By By Bruce Ross
Ross Gordon Consultants SPRL
Renderers in the European Union (EU) are unable to use tallow as a fuel for their processing machinery lest they fall foul of EU rules on waste incineration. As the law stands, they face two choices, either of which would cost many millions of Euros: (1) invest in expensive new machinery to meet waste incineration requirements; or, (2) revert to burning fossil fuels and face the costs of disposing their tallow in other ways.
At least that is what a strict interpretation of EU laws would suggest. Tallow is widely perceived as an environmentally sustainable fuel. Burning it at processing sites not only takes care of its disposal, but allows renderers to use what is essentially a biofuel rather than the alternative, a much more polluting heavy fuel oil. Allowing the use of tallow would provide a win-win situation.
So why and how does EU law prevent this? Are we seeing the law of unintended consequences at work? Many in the EU meat and rendering sectors believe this is the case.
The EU wants to promote increased use of renewable or non-fossil fuels – initiatives and strategies are pouring out of Brussels to this effect. At the same time, the EU is determined – rightly – that waste products from the food chain are disposed of in the safest way possible in order to avoid the sort of food safety scandal that has bedevilled the EU for the past 20 years. At present, tallow falls into this waste materials category when in reality it is a by-product that must have a home.
The problem in the case of tallow is that there are too many pieces of EU legislation that apply, including the following:
• The animal by-products regulation that lays down stringent conditions throughout the food and feed chains regarding collection, transport, storage, handling, processing, use, and disposal of animal by-products;
• The waste framework directive that covers prevention, re-use, recycling, and disposal of waste;
• A Waste Incineration Directive (WID) that aims to prevent or limit the negative effects on the environment from the incineration and co-incineration of waste; and
• A directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) aimed at minimizing pollution from industrial sources in the EU.
Under these pieces of legislation the burning of tallow by renderers in steam boilers is effectively prohibited because it is designated as a waste and not as an animal by-product.
In practice, rendering plants (and abattoirs that render some product on their site) must apply for a permit under the IPPC in order to be allowed to operate; the permits contain provisions regarding applications for burning of tallow in compliance with the WID. Under a very strict interpretation of WID, tallow should not be allowed as a fuel unless it is burned according to strict standards. As most existing EU rendering plants’ combustion machinery cannot meet those standards, they are effectively unable to use tallow as a fuel, unless they invest in expensive new machinery, mainly in order to filter out emissions.
The European rendering industry contends that tallow is not a waste product and that it therefore should not come under WID rules. Several rendering companies have taken legal action to seek clarification in the courts. Meanwhile, the industry and several EU governments have asked the European Commission (EC) to clarify the legislation.
During this period of uncertainty, the industry believes it is free to continue to burn tallow. Governments tacitly accept this and have not sought to censure the industry. According to a survey undertaken by the EU’s rendering and abattoir industry associations, no member state has actually enforced the law on tallow burning.
It is unclear how long this situation will last. All of the above rules are under review simultaneously, but not necessarily in a coordinated manner. Member state administrations are awaiting clarification from these reviews, although this is not stated openly.
It would be simplistic to say that the EU is not “basing itself on science.” The EC’s environment department commissioned a study published in December 2006 that examined in detail the implications of legislation for the burning of rendered animal fat. One of its conclusions – that “economics show, over a 20-year period, that it would be better for the member states to become compliant with the Waste Incineration Directive” – is not helpful to the advocates of tallow being treated as a by-product.
The study has been widely disputed by the rendering industry. But it is not a lack of scientific appraisal that is at fault here; it is application of the wrong sort of scientific and economic analysis, and, above all, a lack of clear policy thinking.
To make matters worse, some EU players believe that the real problem lies in the internal warfare that is commonplace in the Commission.
The rendering industry believes that the Commission’s health department wants to reclassify tallow as a by-product (and a fuel) rather than a waste, thus allowing it to be used as a fuel by renderers without upgrading to WID standards.
But health officials are at odds with their environment department colleagues on so many other issues that the environment department won’t give way. The logic of the case for tallow burning seems to be going out the window. And other departments are so scared of discussing issues related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other food scares that they won’t raise their heads above the parapet on this one.
The bottom line surely must be: Why destroy a perfectly good fuel in favor of fuel oil that would put thousands of tons of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere each year?
So tallow remains a burning issue…in more ways than one!
International Report - February 2008 Render