18 Surface contamination of poultry
| (30113) 15214/08 COM(08) 430
| Draft Council Regulation implementing Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 as regards the use of antimicrobial substances to remove surface contamination from poultry carcases
|
| Legal base | Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004: see para 18.1 below
|
| Document originated | 29 October 2008
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 11 November 2008
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 25 November 2008
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 17-19 December 2008
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
18.1 In 2004, the Community adopted a number of measures aimed
at improved food hygiene standards. One of these — Regulation
(EC) No. 853/2004[69]
— provides that substances other than potable water cannot
be used to remove surface contamination from foods of animal origin
unless its use for that purpose has been approved. The Regulation
also provides for such approval to be given by the Commission,
subject to any proposal to that effect receiving the necessary
majority in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
Health: where such a majority is not forthcoming, the proposal
has to be submitted to the Council, which then has to take a decision
(by a qualified majority) within three months, failing which the
Commission may proceed to adopt the measure. If, however, the
Council rejects a decision by a qualified majority, the Commission
is required to re-examine it, and may "submit an amended
proposal to the Council, re-submit its proposal or present a legislative
proposal on the basis of the Treaty".
The current proposal
18.2 The present document comprises a draft Regulation approving
the use of four antimicrobial agents — chlorine dioxide,
acidified sodium chlorite, peroxyacids and trisodium phosphate
— to remove surface contamination from poultry carcases.
This was put to the Standing Committee on 2 June 2008, when 26
Member States voted against it, and one (the UK) abstained, and
it has therefore been submitted to the Council under the procedure
outlined above.
18.3 In putting forward this proposal, the Commission noted that
it has been examined by a number of relevant scientific committees.
In particular:
- the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to
Public Health issued an opinion in April 2003 which concluded
that decontamination using antimicrobial treatments in this way
can further reduce the number of pathogens, provided an integrated
control strategy is applied (including hygiene measures applied
at primary production, during transport and in the slaughter and
processing plant);
- the European Food Safety Authority concluded
in December 2005 that the treatment of carcases using the four
substances in question did not give rise to a safety concern,
but, since the toxicological effects of using more than one antimicrobial
substance had not been properly evaluated, it said that combinations
of several substances should not be used;
- the Authority adopted a further opinion in March
2008, which said that there were no published data to conclude
that the use of the substances would lead to the emergence of
antimicrobial resistance; and
- the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental
Risks and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified
Health Risks concluded jointly in March 2008 and April 2008 that
there was currently insufficient knowledge on the potential negative
impacts of using different biocides to remove microbial surface
contamination, and added that there was an environmental concern
about the possibility of disseminating more resistant strains,
although they considered that risk to be low.
Against this background, the Commission has taken
the view that, although the use of these four agents should be
permitted, the risk of possible resistance and an environmental
impact cannot be excluded. It has therefore suggested that strict
requirements governing their use should be laid down, notably
as regards the time of exposure and the concentrations of the
substances used, with applications being limited to one substance,
and appropriate controls being placed on their disposal to avoid
the formation of persistent chloro-organic compounds in waste
water and eutrophication (leading to mass growth of algae) caused
by phosphorous compounds. Products treated in this way would have
to be appropriately labelled.
The Government's view
18.4 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 25 November
2008, the Minister of State (Public Health) at the Department
for Health (Dawn Primarolo) says that the use of antimicrobial
treatments during poultry processing is one of several means of
reducing pathogenic micro-organisms, particularly where hygienic
processing alone is unable to control adequately the hazard in
question. She points out that one such hazard (Campylobacter)
is the most common bacterial cause of food-borne illness in the
UK, and is thus one of the key organisms which the Food Standards
Agency is tackling in order to reduce levels of such illness,
with strong evidence that its presence on chicken is the most
significant route by which humans are exposed to infection.
18.5 However, the Minister also says that the efficacy
of the treatments has yet to be fully established, and that, although
the provisions in the proposal address many of the concerns associated
with the use of these antimicrobial treatments, there are still
some uncertainties. She adds that such treatments are only one
of several measures which should be used in a whole food chain
approach, and that reassurance is required that they will not
lead to a lowering of standards, or be used as a substitute for
good husbandry and hygienic practices on the farm, in the slaughterhouse
or in any further processing.
18.6 The Minister says that a full public consultation
has not been carried out at this stage as the dossier is moving
quickly, and the Government does not expect it to be adopted by
the Council (see below). However, she also says that informal
contacts with stakeholders suggests that there is strong opposition
to the proposal from a number of quarters, including green groups,
industry and consumers, and that it will be necessary to ensure
that consumers have sufficient information to allow them to make
informed choices when purchasing poultry products if these have
been produced with the use of antimicrobial treatments. There
are also concerns within the industry that the measure would increase
the quantity of poultry meat on the market, notably from the United
States (which allows a range of substances to be used to remove
surface contamination, and which is therefore not currently permitted
to export to the Community).
18.7 Finally, the Minister says that the proposal
is likely to be presented to the Council on 17-19 December, when
the UK will abstain from voting, pending full examination of the
evidence, recognising on the one hand the potential benefits for
meat safety, and on the other the continuing uncertainties and
the need for reassurance, in particular about the need to avoid
a lowering of standards.
Conclusion
18.8 Although the messages emanating from the
various scientific committees which have issued an opinion on
this subject are somewhat mixed, there do appear to be some reservations
over the use of these antimicrobial agents to remove surface contamination
of poultry, and to that extent we share the hesitation expressed
by the UK and — it would seem — to a rather greater
degree by every other Member State. Insofar as the voting in the
Council tends in situations of this sort to reflect that of the
relevant Standing Committee, we assume that this particular proposal
will be rejected by a substantial qualified majority, in which
case the Commission will be required to take the action outlined
at the end of 18.1.
18.9 In view of this, and the relatively tight
timetable under which the Council has to operate in cases of this
kind, we do not propose to withhold clearance. However, we would
be grateful if the Minister could confirm what happens in the
Council, and if she could also keep us informed of the Commission's
response should the Council reject the proposal by a qualified
majority.
69 OJ No. L.139, 30.4.04, p.55. Back
|
