REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

27.4.2006 - (COM(2004)0775 – C6‑0223/2004 – 2004/0270B(COD)) - ***I

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Dagmar Roth-Behrendt

Procedure : 2004/0270B(COD)

Document stages in plenary

Document selected :

A6-0161/2006

Texts tabled :

A6-0161/2006

Debates :

PV 16/05/2006 - 17
CRE 16/05/2006 - 17

Votes :

PV 17/05/2006 - 6.2
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2006)0212

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

(COM(2004)0775 – C6‑0223/2004 – 2004/0270B(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0775)[1],

– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0223/2004),

– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6‑0161/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 2
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1128/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 as regards the extension of the period for transitional measures¹ prolonged the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 until 1 July 2005 at the latest. It is appropriate to make certain amendments to the permanent provisions of that Regulation before that date.	(2) Regulation (EC) No 932/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 as regards the extension of the period for transitional measures¹ prolonged the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 until 1 July 2007 at the latest.
______ ¹ OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 1.	______ ¹ OJ L 163, 23.6.2005, p. 1.
Justification
This amendment is a necessary adaptation of the Commission's proposal. The prolongation of the transitional measures was already decided by Parliament and Council in June 2005. The initial proposal was split into two parts for that purpose.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 3
(3) During the General Session of the World Organisation for Animal health in May 2003, a Resolution was adopted to simplify the current international criteria for the classification of countries according to their Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) risk. A proposal for possible adoption will be presented to the General Session in May 2005. The intention is to reduce the number of categories, possibly in a step by-step approach. To avoid multiple amendments to the Articles of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 when following such developments, references to individual categories should be transferred from the Articles of that Regulation to the Annexes.	(3) During the General Session of the World Organisation for Animal health in May 2003, a Resolution was adopted to simplify the current international criteria for the classification of countries according to their Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) risk. A proposal was adopted at the General Session in May 2005. The Articles of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be adapted to reflect the new internationally agreed categorisation system.
Justification
This amendment is a necessary adaptation after the OIE (International Organisation for Animal Health) General Assembly of May 2005 adopted a new BSE chapter. At the time of the transmission of the Commission's proposal this was expected but not assured.

Amendment 3

RECITAL 7

(7) It is necessary to introduce a harmonised breeding programme to select for resistance to TSEs in ovine animals. Such a programme has already been put in place as a transitional measure by Commission Decision No 2003/100/EC of 13 February 2003 laying down minimum requirements for the establishment of breeding programmes for resistance to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be amended to provide a permanent legal basis for that programme.

(7) A harmonised breeding programme to select for resistance to TSEs in ovine animals has been put in place as a transitional measure by Commission Decision No 2003/100/EC of 13 February 2003 laying down minimum requirements for the establishment of breeding programmes for resistance to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be amended to provide a permanent legal basis for that programme, as well as the possibility of amending such programmes to take account of the evaluated scientific results and overall consequences of their implementation.

Justification

The proposed breeding programmes should be on a voluntary basis rather than obligatory. See amendment and justification on new Article 6a.

Amendment 4

RECITAL 8 A (new)

	(8a) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption¹ lays down rules for the treatment of animal by‑products, which is of crucial importance with regard to combating TSEs. In order to resolve contentious issues with respect to the scope of that Regulation, the requirements relating to sterilisation prior to the use of animal waste in biogas plants, and the disposal of catering waste, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.The term 'animal by‑products' within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 covers only material obtained in slaughterhouses. In particular, feed within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002² does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.
	^_________ ¹OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p.1
	²Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 575/2006 (OJ L 100, 8.4.2006, p. 3).

