Memorandum submitted by Defra
INTRODUCTION
1. The EU Animal By-Products Regulation
was adopted on 3 October 2002. It entered into force on 1 November
2002 and most of its provision will apply in Member States from
1 May 2003.
2. It is very wide ranging in its effect.
This memorandum does not address all of the implications. However,
it does cover the key issues of concern.
PURPOSE OF
THE REGULATION
3. The Regulation is intended to avoid animal
by-products being a risk to public and animal health. Accordingly,
it controls the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing,
use and disposal of animal by-products, as well as imposing certain
restrictions on their marketing and import.
WHY WAS
A REGULATION
NEEDED?
4. The European Commission's proposals are
based on opinions from the EU Scientific Steering Committee (SSC)
recommending the safe sourcing, safe processing and safe utilisation
of animal by-products and on the results of Commission inspection
visits to Member States. The Commission sees the proposed Regulation
as a step towards the prevention of feed-borne crises such as
BSE and the dioxin contamination of feed.
SCOPE
5. The Regulation controls:
— animal carcases, parts of animal
carcases (including blood) and products of animal origin which
are not intended for human consumption;
— manure and gut contents;
— ova, embryos and semen which are
not intended for breeding purposes; and
CATEGORISATION OF
ANIMAL BY
-PRODUCTS
6. Within the Regulation animal by-products
are categorised according to the risks they pose to public or
animal health.
7. Category 1 is high risk material and
must be destroyed. It includes the carcases of animals suspected
or confirmed as having a TSE, the carcases of zoo and pet animals,
Specified Risk Material and catering waste from means of international
transport.
8. The permitted disposal routes for Category
1 material are:
— rendering, followed by incineration;
— rendering to 133C and 3 bar
pressure followed by landfill; and
— for catering waste from international
transport, landfill.
The Regulation does however provide a derogation
which permits the burial of dead pet animals. We intend to exercise
this derogation.
9. Category 2 is moderate risk material,
for example gut contents and manure, screenings from the wash
water at pig and poultry abattoirs, condemned meat from abattoirs,
and animals which die on farm where the SRM has been removed at
point of disposal.
10. The permitted disposal routes for Category
2 material are:
— rendering followed by incineration;
— rendering to 133C, 3 bar pressure
followed by disposal to landfill, use as a fertiliser or treatment
in a biogas or composting plant;
— for fish, ensiling or composting
in accordance with rules which have yet to be established; and
— for rendered fats, use in an oleochemical
plant to produce tallow derivatives for technical use only.
11. Category 3 material is low risk material,
essentially that which is fit for human consumption.
12. The permitted routes for Category 3
material are:
— rendering followed by incineration
or landfill;
— rendering followed by use in feedingstuffs
or fertiliser;
— use in a petfood plant;
— use in a technical plant for production
of products such as glue, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics
etc;
— treatment in a biogas or composting
plant;
— for fish, ensiling or composting
in accordance with rules which have yet to be established; and
— for rendered fats, use in an oleochemical
plant to produce tallow derivatives.
KEY EFFECTS
13. The Regulation:
— bans the routine burial of fallen
stock;
— allows the treatment of animal by-products
in approved composting or bio-gas plants;
— maintains the existing UK ban on
swill feeding;
— introduces controls on animal carcase
incinerators; and
— requires the treatment of some previously
uncontrolled animal by-products.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
14. This Regulation has been a long time
in gestation, negotiations with the Commission having begun four
years ago. Throughout that period we have tried to forewarn those
likely to be affected of the Commission's evolving thinking and
to collect information from the industry to inform the UK's negotiating
position. We have used both informal and more structured consultation
processes to engage industry representatives in discussions on
particular sectoral difficulties and how they might be overcome.
On some of the key issues, such as fallen stock and composting,
we established working groups with industry involvement, and wider
steering groups consisting largely of external stakeholders.
15. The first written consultation was issued
on 10 November 2000 (with a draft RIA. Further consultations followed
on 19 February 2001, 17 April 2001, 20 November 2001, 17 April
2002 and 3 July 2002 and made available on the Defra website (http://defraweb/animalh/by-prods/letters-press.htm),
culminating in a consultation on a draft enforcing SI and Regulatory
Impact Assessment, which was issued on 27 January 2003. Copies
of the consultation issued on 27 January have been placed in the
Library of the House. Over the same period, explanatory memoranda
were also submitted to Parliament and a debate was held on the
proposal on 7 March 2001. The scrutiny history is at Annex 1.
