High on the agenda was the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) geographical BSE risk (GBR) categorization, continued use of recovered frying fat in animal feeds, feeding of protein meals derived from one species to the same species, and the place of dead stock as a raw material in the rendering process.
It became quite apparent early on in meetings with Marit Paulsen, rapporteur from the European Parliament for the animal by-products regulation (ABPR), that the European decision makers were not going to change their views on banning species to species feeding or the use of dead stock as a rendering raw material. It was acknowledged that the attitudes were based on emotion rather than science.
Although the 626 members of the European Parliament (EP) have the final vote, the 60 members of the parliamentary Environmental Committee (EC) led by Paulsen seemed keen to introducing an amendment that would allow the continued use of used frying oil. The delegation was advised that DG SANCO, the directorate general (DG) of Health and Consumer Protection, was going to notify their intention to ban frying fat from feed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for comment from trading partners. DG SANCO is concerned that the measure is based on control problems rather than scientific argument. On the other hand, there are some who consider that by asking for WTO comment, it is playing for time rather than a genuine intent on consulting trading partners. The EC could introduce a ban on frying fat in feed by introducing a directive stating that frying fat was an undesirable feed ingredient. Such a course of action would not require a co-decision with the Parliament.
Georges Adelbrecht, chief of division, DG B-Agri, a section/department within the Council Secretariat, provided the NRA group with an excellent summary of the European legislative process. With regard to the ABPR, the Commission made the proposal and the text reflects the opinion of most member states.
“Visitors to Europe need to be aware that there is a ‘European preoccupation’ and most members do not think that third countries are doing a proper job with regard to BSE,” said Adelbrecht.
The progress of the ABPR is still not clear, as there are a number of possibilities:
1. The Commission can accept the amendments that come out of the Parliament;
2. The Commission does not accept the amendments and then the EC and the EP have to go into conciliation, which must be completed within three months. Failure to conciliate results in the regulation being completely dropped.
Michael Scannell, cabinet member of DG SANCO, provided the delegation with an overview of how it obtains its unbiased advice from an independent group of scientists, the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). He lauded the decisions of the SSC, pointing out that they were going to classify Japan in GBR 3 and now Japan has BSE, confirming their decision.
Scannell advised the NRA group that tallow was being strongly implicated in the BSE cases in Germany and Denmark through calf milk replacers (CMR), even though it was pointed out that the tallow used in CMR is edible grade. No comment was made about the rumours in the trade that there had been fraudulent addition of meat and bone meal into fish meal, which had been detected in fish meal in Hamburg, Germany.
Scannell did not provide any hope for a quick decision on GBR, stating that the SSC would assess countries in blocks; first the EU, then countries waiting on membership, followed by other third countries. It was felt that it might take up to one year for the United States to receive a new GBR classification.
The legislation states that a decision must be given within six months after the final submission – the final submission being defined as when the last piece of information has been submitted to the SSC, so in effect the United States and Canada could receive requests for further information, which in turn could delay a decision indefinitely.
At present, the legislation uses the old four-category system and this states quite clearly that tallow from the United States and Canada being used for food and feed purposes must have specified risk material (SRM) removed. Tallow that is going to oleochemical use is exempt from SRM removal.
However, once the ABPR is enacted, it supersedes other legislation and until the United States is reclassified under a new five-category GBR system, it would have to remove SRMs for oleochemical use.
Overall, the trip was very beneficial to the participants as it enabled the North American visitors to have a first hand experience of how the European decision-making process is conducted. The EC, as well as some members of the EP, were left with no doubt about the feeling of the North American rendering industry.
Only time will tell whether the delegation has been able to influence decision making in Brussels.
International Report - April 2002 Render