Amendment 5 RECITAL 8 B (new)
	(8b) Feeding of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants to non-ruminants should be allowed, while respecting the non-cannibalism principle.
Justification
Prohibition of feeding and export of certain processed animal proteins leads to enormous costs of destruction and waste of valuable protein materials.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 8 C (new)
	(8c) Export of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants to third countries should also be allowed.
Justification
Prohibition of feeding and export of certain processed animal proteins leads to enormous costs of destruction and waste of valuable protein materials.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 8 D (new)
	(8d) Imports of animal products originating from animals which have been fed certain animal proteins in breach of the non-cannibalism principle should be forbidden.
Justification
The EU should apply the same moral standards to its imports, as it lays down for its domestic producers.
Amendment 8 RECITAL 10
(10) New developments concerning specified risk materials will also require comprehensive amendments to the Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding provisions of that Regulation in order to develop the structure of that Annex at a later stage.	(10) New developments concerning specified risk material will also require comprehensive amendments to Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding provisions of that Regulation in order to develop the structure of that Annex at a later stage. In line with scientific evidence and sophisticated risk assessments, measures concerning specified risk material should be reviewed.
Justification
Measures concerning specified risk materials should be regularly updated in line with the latest scientific evidence and based on sophisticated risk assessment, so as to limit the high financial burden of this monitoring programme.
Amendment 9 RECITAL 16
(16) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 does not provide for on-the-spot checks in third countries to verify the criteria for classification and the fulfilment of requirements for the export of animals and animal products to the Community. Pending the application of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be amended to provide for such checks.	deleted
Justification
Regulation No 882/2004 has been adopted in the meantime. This recital and the proposed modification of Article 21 of this regulation should therefore be deleted.
Amendment 10 RECITAL 17
(17) Due to the developments in the World Organisation for Animal Health the final Classification of countries according to their BSE risk is not expected to be completed by 1 July 2005. Therefore it is necessary to further prolong the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.	deleted
Justification
The transitional measures have been already prolonged until 1 July 2007 by Regulation 932/2005.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, POINT - 1 (new) Recital 11 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(-1) The following recital 11a is inserted:
	"(11a) In its resolution of 28 October 2004¹, the European Parliament expressed concerns about feeding animal proteins to ruminants as they do not form part of the natural nutrition of adult cattle. In the wake of the BSE crisis and the food-and-mouth disease crisis it has increasingly become accepted that the best way to ensure human and animal health is to keep and nourish animals in a way that respects the particularities of each species. Pursuant to the precautionary principle and in keeping with the natural diet and living conditions of ruminants, it is therefore necessary to maintain the prohibition on the feeding of animal proteins to ruminants in forms not normally constituting part of the natural diet.
	^{______________} ¹OJ C 174 E, 14.7.2005, p. 178."
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 1, POINT - 1 A (new) Recital 11 b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(-1a) The following recital 11b is inserted:
	"(11b) Mechanically separated meat is obtained by bevelling meat from bones in such a way that the muscle fibre structure is destroyed or modified. It can contain parts of the bones and the periosteum (bone skin). Thus, mechanically separated meat is not comparable with regular meat. Consequently its use for human consumption needs to be reviewed."
Justification
The supply situation with meat and the pricing practice of the manufactures makes the marketing of "meat" possibly containing parts of bone skin and liquids superfluous. Assumingly consumers would not buy this kind of "meat" if they would be completely aware of the production methods. The use of MSM for human consumption shall, therefore, be reviewed.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 (B) Article 3, paragraph 1, point (n) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
(n) mechanically separated meat: meat as defined in point 1.14 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.	(n) mechanically separated meat or "MSM" means the product obtained by removing meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning, using mechanical means resulting in the loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure.
Justification
The definition should be explicitly laid down in the TSE-regulation instead of making a reference to Regulation 853/2004.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 (B) a (new) Article 3, paragraph 1, point (n) a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(ba) the following point (na) shall be added:
	"(na) passive surveillance: testing of all animals reported as suspected of being infected by TSE."
Justification
The OIE General Assembly adopted in May 2005 a new chapter on BSE containing three instead of formerly five BSE-risk categories, which was supported by the Commission. It is obvious that an international agreed BSE-approach is needed. Therefore, it is recommended to accept the Commission's proposal and adapt the TSE-regulation to the new OIE-code adopted by 168 Member States. However, such a reduction of risk categories is only feasible if it will be accompanied by comprehensive active and passive surveillance measures for both, as conditions for the categorisation of a country and as part of the annual monitoring programme of the Member States. This is the only way to get a clear picture of the BSE-situation in a Member State or third country. The amendment defines the term "passive surveillance.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1(B) b (new) Article 3, paragraph 1, point (n) b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(bb) the following point (nb) shall be added:
	"(nb) active monitoring: animals subject to casualty or emergency slaughtering, animals with clinical symptoms at ante mortem inspection, fallen stock, healthy slaughtered animals and animals culled in connection with a BSE case in order to determine the evolution and prevalence of TSE in a country or region thereof."
Justification
See justification to the amendment introducing the term "passive surveillance". This amendment defines the term "active monitoring" which is subsequently used.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 A (new) Article 5, paragraph -1 (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(1a) In Article 5 the following paragraph shall be inserted before paragraph 1:
	"-1. The BSE status of Member States or third countries or one of the regions thereof shall be determined by classification into one of the following three categories:
	- negligible BSE risk as defined in Annex II,
	- controlled BSE risk as defined in Annex II,
	- undetermined BSE risk as defined in Annex II."
Justification
This amendment lists the new BSE risk categories as adopted by the General assembly of the OIE in May 2005.
Amendment 17 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 B (new) Article 5, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(1b) In Article 5, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
	"1. The BSE status of a Member State, of a third country, or of one of their regions (hereinafter referred to as ‘countries or regions’) may be determined only on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex II, Chapter A. These criteria shall include the outcome of a risk analysis on the basis of all the potential factors for the appearance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy as defined in Annex II, Chapter B, and their development over time, as well as comprehensive active and passive surveillance measures taking into account the risk category of the country. Member States, and third countries wishing to be retained on the list of third countries approved for the export to the Community of the live animals or of the products covered by this Regulation, shall submit to the Commission an application for their BSE status to be determined, accompanied by the relevant information on the criteria set out in Annex II, Chapter A, and on the potential risk factors specified in Annex II, Chapter B, and their development over time."
Justification
See amendment on Article 3.
Amendment 18 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 5, paragraph 4 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
4. Member States or third countries which have not submitted an application in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall, with respect to the dispatch from their territory of live animals and products of animal origin, comply with the import requirements applicable to countries with a high BSE risk, until they have submitted such an application and a final decision has been taken on their BSE status.	4. Member States or third countries which have not submitted an application in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall, with respect to the dispatch from their territory of live animals and products of animal origin, comply with the import requirements applicable to countries with an undetermined BSE risk, until they have submitted such an application and a final decision has been taken on their BSE status.
Justification
This amendment is a necessary modification of the Commission's proposal from December 2004 which was presented before the concrete terms of the new BSE-risk categories have been agreed upon at the OIE's General Assembly in May 2005.
Amendment 19 ARTICLE 1, POINT 3 (A) Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
1.Each Member State shall carry out an annual monitoring programme for TSEs in accordance with Annex III. Where appropriate, that programme shall include a screening procedure using rapid tests.	1. Each Member State shall carry out an annual monitoring programme for TSEs based on active and passive surveillance in accordance with Annex III. If available for the animal species, that programme shall include a screening procedure using rapid tests.
Justification
See justification to the amendments introducing the terms "passive surveillance" and "active monitoring".
Amendment 20 ARTICLE 1, POINT 3 (A A) (new) Article 6, paragraph 1 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(aa) the following paragraph 1a shall be inserted:
	"1a. The annual monitoring programme referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover as a minimum the following subpopulations:
	(a) all bovine animals above 24 months of age sent for emergency slaughter or with observations at ante mortem inspections such as displaying a neurological disorder (emergency slaughter),
	(b) all bovine animals above 30 months of age slaughtered normally for human consumption,
	(c) all bovine animals above 24 months of age not slaughtered for human consumption, which have died or been killed on the farm, during transport or in an abattoir (fallen stock).
	Member States may decide to derogate from the provision under point (c) in remote areas with a low animal density, where no collection of dead animals is organised. Member States making use of this possibility shall inform the Commission and submit a list of the areas concerned together with a justification for the derogation. The derogation shall not cover more than 10% of the bovine population in a Member State."
Justification
This amendment sets out minimum standards for the subpopulations of cattle which should be part of the Member States annual monitoring programme. The proposed provisions mirror the current BSE testing scheme but open the possibility for future modifications. However, strict preconditions for such modifications are set out. This amendment is part of the improved active and passive surveillance standards as asked for in the justification on the new Article 3.1.n).
Amendment 21 ARTICLE 1, POINT 3 (A B) (new) Article 6, paragraph 1 b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(ab) the following paragraph 1b shall be inserted:
	"1b. (a) After consultation of the appropriate scientific committee, the age laid down in paragraph 1a (a) and (c) may be adapted according to scientific progress in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).
	(b) Upon request of a Member State which can demonstrate the improvement of the epidemiological situation of the country, according to certain criteria to be laid down in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 (2), the monitoring programmes for that particular Member State may be revised. The Member State concerned shall provide proof of its capability to determine the effectiveness of the measures in place and ensure protection of human and animal health based on a comprehensive risk analysis. In particular the Member State shall demonstrate:
	- a clearly declining or consistently low BSE prevalence, based on up-to-date testing results;
	- that it has implemented and enforced for at least six years a full BSE testing scheme (Community legislation on traceability and identification of live animals and BSE surveillance);
	- that it has implemented and enforced for at least eight years Community legislation prohibiting the feeding of animal proteins as laid down in Annex IV."
Justification
See justification to the amendment on Article 6, paragraph 1 a (new).
Amendment 22 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 Article 6 a (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
1. Member States shall introduce breeding programmes to select for resistance to TSEs in their ovine populations. Those programmes shall include a framework to recognise the TSE-resistant status of certain flocks.	1. Member States may introduce breeding programmes to select for resistance to TSEs in their ovine populations. Those programmes shall include a framework to recognise the TSE-resistant status of certain flocks and may be extended to include other animal species based on scientific evidence corroborating the resistance to TSE of particular genotypes of those species.
2. The breeding programmes provided in paragraph 1 may be extended to include other animal species based on scientific evidence corroborating the resistance to TSE of particular genotypes of those species.	2. Specific rules for the programmes provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).
3. Specific rules for the programmes provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2). Those rules shall set a harmonised framework for the programmes provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article. They may provide for certain Member States to be exempted from the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2, based on epidemiological factors.	3. Member States which introduce breeding programmes shall submit regular reports to the Commission in order to enable the programmes to be scientifically evaluated, in particular with regard to their impact on the incidence of TSEs but also on genetic diversity and variability and on the maintenance of old or rare ovine breeds or of those that are well-adapted to a particular region. The scientific results and overall consequences of the breeding programmes shall be evaluated regularly, and when necessary, those programmes shall be amended.
Justification
The scientific value of breeding programmes for resistance to TSE is questionable. These programmes should only be introduced on a voluntary basis.