16. Despite the wide and early consultation,
some unforeseen issues have emerged very late in the day. This
has happened in all Member States. As many as 17 transitional
and implementing measures required by Member States were being
considered by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
health as late as 16-17 April 2003. This was just two weeks before
the Regulation was to take effect in Member States.
UK'S ACHIEVEMENTS
IN EU NEGOTIATIONS
17. Whenever European legislation with this
degree of impact is proposed, questions inevitably arise about
how the eventual decision was reached. The UK is very supportive
of the overall aims of this package of measures and has worked
very hard to influence the Commission's thinking in a number of
areas.
18. We succeeded in the following:
— removal of the proposed controls
on the transport of manure between farms;
— the inclusion of proportionate controls
on animal carcase incinerators;
— the inclusion of controls to allow
specified risk material to be burnt in low capacity incinerators;
— avoiding a complete ban on the burial
of ruminant carcases, and allowing burial in remote areas;
— allowing burial as a disposal route
for ruminants, as well as other animals, in the case of a major
disease outbreak on sites supervised by the competent authority;
and
— obtaining a change in the requirement
to have a 2 mm to a 6 mm screen for the treatment of waste water
from abattoirs and rendering plants.
19. In addition we obtained transitional
measures in the following areas:
— The use of used cooking oil in animal
feed until 31 October 2004 to allow time for alternative disposal
routes such as biodiesel production to come on stream, thereby
avoiding environmental problems associated with blocked drains,
fly tipping etc.
— The separation of Category 2 and
Category 3 oleochemical plants. The Regulation requires plants
processing tallow derived from Category 2 material to by physically
separate from plants which process tallow derived from Category
3 material.
— The use of small (less than 50 kg/hr)
incinerators which do not burn SRM. The transitional measure will
allow light controls rather than the European standard to continue
to apply to existing incinerators until 31 December 2004.
— The rendering of mammalian blood
at atmospheric pressure rather than the required pressure cooking
standard until 31 December 2004. This is to deal with concerns
about the capacity for treating blood to the required standard
within the UK.
— The rendering of mammalian by-products
at atmospheric pressure rather than the pressure cooking standard,
if it is to be used in the production of petfood, until the feed
restrictions in the TSE Regulations are lifted.
— The collection and disposal of waste
food until 31 December 2005. This will allow food waste, other
than raw meat, to continue to go to landfill, giving time for
the development of composting and other approved disposal options.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Ban on burial of fallen stock
20. The rationale for this comes from three
SSC opinions. The first, an opinion on fallen stock (25 June 1999),
notes that there is little reliable information on the extent
and rate of infectivity reduction of BSE/TSE following burial.
21. The second, (28-29 June 2001) applied
a framework for assessing the risk from different waste disposal
processes to burial. It used three criteria: characterisation
of the risk material involved, risk reduction and the degree to
which the risks could be contained.
22. The evidence relating to those criteria
was re-considered at the SSC meeting on 16-17 January 2003. The
following uncertainties were identified:
— location of burial sites;
— potential for transmission of TSEs
from specified risk material buried near the surface was poorly
characterised;
— extent to which infectivity would
be reduced by burial;
— penetration of prions into leachates
and groundwater; and
— dangers arising from "re-engineering"
in areas where previous burial of TSE contaminated material had
occurred.
Given these uncertainties, the Committee confirmed
their earlier view that the burial of animals poses a significant
risk.
23. The risks of burial were also considered
by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) during
the foot and mouth disease outbreak. They pointed to the importance
of considering the potential for animal re-infection by TSEs through
contaminated drinking water or pasture land, particularly in the
immediate vicinity of a burning or burial site. This applied to
both BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep.
24. We were aware that a ban on burial would
have significant consequence for the livestock industry, particularly
with respect to the costs of disposal. We therefore established
a stakeholder group consisting of members of the UK farming unions,
representatives of sectoral groups and the collection and disposal
industries to discuss the feasibility of establishing a national
collection service for the disposal of fallen stock.
25. This met for the first time in April
2002. A smaller subset of this group, representing the collection
and disposal industries prepared an outline proposal for such
a service. The total estimated cost of this was just over £50
million, nearly £30 million of which covered the collection
and disposal of cattle which Government already funds for TSE
testing purposes.
26. The proposal was considered by Defra
Ministers in October 2002, alongside a letter from the farming
unions arguing the case for 100% government funding for the scheme.
27. At the first meeting of the stakeholder
group it was made clear that Government could not fund this scheme,
although it might be prepared to offer some funds for pump priming
to get the scheme off the ground. Such a scheme would be likely
to encourage compliance. However, Government policy remained that
the polluter pays. In this respect the livestock industry was
no different from any other.
