President. The next item is the report (A6-0161/2006) by Mrs Roth-Behrendt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (COM(2004)0775 – C6-0223/2004 – 2004/0270B(COD)).

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing the Commission’s thanks to the European Parliament, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in particular to Mrs Roth-Behrendt, the rapporteur, and Mr Schnellhardt as second rapporteur for their hard work on this dossier.

I would like to remind you that last year the Commission adopted the TSE roadmap. It served primarily as a discussion paper for future short, medium and long-term adjustments and also formed the basis for the detailed discussion of individual questions with the Member States.

I would like to repeat one of the key points again here: there will be no change to our overall policy of protecting consumers and eradicating BSE. In view of this, the Commission is very pleased with the work that has been done so far and the compromise proposal that is now up for discussion and for the vote. This proposal provides a reliable legal framework that will allow the Commission to continue to take action on the basis of new scientific findings and at the same time to maintain the level of protection of human and animal health in the European Union or to raise it if that is scientifically justified. The compromise proposal is therefore acceptable to the Commission.

The proposal also brings European law into line with the international rules, according to which countries are categorised according to their BSE risk.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE), deputising for the rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, has asked me to present her report here today because she is ill. We hope she will be back with us soon.

The directive on TSE basically has two parts; firstly, the question of transitional periods and secondly the operational or substantive part. To allow us to discuss the substantive part at greater length and more extensively, it was suggested that we divide the report, which we did with the Commission’s agreement. In the middle of 2005, we decided to extend the transitional provisions at first reading, giving us sufficient time for the second part, which we are debating today and which we have also discussed in a large number of working groups and roundtables, including with Europe’s veterinarians and colleagues in Parliament.

As Commissioner Verheugen has already indicated, we are determined not to weaken the directive but to put the emphasis on health policy. Under Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s leadership we managed that splendidly. She has called on the Commission to develop a kind of roadmap, which, while it has not been discussed in this house officially, will nevertheless guide us in tackling the difficult topic of BSE and TSE in the future. It is a very welcome initiative.

Let me say something about the contents. Up until now, we have had five risk categories. That was good, it was right and it was helpful. We found, however, and became convinced that in order to be compatible with what is being done in other parts of the world, including the World Organisation for Animal Health in Paris, it was better to scale this down to three factors, which came more easily after much discussion. We found that many non-Community countries know relatively little about this animal disease and that the European Union and the OIE in Paris, too, can get much better information that is easy to compare using this new classification. That was the compromise after the rapporteur – and I strongly support her – agreed to this proposal. It is in the end also a factor in consumer protection and for farmers, because these questions can now be better coordinated and also policed across the globe in the developing world.

It is again made clear that checks for BSE are an important part of it. Healthy, conspicuous and changed animals will continue to be tested. But if the surveillance shows a sustained positive development in particular areas, then things can be relaxed a little in line with scientific evidence.

One contentious issue I will be pleased to talk about is the question of fishmeal. As a farmer, I am convinced that fishmeal should not be fed to ruminants. Some countries in Europe evidently see it differently, however. I have to respect that. Parliament said a clear No back in 2004. With the backing of many experts, the rapporteur took this subject up again and made clear that this fact – namely that herbivores should not be given fishmeal – will be included in this report. As an exception – and that is part of the compromise – it will be permissible to add it to feed for animals up to a certain age. I think we can agree to this compromise.

One tricky and very sensitive area is the question of mechanically separated meat. How meat is stripped from bones is a very complicated issue. Anyone who has ever seen it will never eat it again. The Commission itself has said it will review it and make us an appropriate proposal for dealing with this problem. The minimum list of special risk materials is a matter of particular concern to the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt. Brain and spinal cord, for example, will now appear in a genuine list and not in the Annexes as before. That is right and it is a good contribution.

An equally good contribution is the question of how cohort animals are treated at present. These are siblings of animals that are sick. Earlier, all these animals were most brutally slaughtered. Now a good way has been found and the animals are kept. They cannot of course be eaten themselves.

All in all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved. They have done some very important work. And I am very glad that Mrs Roth-Behrendt was able to accompany us through this difficult terrain and I hope she will be here again soon.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the European Parliament and the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, in particular have shown great dedication in coping with the BSE crisis, they have played a good part, and they have also been able to put the Commission on the right track with the various instruments like the committee of inquiry and the conditional motion of censure.

We are pleased that we are now no longer having to deal with the start or the height of the crisis but with its tailing off. This was a man-made crisis and if we remove the causes of it we will find a way out. The Committee on Agriculture does in fact believe that we should have the courage to begin to move out of it. The end of this development will therefore again be that high-grade animal protein can be fed to non-vegetarian animals if it comes from animals that have been released for human consumption.