Amendment 23

ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 A (new)
Article 7, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)

.	(4a) In Article 7, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
	"1. The feeding to ruminants of protein derived from animals is prohibited."

Justification

This amendment takes into account the fact that adult ruminants are herbivores and should not be fed at all with animal proteins, in forms not constituting part of the natural diet.

Amendment 24 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 Article 7, paragraph 4 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
4. A decision may be taken, under the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), to restrict the placing on the market or export of protein derived from mammals where such restriction is necessary to prevent the transmission of TSEs.	4. Member States, or regions thereof, with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be permitted to export or store feed intended for farmed animals which contains protein derived from mammals or feed intended for mammals, except for dogs and cats and fur animals, which contains processed protein derived from animals.
	Third countries, or regions thereof, with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be permitted to export to the Community feed intended for livestock which contains protein derived from mammals or feed intended for mammals, except for dogs, cats and fur animals, which contains processed protein derived from mammals.
	On the request of a Member State or third country a decision may be taken, under the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), to grant individual exemptions from the restrictions in this paragraph. Any exemption shall take due account of the ethical aspects of animal nutrition and stockbreeding.
Justification
Reflecting the change from five to three categories the possibility of Member States or third countries to import and export feed containing animal proteins from mammals need to be amended. However, the principle shall be maintained that this feeding stuff shall not be im - or exported when it comes from a country or region falling into the highest risk category.
Amendment 25 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 A (new) Article 7, paragraph 4 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(5a) In Article 7, the following paragraph 4a is inserted:
	"4a. Based on a favourable risk assessment taking into account at least the amount and possible source of contamination and the final destination of the consignment, a decision may be taken to introduce a tolerance level for insignificant amounts of animal proteins in feedingstuffs caused through adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination."
Justification
A legal base for defining tolerance levels for adventous cross-contamination of feeding stuff with animal proteins should be introduced.
Amendment 26 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 B (new) Article 7, paragraph 5 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(5b) In Article 7, paragraph 5 shall be replaced by the following:
	"5. Rules for the implementation of this Article, in particular rules on the prevention of cross-contamination and on the methods of sampling and analysis required to check compliance with this Article, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2). Those rules shall be based on a report of the Commission covering sourcing, processing, control and traceability of feedingstuffs of animal origin."
Justification
Changes to the existing feeding ban of animal proteins to non-ruminants shall be based on a report of the Commission taking particularly into account the control systems in place, the production methods, traceability systems and all the requirements set out in Regulation 1774/2002.

Amendment 27

ARTICLE 1, POINT 6

Article 8, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)

1. The specified risk material shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with Annex V to this Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. It shall not be imported into the Community.

