26 Undesirable substances and products
in animal nutrition
| (a)
(20905)
5119/00
COM(99) 654
|
Draft Directive on the control of undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition
|
| (b)
(21995)
14908/00
COM(00) 861
|
Amended draft Directive on the control of undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition
|
| Legal base | Article 152 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Health |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 27 January 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 23-ix (1999-2000), para 5 (16 February 2000)
(Both) HC 28-ix (2000-01), para 3 (21 March 2001), HC 152-iii (2001-02), para 2 (31 October 2001) and HC 152-x (2001-02), para 6 (12 December 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (Both) Cleared (decision reported on 12 December 2001)
|
Background
26.1 Council Directive 1999/29/EC[53]
provides for the control of undesirable substances in animal feedingstuffs,
and, in particular, it sets maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for
a range of contaminants. Early in 2000, the Commission proposed
a number of amendments to the Directive (document (a)), one of
which would have removed a derogation allowing approved manufacturers
to handle material where MPLs are exceeded, and blend it down
so that the finished feed MPLs are observed. This was followed
in December 2000 by an amended proposal (document (b)), which
reflected the European Parliaments first reading of the original
proposal, though our predecessors were told that those amendments
accepted by the Commission mostly related to textual and drafting
matters acceptable to the UK, and that the more contentious among
them had not been adopted by the Commission.
26.2 However, discussions had taken place in the
Council, particularly on the question of blending down, and our
predecessors were subsequently told that the MPLs would be reviewed
before that part of the proposal came into effect (though this
was unlikely to be before 2003). This meant that, until the new
levels were known, it was not possible to cost the measure, and
that the range of materials which could be used as ingredients
for animal feed might be restricted. It was also pointed out
that, since some MPLs were currently set at the lowest level achievable
(on the basis that companies can obtain materials with higher
levels of contamination for blending), these might subsequently
be increased as a consequence of the review, and so mitigate the
effect of the prohibition on blending.
26.3 That issue first came before us on 31 October
2001, when we noted that the Council had adopted a common position
on 19-20 June 2001. Since it was evident that the costs could
not be estimated until the review of the MPLs had been carried
out, we expressed concern that the Council had apparently taken
a view without any idea of what the consequences were likely to
be. letter of 5 December 2001 This concern (together with
various others) was addressed in a letter of 5 December 2001 from
the then Minister (Ms Hazel Blears), which said that the Government
shared our concern, and considered that the review of MPLs should
have been carried out prior to adoption. However, other Member
States had been able to accept the proposal as it stood, and,
having successfully argued for a scientific review of the MPLs,
the UK had reluctantly accepted the Common Position. Also, the
results of the review were likely to be considered by the Standing
Committee for Animal Feedingstuffs, which would give the UK the
opportunity to assess the impact of the recommendations for revised
MPLs, taking into account the ban on blending. If the controls
were disproportionate or unacceptable in other ways, the Government
would press the Commission to bring forward a revised proposal,
and it also intended to place the position before us prior to
a vote in the Standing Committee.
26.4 In the light of this assurance, we cleared these
two documents on 12 December 2001.
Minister's letter of 27 January 2004
26.5 We have now received a letter of 27 January
2004 from the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Health at the Department of Health (Miss Melanie Johnson). This
points out that the proposal we had considered has now become
Directive 2002/32/EC,[54]
and that, although this mainly reflects the level of MRLs set
out in the measure it replaced, the derogation allowing "blending
down" has been removed. She adds that the Commission and
Member States had considered the MPLs for substances such as arsenic,
lead and fluorine, which industry had said would be difficult
to observe following the ban on blending down, and that a measure
had now been adopted as a Commission Directive (2003/100/EC),[55]
which will permit the continued use of these feed materials by
increasing certain MPLs.
26.6 The Minister says that these changes are unlikely
to have adverse implications for the safety of animals or consumers
of livestock products, but are to be the subject of a full assessment
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). She also suggests
that, as certain MRLs are to be relaxed, the Directive should
not generally have adverse implications for the industry, and
that a preliminary consultation with stakeholders had indicated
this. However, she adds that, although the Directive goes some
way to mitigating the economic effects of the ban on blending
down and addresses some of the concerns about proportionality,
it is an interim measure, pending a full risk assessment. She
therefore says that she will update us when there are significant
further developments.
Conclusion
26.7 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for
this further information, we have to point out that her predecessor's
commitment was that we would be able to consider the position
before any proposal was voted upon in the Standing Committee
for Animal Feedingstuffs. We therefore hope that her promise
to update us further when there are further developments means
that we will be alerted before there is any question of an amending
Commission Directive being adopted.
26.8 In the meantime, since we cleared the original
proposal for a Council Directive, and are now concerned with implementing
legislation made under it by the Commission, we can only note
the present position, draw it to the attention of the House, and
await further developments.
53 OJ No. L 115, 4.5.99, p.32. Back
54
OJ No. L 140, 30.5.02, p.10. Back
55
OJ No. L 285, 1.11.03, p.33. Back
|