28. A period of stalemate ensued when the
farming unions refused to enter into further discussions on any
scheme which required payment by farmers. As the date for implementation
drew nearer the Government decided to produce a proposal for a
voluntary subscription scheme with payments structured according
to the number of livestock units on the holding as a way of breaking
the impasse. This results in payment of £100 subscription
for an average holding, £200 for a large one and £50
for a small one. The scheme would be topped up by a government
subsidy digressive over three years with a maximum contribution
of £10 million in the first year. Farming unions were consulted
on the proposed scheme and have now lent their support to the
proposal. We have now written to all livestock producers to explain
what they need to do to comply with the Regulation and to invite
expressions of interest in such a scheme. Our initial view is
that we will need something approaching a 50% up take for the
scheme to be viable, but we will also be looking at the type and
size of holdings which express interest in joining the scheme
in assessing its potential viability. The closing date for reply
was 6 May. At the time of writing the viability of the scheme
is not known.
29. Even if the response to our letter is
very positive, there is a lot of work to do before a scheme is
fully operational. We anticipate that it will take a minimum of
three months from the date when the decision is taken on whether
to proceed to get a scheme up and running.
30. The ban on burial has generated a great
deal of concern. It is also surrounded by a number of misconceptions.
The first is that we are the only Member State not to pay for
the collection and disposal of fallen stock. A paper issued by
the Commission in November 2001 (Annex 2) indicates the position
in other Member States at that time. This shows a high level of
variability, ranging from no government funding in some cases
to funding through levies.
31. The second is that the UK is not making
use of derogations available to it. The Regulation allows Member
States to permit the burial of pet animals. The burial and open-burning
of the carcases of fallen stock may be permitted only:
— during an outbreak of notifiable
disease if there is a lack of capacity at rendering plants and
incinerators, or because transport would spread the disease.
32. We will be exercising these derogations.
However, "remote areas" will be interpreted as the Scilly
Isles and Lundy Island in England and the Highlands and Islands
of Scotland. This is because the definition of remote areas in
the EU Regulation is "where the animal population is so small
and where facilities are so far away that the arrangements necessary
for collection and disposal would be unacceptably onerous compared
to local disposal". We do not believe that there are any
areas other than those mentioned that could be said to comply
with both parts of this definition.
33. The third misconception is that a scheme
is needed if farmers are going to be able to comply. This is untrue.
The infrastructure of knackers, renderers and incinerator operators
is already in place. We are assured by industry that it has the
capacity to deal with the estimated increase in the fallen stock
requiring collection as a result of this ban. We have established
a help line to give farmers the contact details of their local
knackerman for those who may not have used such a service in the
past. The telephone number was included in the letter that was
sent recently to all producers.
34. The fourth misconception is that this
is a completely new requirement. It is not. Current legislation
permits burial and open burning only where there is genuinely
no alternative outlet, such as a knacker or hunt kennel, available.
35. We will expect farmers to make every
reasonable effort to comply with the Regulation as soon as it
takes effect. We have also written to our enforcement bodies to
ask them to take a reasonable approach to enforcement initially
to allow time for the new arrangements to settle down.
COMPOSTING OF
CATERING WASTE
36. Existing domestic legislation (The Animal
By-Products Order 1999 (as amended)) prevents the disposal of
catering waste which might contain meat in a way that enables
livestock or birds to have access to it. Although this does not
prevent composting or treatment in a biogas plant, it prevents
the treated material being spread to land, so has effectively
banned these treatments. The aim was to prevent the spread of
animal diseases such as Foot and Mouth and Classical Swine Fever.
37. The EU Animal By-Products Regulation
will permit the treatment in composting and biogas plants of catering
waste containing meat and Category 3 animal by-products. The treatment
standard in the Regulation for animal by-products is 70C
for one hour in a closed system. However, for plants processing
only catering waste with no other animal by-products mixed in,
the Regulation allows national standards to be set.
38. The UK is required to meet stringent
targets under the EU Landfill Directive for reduction of biodegradable
municipal waste going to landfill. By 2020 the amount of biodegradable
municipal waste must be reduced to 35% of that produced in 1995.
The UK Government has also set recycling and composting targets
under Waste Strategy 2000. By 2005, at least 25% of household
waste should be recycled or composted. Composting and biogas treatment
are expected to be a vital tool in achieving both these targets
and in increasing the sustainability of biodegradable waste.
39. In permitting these practices we had
to be careful not to increase the risks of spreading animal diseases.