1. The specified risk material shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with Annex V to this Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. It shall not be imported into the Community. The list of specified risk material referred to in Annex V shall include at least the brain, spinal cord, eyes and tonsils of bovine animals aged over 12 months and the vertebral column above an age to be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 (2). Taking into account the different risk categories laid down in Article 5(-1) and the requirements of Article 6(1a) and (1b) (b), the list of specified risk material in Annex V shall be amended accordingly.

Or. en

Justification

Replaces amendment 22 as far as paragraph 1 of Regulation 999/2001 is concerned. The new minimum list of SRM should not be stricter than the current level of TSE-protection.

Amendment 28

ARTICLE 1, POINT 6 A (new)

Article 8, paragraph 4 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)

	(6a) In Article 8, paragraph 4 shall be replaced by the following:
	"4. The data relating to age set out in Annex V can be adjusted. Such adjustments shall be based on the latest proven scientific findings concerning the statistical probability of the occurrence of a TSE in the relevant age groups of the Community's bovine, ovine and caprine population."

Justification

See justification to the amendment on Article 8, paragraphs 1 to 3.

Amendment 29 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 8, paragraph 5 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
5. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 to 4, a decision may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), with regard to the date of the effective enforcement of the feeding prohibition provided for in Article 7(1) or, as appropriate for a third country or region thereof with a BSE risk, the date of the effective enforcement of the ban of mammalian protein in feed for ruminants with a view to limiting the requirement to remove and destroy specified risk material to animals born before that date in those countries or regions.	5. In specific cases, exemptions from paragraphs 1 to 4 may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), with regard to the date of the effective enforcement of the feeding prohibition provided for in Article 7(1) or, as appropriate for a third country or region thereof with a controlled BSE risk, the date of the effective enforcement of the ban of mammalian protein in feed for ruminants with a view to limiting individual requirements to remove and destroy specified risk material to animals born before that date in those countries or regions.
Justification
This amendment is a necessary modification of the Commission's proposal from December 2004 which was presented before the concrete names of the new BSE-risk categories have been agreed on the OIE’S General Assembly in May 2005. It also limits the scope of exemptions provided for in this paragraph.
Amendment 30 ARTICLE 1, POINT 8 Article 9, paragraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
2. Bones of the head, and vertebral columns of bovine, ovine and caprine animals from countries, or regions thereof, with a BSE risk, shall not be used for the production of mechanically separated meat.	2. Bones of bovine, ovine and caprine animals from countries or regions with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk, and bones of the head, and vertebral columns of bovine, ovine and caprine animals from countries, or regions thereof, with a negligible BSE risk shall not be used for the production of mechanically separated meat (MSM). Before 1 July 2009, the Member States shall submit a report to the Commission on the use and the production method of MSM in their territory. This report shall include a statement as to whether the Member State intends to continue with the production of MSM. The Commission shall thereupon present a communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the future necessity and use of MSM in the European Union, including the information policy towards consumers.
Justification
Currently the use of bones from bovine, ovine and caprine animals is prohibited for the production of mechanically separated meat. (Safeguard measure in Annex XI Nr.3 based on Articles 22 and 23). This measure is appropriate and shall be taken over into the legislative part as it is not possible to determine from which part of the animal MSM is gained. Overall, it should be looked closely at the use of MSM and further discussion is needed.
Amendment 31 ARTICLE 1, POINT 10 (B A) (new) Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(ba) the following subparagraph shall be added after the first subparagraph:
	"On the request of a Member State and based on a favourable risk assessment taking particularly into account the control measures in that Member State, a decision may be taken in accordance with Article 24 (2) to allow the use of bovine animals referred to in this paragraph until the end of their productive life."
Justification
There is no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted via milk or from bovine animals to its calves. Therefore, a provision should be included to allow the use of so called cohort animals until the end of their productive life if certain criteria are fulfilled.
Amendment 32 ARTICLE 1, POINT 11 Article 15, paragraph 3 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
3. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be extended to other animal species, and detailed rules for implementing this Article may be adopted.	3. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2):
	- the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be extended to other animal species, and
	- rules for implementing this Article may be adopted.
Amendment 33 ARTICLE 1, POINT 12 (B) Article 16, paragraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
2. Products of animal origin imported from a third country with a BSE risk shall come from healthy bovine, ovine and caprine animals which have not been subjected to a laceration of the central nervous tissue or gas injection into the cranial cavity as referred to in Article 8(3).	2. Products of animal origin imported from a third country with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk shall come from healthy bovine, ovine and caprine animals which have not been subjected to a laceration of the central nervous tissue or gas injection into the cranial cavity as referred to in Article 8(3).
Justification
This amendment is a necessary modification of the Commission's proposal from December 2004 which was presented before the concrete terms of the new BSE-risk categories have been agreed upon at the OIE’s General Assembly in May 2005.
Amendment 34 ARTICLE 1, POINT 12 (B) Article 16, paragraph 3 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
3. Further conditions applicable to the placing on the market and export of products of animal origin originating in a Member State or third country, or a region thereof, with a high risk of BSE, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24(2).	3. Products of animal origin containing material obtained from bovine animals originating in a Member State, a region of a Member State or a third country with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be placed on the market unless they come from:
	(a) animals born eight years after the date from which the prohibition on the feeding to ruminants of animal protein derived from mammals was effectively enforced; or
	(b) animals which were born, raised and have stayed in herds with a certified history of freedom from BSE for at least seven years.
	Furthermore, products of animal origin shall not be despatched from a Member State or a region of a Member State with an undetermined BSE risk to another Member State or be imported from a third country with an undetermined BSE risk. This prohibition shall not apply to products of animal origin listed in Annex VIII, Chapter C, and fulfilling the requirements of Annex VIII, Chapter C. They must be accompanied by an animal health certificate issued by an official veterinarian certifying that they have been produced in conformity with this Regulation.
Justification
The reduction of BSE risk categories leads to problems with the existing provisions. In this case the Commission proposes to replace the existing principle (import ban of animal products containing materials from bovine animals) by a far more general provision making just reference to the import conditions. This is acceptable as a result of the fewer and therefore less defined categories. Notwithstanding the principle import ban of those products from countries falling into the highest risk category shall be maintained together with the possibility to grant derogations
Amendment 35 ARTICLE 1, POINT 13 Article 21 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
(13) Article 21 shall be replaced by the following:	deleted
"Article 21 Community controls
1. Experts from the Commission may carry out on-the-spot checks in co-operation with the competent authorities of the Member States, insofar as is necessary for the uniform application of this Regulation. The Member State in whose territory those checks are carried out shall provide the experts with all the assistance necessary for carrying out their duties. The Commission shall inform the competent authority of the results of those checks.
Experts from the Commission and the Member States may carry out on-the-spot checks in third countries in order to verify whether the conditions relevant for the export from such countries are fulfilled.
The experts from the Member States responsible for those checks shall be appointed by the Commission, acting on a proposal from the Member States. The checks shall be made on behalf of the Community which shall bear the cost of any expenditure in this connection.
2. Community checks concerning third countries shall be made in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC.
3. Rules for the application of paragraph 1 shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).”

