worked to the advantage of the biggest producers. There has no doubt been a tendency to try and compensate for the fall in incomes by cutting costs, but this has all too often been achieved by reducing quality.
30. In response to this state of affairs, consumers began to look for better-quality food products (organic products, improved or enriched products, quality labels etc) - and quality of food is indeed something which should be promoted. But there is also a risk of moving towards a two-speed food market in which those consumers able to afford better-quality and more expensive food products would have an advantage.
31. To prevent this from happening and improve food safety and quality still further, it is essential to strengthen the legislative arsenal to ensure that strict common standards (European and national) apply at every stage in the food process (production, manufacture, distribution), that all the necessary control measures are taken and applied and that provision is made, where appropriate, for rapid, severe and sufficiently dissuasive penalties.
32. In the specific case of the dioxin crisis, the issue which again arises is that of animal feed (120 million tonnes produced in the EU in 1998 and 20 million tonnes in the applicant countries). Although the facts have not been fully established, it would seem that the contamination was caused by tainted fats supplied to manufacturers of compound animal feed. However, in the case of both the suppliers of the raw materials and the animal feed companies, there is no doubt that the controls were inadequate and the reaction time too long (two months) before the first measures were taken. There are also weaknesses in national laws relating to the manufacture and composition of compound cattle feed.
33. Above and beyond the problem of control, it is legitimate, therefore, to call into question a type of animal feed whose components include recycled fats (2%) or residues from slaughtered animals (2%), which are subject to contamination of various kinds and involve potentially serious risks to health. Not to mention the choice, no doubt for reasons of cost, to use protein of animal rather than vegetable origin (in the EU, 24 out of 30 million tons of oil seed are imported). In the case of poultry or pork, for example, feed accounts for between 70 and 80% of the cost of production.
34. Scientifically adapted animal feed makes it possible to speed up the growth of animals and, hence, increase producers' earnings while cutting the consumer price in two or in three as compared with more traditional farming methods. For example, a free-range chicken reared without the use of animal meal will be slaughtered after 12 weeks, as compared with six for a standard chicken, and will require three kilograms of feed (per kilogram of chicken) as compared with two for a standard chicken.
5. Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
35. Food quality and safety are long-standing concerns of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Some of its activities have led to the adoption of texts by the Assembly. These include: Recommendation 414 (1965) on the control of chemical additives and residues in foodstuffs; Resolution 857 (1986) on Europe's agro-food industry and European integration; Recommendation 1142 (1991) on the labelling of quality foods; Recommendation 1244 (1994) on food and health; and Recommendation 1389 (1989) on consumer safety and food quality.
36. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is currently preparing other reports in this field, particularly as regards the use of antibiotics in food production and functional foods and the food industry.
37. The Committee discussed the dioxin crisis at its meeting in Paris on 11 June 1999, at which it was informed of the situation and the measures taken by the Belgian authorities and decided to request an Assembly debate on this subject under urgent procedure. It was subsequently represented at the extraordinary meeting of the European Parliament's agriculture and environment committees with the Commissioners responsible for agriculture and rural development (Mr Franz Fischler) and consumer affairs (Ms Emma Bonino).
Intergovernmental co-operation and Committee of Ministers
38. Activities of particular relevance in this context are also in progress in the intergovernmental sector.
39. The Directorate of Legal Affairs (Public and International Law Division) has a unit for biotechnology and animal protection which, among other things, monitors the activities of the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. Following proposals from this committee the Committee of Ministers has already adopted various recommendations on different animal species kept for farming purposes. There are some references to the feeding of these animals, but it would no doubt be possible to undertake more systematic or in-depth work on this subject.
40. The Directorate of Social and Economic Affairs (Division of the Secretariat of the Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field) has been working in this field since 1959 when the Partial Agreement was concluded (17 member states belong to it). The bodies operating under this agreement include a Public Health Committee which is responsible, inter alia, for co-operation in the area of food and health control of foodstuffs (additives, contaminants, pesticides) and whose work has already given rise to many recommendations of the Committee of Ministers (eg on the use of antibiotics in livestock farming). Among other things, work is currently in progress on dioxins. In 1998 it set up a new Committee of experts on nutrition, food safety and consumer health, which is dealing with these questions.
6. Conclusions
41. The current dioxin crisis is merely another regrettable illustration of the flaws and shortcomings in our system for ensuring food safety. But it is not the only one. More recently still, there has been the case of the contaminated Coca-cola, and cases of food poisoning occur sporadically, although they are more isolated and, fortunately, on a more localised scale. Such situations alarm the public, endanger public health and jeopardise companies (even the large ones) or entire sectors of the economy. This makes it a political and economic problem of the utmost importance which must be dealt with as quickly as possible.
42. This crisis has shown once again that our laws are not yet perfect and that shortcomings remain at both national and European level, whether in terms of controls, sanctions, information, co-ordination or responsibilities, when an emergency arises. Political and legal measures must be taken without delay, but not in haste, backed up by all the necessary scientific guarantees. In the absence of such measures, and pending such assurances, it is essential to apply preventive and precautionary measures.
43. Beyond the measures that can be taken at national level, the European Union clearly has a leading role to play in this field, given its powers and means of action. At its level, however, the Council of Europe also has a duty to respond within the limits of its own capabilities, if appropriate in co-operation with the other organisations concerned.
44. Since human rights are one of the main justifications for the Council of Europe's existence, the right to health must also figure among its concerns. Since this right is jeopardised in the area of food by recurrent crises which potentially affect the entire continent, our Organisation has a duty to expand its activities in the area of food safety and respond to the growing concerns of our populations.
45. The Assembly should therefore closely follow the implementation of these measures, watch out for new potential risks to health and, where necessary, make any new proposals which it deems appropriate. For its part, the Committee of Ministers should endeavour to respond to this growing social concern by developing its own activities in this field.
Reporting committee: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Committees for opinion: Committee on Science and Technology and Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none
Reference to committee: request for urgent debate and Reference No. 2403 of 21 June 1999
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 22 June 1999
Members of the committee: Mr Behrendt (Chairman), MM. Seiler (Vice-Chairman), Hadjidemetriou (Vice-Chairman), Hornung (Vice-Chairman), MM. Agius, Aliko, Anton, Aylward (Alternate: Connor), Bojars, de Carolis (Alternate: Robol), Carvalho, Čiupaila, Eltz, Etherington, Mrs Gatterer, MM. Ghesquière, Gremetz, Haraldsson, Janowski, Jung (Alternate: Goulet), Kharitonov (Alternate: Savitsky), Kitov, Kofod-Svendsen, Korkeaoja, Lazarenko (Alternate: Kosakivsky), van der Linden, Mrs Loule, Mrs Mikaelsson, MM. Myrvoll, Pisanu (Alternate: Rizzi), Prokes, Prusak, Regenwetter, Rupar, Sainz Garcia, Simon, Shugarov, Skopal, Steolea, Taylor, John D., Yürür.
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretary to the committee: Mr Sixto.