We therefore commissioned a risk assessment to examine the potential
risk to public and animal health from the composting/biogas treatment
of catering waste containing meat. Pathogens considered in the
risk assessment included TSEs, exotic diseases and endemic pathogens
such as E. coli and salmonella.
40. The risk assessment concluded that the
composting/biogas processing of catering waste containing meat
could be done safely provided that certain minimum treatment standards
were applied.
41. Four common themes emerged from the
consultation on our proposals for national standards. These were:
— they were too prescriptive and would
severely restrict the development of the composting industry preventing
the UK from meeting its landfill and recycling targets;
— the costs of the proposed laboratory
testing requirements would be too high;
— the standards should not be applied
to mechanical and biological treatment plants (MBT) when composting
is used to stabilise the organic matter of material destined for
landfill; and
— the length of the proposed ban on
grazing following the application of compost/digestate to land
did not fit in with farming practice, particularly in relation
to digestate from biogas plants.
42. We have been able to meet most of the
concerns expressed on these issues and have amended our draft
implementing SI accordingly.
DISPOSAL OF
BLOOD
43. Certain products (eg blood, feathers,
hides and skins) are exempt from the scope of current EC legislation,
(the Animal Waste Directive), as long as they come from animals
that have passed ante-mortem inspection and are not to be used
in animal feedstuffs. This exemption will end and these products
will fall within the scope of the Animal By-Products Regulation.
44. In the case of blood this means that
operators will not be able to apply untreated blood from abattoirs
to land, nor will abattoirs be able to dispose of blood to the
sewers.
45. As a consequence the costs of blood
disposal for some abattoirs will increase, although the magnitude
of the increase will depend on the local circumstance. However,
we have worked very closely with the Meat and Livestock Commission
and other industry experts to develop guidance on simple, low
cost ways in which slaughterhouses could comply with the requirements.
This guidance, along with some Q & A material about the Regulation,
was issued to all red meat slaughterhouses on 21 February 2003.
46. Concern has also been expressed about
the capacity existing within the disposal industry to process
the blood. However our success in obtaining a transitional measure
to allow blood to be processed at atmospheric pressure rather
than to pressure cooking standards is important. We have been
advised by the rendering industry that given this temporary measure
the capacity is available.
WASTE FOOD
47. The ban on burial of animal by-products
includes landfill. Thus waste food from retail outlets and food
manufacture will no longer be able to go to landfill if it contains
meat or other products of animal origin.
48. Although the British Retail Consortium
was consulted on this Regulation in August 2001, the full impact
on retailers has only recently come to the fore. We therefore
asked the Commission for a transitional period to the end of 2005
during which time certain types of waste food could continue to
go to landfill. This has been obtained.
49. The transition period will not apply
to raw meat waste from supermarkets or to animal by-products that
are already required to go to rendering or incineration under
the Animal By-Products Order 1999, as amended. We do not believe
that there is any justification for exempting supermarkets from
a legal requirement that has long been complied with by butchers'
shops.
50. Much of the waste food from food manufacture
is already considered to be an animal by-product and is disposed
of to rendering. However, due to differences in the definition
of catering waste in the Animal By-Products Order (1999) and in
the new EU Animal By-Products Regulation some additional material
will become an animal by-product and will need to be disposed
of by an approved route. The transitional measure will also apply
to this material.
51. The Commission has issued a declaration
confirming that it does not consider that the Regulation should
apply to waste food such as biscuits, pastry and bread which do
not contain meat, but which may contain material of animal origin,
such as butter or lard. The Commission intends to come forward
with a proposal to this effect but until this clarification is
secured we intend to allow this material to continue to be incorporated
into animal feed.
TIMETABLE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
52. The Regulation will be directly applicable
in the UK and national legislation will not repeat its provisions,
but will give effect to the Regulation by providing for offences,
powers of entry etc. Until the various statutory instruments are
in place enforcement of the Regulation will not be possible. In
the meantime the enforcement provisions within the Animal By-Products
Order (1999) will remain in force.
53. The enforcing SI for England has been
delayed to take account of the implementing and transitional measures
which were agreed in mid-April but have not yet been formally
adopted by the Commission. A press notice was issued on 30 April
to advise people of the position.
54. We recognise that there are many practical
issues for those affected to resolve, and we have written to LACORS,
the Meat Hygiene Service and the Environment Agency to ask them
to take a sensible approach to enforcement during the first few
months to enable the new arrangements to settle down and to give
those affected time they may need to comply.
55. Because of the elections in Scotland
and Wales the consultation on the implementing legislation was
delayed. As yet it is not known exactly when the legislation will
be in place in the devolved areas.
May 2003
| 