Amendment 36

ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 A (new)

Article 23, paragraphs 2 a and 2 b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)

	(14a) In Article 23, the following paragraphs shall be added:
	"The application of this Article may under no circumstances lead to a reduced level of protection for human or animal health, and must be based on an appropriate assessment of the risks to human and animal health.
	By way of derogation from Council Decision 1999/468/EC, a Commission decision adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) shall be revoked if the European Parliament or the Council raises objections to it within a period of six months."

Justification

The extensive and detailed annexes to the Regulation may be amended at any time by the relevant Standing Committee. Parliament, like the Council, should have a right of objection to decisions adopted in this way under the commitology procedure on an issue which is of crucial importance with regard to consumer protection. This demand is consistent with Article I-36 of the Constitution, which would give the Council and Parliament a right of objection to delegated European regulations.

Amendment 37

ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 B (new)

Article 23 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)

	(14b) The following Article shall be inserted:
	"Article 23a
	Interinstitutional Working Party
	An interinstitutional working party composed of representatives of the Commission, the European Parliament and the current, previous and next Council Presidencies shall be set up. The working party shall be informed by the Commission of any planned amendments to the Annexes in accordance with Article 24(2) at an early stage."

Justification

Parliament must be involved more effectively, and at an earlier stage, in the formulation of implementing provisions.

Amendment 38 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 C (new) Article 24, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14c) In Article 24, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
	"1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. However, for matters exclusively concerning zootechnics, the Standing Committee on Zootechnics shall be consulted by the Commission."
Justification
Amendment 39 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 D (new) Article 24 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14d) The following Article shall be inserted:
	"Article 24a
	Decisions to be adopted in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 24 (2), referred to in Article 5(2), first and third subparagraphs, Article 6(1), (1a), (1b) (a) and (b) and (3), Article 7(2), (3), (4), (4a) and (5), Article 8(1), (4), (5) and (6), Article 9(1), Article 12(1), second subparagraph, Article 13(1), subparagraph 1a, and (6), and Article 15(3), shall be based on an assessment of the possible risks for human and animal health and shall, taking into account existing scientific evidence, maintain, or if scientifically justified increase, the level of protection of human and animal health ensured in the Community."
Justification
This amendment shall ensure that crucial aspects of this Regulation can only be changed by the Commission and Member States in the comitology procedure if a justification is given that a reduction of the level of human and animal health is excluded. At the bottom line the amendment declares certain provisions of the Regulation as particularly sensitive and wants to sensibilise the regulators not to focus in an inappropriate manner on economic aspects.
Amendment 40 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 E (new) Annex IV, point II (A a) (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14e) In Annex IV(II), the following point (Aa) shall be inserted:
	"Aa. At the request of a Member State, the feeding to non‑ruminants of protein derived from mammals may be permitted, provided that:
	(a) the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 are shown to be complied with, and
	(b) a test which differentiates between species has been validated by the Community."
Justification
The differentiated approach to the treatment of animal by products provided for in Regulation No 1774/2002 is now being implemented. By products of slaughter animals intended for human consumption should therefore, after steam pressure sterilisation, again be allowed to be fed to non ruminants, once it is possible to ensure that compliance with the rules (e.g. prohibiting cannibalism) can be monitored effectively.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission's proposal from December 2004 initially had two main objectives:

1. To prolong the transitional measures based on this regulation for another two years. The first prolongation was decided by Parliament and Council in 2003. Otherwise, these transitional measures would have expired on 1 July 2005 without the finalisation of the categorisation of countries according to this regulation by the Commission.

2. To make certain amendments to this regulation with regard to the expected adoption of a new BSE-chapter of the OIE animal health codex (OIE - World organisation for animal health, 167 Member States). This new chapter would reduce the BSE risk categories from five to three.

At the time of the first discussions on the proposal in early 2005 it was not foreseeable if the OIE would in fact eventually find an agreement on a new BSE-chapter. It was also unclear if the reduction of BSE risk categories would be accompanied by the adoption of a new chapter on surveillance of the OIE-codex which provides strict and coherent active and passive surveillance measures in order to get a clear picture of the TSE-situation in a Member State or third country.

The rapporteur proposed to split the proposal in such a way that the necessary prolongation of the transitional measures could be adopted in June 2005 in a first reading agreement with Council. The rest of the proposal kept pending for discussions in Parliaments first reading in order to allow a profound discussion on potential changes. To facilitate these discussions, the rapporteur asked the Commission to present its views and perspective for the future fight against TSE/ BSE. The reason for this was that many changes on the TSE-regulation have been adopted in the last years in form of comitology decisions what lead to a patchwork of measures giving no clear picture of the overall strategy on this important issue.

The Commission followed this proposal and presented in July 2005 a "roadmap on the future fight against TSE". This comprehensive paper was very much appreciated from all stakeholders, Parliament and Council and gives a clear view on what the Commission intents to do in the coming years on TSE. The roadmap, which is not necessary identical with the issues addressed in the Commissions proposal for changing this regulation, was also basis for discussions during a Roundtable on BSE/TSE organised by the rapporteur in the European Parliament on 22 and 23 September 2005 with participation of all Chief Veterinary Officers from the 25 Member States as well as Commission and Council General Secretariat. The roadmap was also presented during a stakeholder meeting in the European Commission in November 2005 and subsequently discussed on this occasion with the rapporteur. Many other exchanges of views with the British and Austrian Presidencies, scientists or practioners gave a clear picture on what changes are reasonable and necessary.

The rapporteur agrees with some of the changes in the proposal. Particularly the most important issue, the reduction of the BSE-risk categories, is acceptable as an internationally agreed scheme for BSE/ TSE-measures is needed and finally, after years of discussions, could be agreed on OIE-level. Thus, it will be possible in the future to get a picture of TSE-prevalence from countries for which currently no data is available. The changes naturally lead much less defined categories; this is why the most important provisions of the regulation should be ring fenced to ensure a certain standard. This applies e.g. for active and passive TSE monitoring measures or for minimum standards on the list of specified risk material.

The following are the main points raised by the amendments:

1. Adaptation of the legislative text on the new BSE Chapter of the OIE's animal health codex as agreed in May 2005.

2. Defining strict passive and active surveillance standards in the articles of the regulation in order to ensure that the reduction of categories does not lead to fewer or inaccurate information on the epidemiological situation in a country. This is a very important point as the consumers can only be protected appropriate if reliable data on the actual situation in the different countries and regions are available. A provision is proposed to allow Member States with a very positive TSE-prevalence to apply a more flexible testing scheme if this is based on the highest scientific standards.

3. The conviction that the respect of the natural living and nutrition conditions of farmed animals is key to protect human and animal health is widespread amongst regulators and consumers. The TSE-regulation shall reflect this as the BSE-crisis was largely contributing to this new approach.

A provision shall be introduced to allow the Commission to set - if necessary - tolerance levels for the presence of minimal sources of animal proteins caused through adventous contamination in feeding stuff.

4. Setting up a minimal list of Specified Risk Materials (SRM). The removal of SRM (Specified risk material) is one of the most important and effective measures against TSEs. A positive TSE/BSE prevalence makes changes to list of SRMs according to the scientific progress necessary. The list can, therefore, not be static. Amendments like the recent lift of the age from which the vertebral column has to be removed will be necessary in future.

5. Changes to the culling policy compared to the current situation. During many discussions it became clear that the strict culling of cohort animals is not always justified. As long as it is assured that those animals do not reach the food chain, the provision in Article 13 shall open the possibility for using those cohort animals until the end of their productive life.

6. The scope of comitology authorisations granted by this regulation was already a major issue during the negotiations between the institutions when adopting the regulation in 2000/ 2001. Since then the Commission together with the Member States piecewise adopted a complex list of modifications, often without Parliament really being in the position to pay due attention to those changes. As comitology decisions often have a considerable political impact, a new article 24a shall list the most sensible comitology authorisations of the regulation and oblige the regulators to profoundly justify that the level of animal or human health will in no circumstances be reduced when proposing future changes.

OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (29.3.2006)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Draftsman: Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The Commission proposal was split by Parliament into two parts in May 2005, on the one hand in order to deal promptly with the urgent need to extend the transitional measures with regard to geographical risk classification, and on the other hand to enable a thorough debate to be held within Parliament and at the interinstitutional level on the future shape of Community rules for combating TSEs. This opinion deals with the second part.

As well as its original legislative proposal submitted in December 2004, the Commission has published a working document to stimulate and provide a structure for debate on the future direction of measures to protect against TSEs (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biosafety/bse/index).

Commission proposal:

Apart from the necessary extension of the period for transitional measures in respect of geographical risk classification (BSE status), many of the proposed amendments to the Regulation relate to the transfer of individual points from the body of the Regulation (adopted jointly by Parliament and the Council) to the annexes, which may be amended or adjusted under the commitology procedure.

TSE Roadmap:

In the light of the fall in the incidence of BSE compared with the peak reached during the BSE crisis, both in the United Kingdom and in other areas of the European Union, the question arises as to how the legislature should begin to address the process of moving on from the acute crisis management phase.

Over the past decade Parliament has had a decisive influence on the political response to the BSE crisis, not least through the committee of inquiry into BSE, the subsequent 'conditional motion of censure', the list of demands in relation to Community policy and the ongoing monitoring of the implementation of these demands by the BSE follow‑up committee.

However, since the adoption of the TSE framework Directive No (EC) 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and of Regulation No (EC) 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products, a large number of decisions have been adopted under the commitology procedure, in which - as we all know - the EP plays little part. The TSE Regulation alone has been amended 19 times through Commission decisions pursuant to Article 24 since its publication in June 2001.

Some of these decisions taken under the commitology procedure have been extremely controversial. For example, the Commission's proposal to again allow fishmeal to be fed to ruminants was withdrawn following huge protests from the EP (although there was no legal requirement to withdraw it). The provisions on feeding laid down in Annex IV to the Regulation have been expanded - under the commitology procedure, without appropriate involvement of the EP - from half a page in the 2001 legal text to nine pages of detailed provisions and derogations.

Your draftsman believes that Parliament must be able to play its proper part in the debate on the future shape of consumer protection policy in relation to TSEs.

Most of the policy options currently being proposed in the TSE Roadmap relate to the detailed provisions laid down in the annexes and do not come under legislative procedures. As, however, it would be neither practicable nor appropriate to lay down provisions on (albeit important) details in the basic legal act, using the codecision procedure, ways should be found of addressing the shortcomings of the commitology procedure and enabling Parliament to play an appropriate part in shaping future Community policy.

Your draftsman is therefore proposing the setting up of an interinstitutional working party, within which representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council will be able to informally discuss possible adjustments to the annexes to the Regulation and already resolve any differences in positions prior to the adoption of a decision under the commitology procedure. To that end, the working party will need to be involved at an early stage in the work of the Standing Committees.

It is also proposed that a right of objection by Parliament and the Council to Commission decisions adopted under the commitology procedure should be provided for within the scope of the Regulation. Parliament has long been calling for such a right in relation to decisions adopted under the commitology procedure on the basis of basic legal acts adopted by codecision, in order to put it on an equal footing with the Council as co‑legislator. This proposal is also consistent with the wording of Article I-36 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on delegated regulations.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 6
(6) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 establishes a monitoring programme for BSE and scrapie. In its opinion of 6-7 March 2003, the Scientific Steering Committee recommended the introduction of a monitoring programme for TSEs in cervids. Therefore the monitoring system provided for in that Regulation should be extended to other TSEs, with the possibility to adopt further measures to implement that system at a later stage.	(6) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 establishes a monitoring programme for BSE and scrapie. In its opinion of 6-7 March 2003, the Scientific Steering Committee recommended the introduction of a monitoring programme for TSEs in cervids. Therefore the monitoring system provided for in that Regulation should be extended to other TSEs, with the possibility to adopt further measures to implement that system at a later stage. In line with scientific evidence and sophisticated risk assessments, all monitoring measures should be reviewed in order to reduce the financial burden, while safeguarding public health and maintaining consumer confidence in the food chain.
Justification
Monitoring measures should be regularly updated in line with the latest scientific evidence and based on sophisticated risk assessment, so as to limit the high financial burden of this monitoring programme.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 8 A (new)
	(8a) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption¹ lays down rules on the treatment of animal by‑products, which is of crucial importance with regard to combating TSEs. In order to resolve contentious issues with respect to the scope of that Regulation, the requirements relating to sterilisation prior to the use of animal waste in biogas plants, and the disposal of catering waste, the Commission should submit a proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. The term 'animal by‑products' within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 covers only material obtained in slaughterhouses. In particular, feed within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002² does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. ¹OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p.1. Last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 208/2006 (OJ L 36, 8.2.2006, p. 25) ²Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1642/2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 4)
Justification
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lays down rules governing the handling of slaughter waste, TSE risk material and animal by‑products obtained in slaughterhouses. The sterilisation standards currently laid down in it for slaughter waste used in biogas plants before being spread on agricultural land are inadequate (temperature of 70 ºC, rather than the usual requirement to sterilise by steaming under pressure at 133 ºC). Given that the use of such waste in biogas plants is now very widespread, this safety gap should be urgently closed.
At the same time, it should be clarified that the use of manure or other material not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (e.g. residues from milk processing or milk residues) does not fall within the scope of that Regulation, in so far as the material in question has not come into contact with material obtained in slaughterhouses.
As the scope of the Regulation is now being interpreted in such a way as to cover the treatment of all animal by‑products (including manure and even milk processing and milk residues), whereas Parliament in fact only wished to include material obtained in slaughterhouses, its scope should be expressly clarified (namely applying to animal by‑products obtained in slaughterhouses). The wide interpretation given to the definition of the term 'animal by‑products' in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (products 'not intended for human consumption') is in reality leading to treatment in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation being demanded even in the case of feed products (e.g. milk powder).
The issue of the disposal of catering waste and rules on its use in feeding, which was a point of contention between Parliament and the Council during the legislative procedure, has also not been resolved, since the legislative proposal to be presented by the end of 2004 pursuant to recital 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 has not been submitted. The transitional measures provided for should be extended, pending the adoption of a decision under a legislative procedure.
For those reasons, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 - covering the above points - prior to the adoption of this Regulation.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 8 B (new)
	(8b) Feeding of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants to non-ruminants should be allowed, while respecting the non-cannibalism principle.
Justification
Prohibition of feeding and export of certain processed animal proteins leads to enormous costs of destruction and waste of valuable protein materials.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 8 C (new)
	(8c) Export of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants to third countries should also be allowed.
Justification
Prohibition of feeding and export of certain processed animal proteins leads to enormous costs of destruction and waste of valuable protein materials.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 8 D (new)
	(8d) Imports of animal products originating from animals which have been fed certain animal proteins in breach of the non-cannibalism principle should be forbidden.
Justification
The EU should apply the same moral standards to its imports, as it lays down for its domestic producers.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 10
(10) New developments concerning specified risk materials will also require comprehensive amendments to the Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding provisions of that Regulation in order to develop the structure of that Annex at a later stage.	(10) New developments concerning specified risk materials will also require comprehensive amendments to the Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding provisions of that Regulation in order to develop the structure of that Annex at a later stage. In line with scientific evidence and sophisticated risk assessments, measures concerning specified risk material should be reviewed in order to reduce the financial burden, while safeguarding public health and maintaining consumer confidence in the food chain.
Justification
Measures concerning specified risk materials should be regularly updated in line with the latest scientific evidence and based on sophisticated risk assessment, so as to limit the high financial burden of this monitoring programme.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 1, POINT -1 (new) Recital 23 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(-1) Recital 23 shall be replaced by the following: '(23) In order to implement this Regulation, procedures should be laid down establishing close and effective cooperation between the Commission and the Member States within the Standing Veterinary Committee, the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs, and the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs. In addition, an interinstitutional working party involving representatives of the Commission, the European Parliament and the current, previous and next Council Presidencies should be set up, which will discuss all planned amendments to the Annexes in accordance with Article 24(2) at an early stage.'
Justification
Parliament must be involved more effectively, and at an earlier stage, in the formulation of implementing provisions.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 A (new) Article 7, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(4a) In Article 7, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following: '1. The feeding to ruminants of protein derived from animals is prohibited.'
Justification
The current rules prohibit the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants. Under the commitology procedure, proposals that would lead to the feeding of certain animal proteins to ruminants have been examined on a number of occasions. The Commission's proposal to permit fishmeal to be fed to cows was withdrawn following huge opposition from the EP (resolution of 28 October 2004). In the summer of 2005 a decision was taken under the commitology procedure to allow 'hydrolysed proteins' (i.e. proteins derived from bovine skins, hides and hooves broken down using an alkaline solution) to be fed to ruminants. The logic behind such decisions is that waste may be turned into feed for herbivores provided that scientists consider the risks to be low. It is therefore imperative to clarify the text of the law and to lay down a clearly defined framework for the commitology procedure.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 A (new) Article 23, paragraphs 2 a and 2 b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14a) In Article 23, the following paragraphs shall be added:
	‘The application of this Article may under no circumstances lead to a reduced level of protection for human or animal health, and must be based on an appropriate assessment of the risks to human and animal health.
	By way of derogation from Decision 1999/468/EC, a Commission decision adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) shall be revoked if the European Parliament or the Council raise objections against it within a period of six months.’
Justification
The extensive and detailed annexes to the Regulation may be amended at any time by the relevant Standing Committee. Parliament, like the Council, should have a right of objection to decisions adopted in this way under the commitology procedure on an issue which is of crucial importance with regard to consumer protection. This demand is consistent with Article I-36 of the draft Constitution, which would give the Council and Parliament a right of objection to delegated European regulations.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 B (new) Article 23 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14b) The following Article shall be inserted:
	‘Article 23a
	Interinstitutional working party
	An interinstitutional working party composed of representatives of the Commission, the European Parliament and the current, previous and next Council Presidencies shall be set up. The working party shall be informed by the Commission of any planned amendments to the Annexes in accordance with Article 24(2) at an early stage.'
Justification
Parliament must be involved more effectively, and at an earlier stage, with implementing provisions.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 C (new) Annex III, chapter A, heading I, point 2.2, introductory part (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14c) In Annex III, Chapter A, heading I, point 2.2, the introductory part is replaced by the following:
	"2.2. All bovine animals over 36 months of age:"
Justification
Data collected from 2001 onwards demonstrates that positive findings in healthy bovine animals are extremely low and constantly decreasing. Therefore testing should be reduced to animals over 36 months of age and should be regularly further reviewed in the future, in line with new data available.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 D (new) Annex IV, heading II, part A, point (b), (iv) (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14d) In Annex IV, heading II, part A, point (b), the following point shall be added:
	"(iv) processed animal protein derived from non-ruminants, whilst respecting the non-cannibalism principle and in accordance with detailed rules to be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), which should provide sufficient guarantee that no animal protein of ruminant origin is being fed to animals."
Justification
Prohibition of feeding to non-ruminants and export of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants leads to enormous costs of destruction and waste of valuable protein materials.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 E (new) Annex IV, heading II, part A a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14e) In Annex IV, heading II, the following part shall be inserted:
	‘Aa. At the request of a Member State, the feeding to non‑ruminants of protein derived from mammals may be permitted, provided that:
	(a) the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 are shown to be complied with, and
	(b) a test which differentiates between species has been validated by the Community.
Justification
The differentiated approach to the treatment of animal by‑products provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 is now being implemented. By‑products of slaughter animals intended for human consumption should therefore, after steam pressure sterilisation, again be allowed to be fed to non‑ruminants, once it is possible to ensure that compliance with the rules (e.g. prohibiting cannibalism) can be monitored effectively.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 1, POINT 14 F (new) Annex IV, heading II, part B a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 999/2001)
	(14f) In Annex IV, heading II, the following part shall be inserted:
	‘Ba. Accidental or technically unavoidable contamination of feedingstuffs with traces of fishmeal or naturally‑occurring mammalian residues (e.g. bone fragments in sugar beet cossettes) shall be tolerated up to a maximum level of 1% of the feedingstuff.’
Justification
A tolerance limit of 1% should be allowed, provided that businesses are able to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken adequate measures to prevent the occurrence of contamination.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
References	COM(2004)0775 – C6‑0223/2004 – 2004/0270B(COD)
Committee responsible	ENVI
Opinion by Date announced in plenary	AGRI 14.12.2004
Draftsman Date appointed	Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf 29.11.2005
Discussed in committee	20.2.2006		21.3.2006
Date adopted	21.3.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	27 1 1
Members present for the final vote	Peter Baco, Katerina Batzeli, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, María Esther Herranz García, Elisabeth Jeggle, Diamanto Manolakou, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Jeffrey Titford, Witold Tomczak, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, Janusz Wojciechowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Karin Resetarits, Struan Stevenson
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	...
Comments (available in one language only)	...

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

PROCEDURE

Title		Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
References		COM(2004)0775 – C6‑0223/2004 – 2004/0270B(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament		6.12.2004
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary		ENVI 14.12.2004
Committee asked for opinion Date announced in plenary		AGRI 14.12.2004
Not delivering opinions Date of decision
Rapporteur Date appointed		Dagmar Roth-Behrendt 20.1.2005
Discussed in committee		28.11.2005	21.2.2006	21.3.2006
Date adopted		25.4.2006
Result of final vote	+ – 0	42 0 3
Members present for the final vote		Liam Aylward, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frederika Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Mojca Drčar Murko, Edite Estrela, Jillian Evans, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Aldis Kušķis, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Riitta Myller, Miroslav Ouzký, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Åsa Westlund
Substitutes present for the final vote		Bairbre de Brún, Christofer Fjellner, Jutta D. Haug, Miroslav Mikolášik, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Alojz Peterle, Bart Staes, Glenis Willmott
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled		27.4.2006
Comments (available in one language only)

Legal notice - Privacy policy