What troubles us about this movement is that the Commission is now very much taking over the action in the comitology procedure and is taking the decisions. We believe the European Parliament should be involved. We are all somewhat concerned that in taking over the administrative and regulatory process the Commission is leaving the European Parliament out in the cold. We have therefore strengthened the decisions of principle to ensure that questions of consumer protection and environmental protection must play a major role. Overall, we believe that on the question of codecision in the comitology procedure the European Parliament like the Council must have the right to enter a veto if things are decided in the Annexes that really should be dealt with in the European Parliament’s codecision procedure.

  Horst Schnellhardt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I feel I must spend a little of my time sending warmest greetings to Mrs Roth-Behrendt, together with best wishes for her recovery.

My group considers many parts of this report on the amendment of the Regulation on the prevention of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies an extraordinary success. In the hectic days when the BSE problem was at its height, we had to take very quick and very harsh decisions on many things, and science has advanced in the meantime. That is why we can now speak of a good proposal.

What are the advantages I see? Firstly, comitology has been limited to the necessary amount. The original proposal involved much more comitology, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf! That makes for clarity and reliability in the implementation. Secondly, the introduction of three risk categories simplifies risk assessment without jeopardising safety. It brings an internationally agreed programme of measures to prevent BSE/TSE into force throughout the European Union, based on the proposals of the World Organisation for Animal Health. The results of risk assessment in all countries can now be compared. Among other things, that also makes exporting and importing easier.

Thirdly, the age from which animals must be tested for BSE is now the same for all the European Union, because the rule has been laid down in the main body of the Regulation. For animals that will be used for food it is now a uniform 30 months. We know that a lot of countries have adopted quite different rules. This new rule will make it possible to compare Member States’ statistics. We will be able to get a much better overview of the situation.

Fourthly, I also welcome the fact that the general cull of the herd when BSE appears is abolished. That is scientifically based and that is how it should be done.

Fifthly, the introduction of tolerance thresholds for animal proteins adventitiously and unavoidably present (I want to stress that) in plant-based feeds takes account of reality and removes problems in the sectors concerned without affecting safety. I expect the Commission and the Council to approve the agreed value of 0.5%. I consider this figure to be just about acceptable, although the tolerance limits can be expected to differ greatly in this measurement range and the tolerances can be expected to be very high.

Sixthly, the scientific prohibition on the use of animal proteins in cattle feed will remain. I very much welcome the fact that we have agreed on a rule allowing some fishmeal to be used for young bovine animals. All right, it is a compromise. I would have preferred it to be clearly separated. There would then have been a clear separation in the feed industry, too, and we would have had much more safety. All the same, this rule is to be welcomed.

I really must also mention, and remind the Commission of the fact, that it promised to include the question of feeding kitchen and food waste to animals when revising Regulation 1774/2002. I consider that to be very important and I would like to stress that once again. In this connection I believe we can agree to this proposal with a large majority without more ado.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I endorse the congratulations to the rapporteur on her good report and also on the good work she has done in this field for many years, and I wish her a speedy recovery. I would also like to deal with a subject that for years has been close to Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s heart. I am referring to the clarification in Article 7, which several speakers have already mentioned, that animal proteins should not be fed to adult ruminants. Cattle are vegetarians, and they only take in animal proteins when they are young, in the form of their mother’s milk.

That really goes without saying. However, the BSE crisis showed us that this principle had been anything but self-evident for a long time. It is therefore all the more important, now that we are revising the basic BSE/TSE regulation, that we should underline the ethical principles of animal nutrition and stress that this is important for the protection of human and animal health and also from the point of view of the precautionary principle. At the end of 2004, on the rapporteur’s initiative, the European Parliament blocked a comitology decision to allow fishmeal to be used in feed. Since then, this question has again been very hotly debated in this House. It is repeatedly pointed out that there is no TSE risk from fishmeal. It is not for me to answer this scientific question and I have no wish to do so.

We in the European Parliament simply do not want fishmeal or any other animal products in cattle feed. I can agree to the compromise in as much as it provides for the possibility in future of feeding fishmeal to young calves as a substitute for milk when they have just been separated from the mother cow. The strict conditions and controls are to be welcomed. Apart from that, I think we should have learned from the experiences with the BSE crisis and we should be sending a clear signal for more animal ethics and better health and animal protection.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) The new case of TSE, confirmed yesterday in Austria, has illustrated the soundness of the long–term precautionary policy of the European Union to prevent, control and eradicate certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Mrs Roth–Behrendt had clearly taken good note of the views of Member States when, during an exchange of views before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, she referred to the draft amendment to the 2001 regulation, and her comments also sparked active engagement on the parts of the British and Austrian presidencies.

The outcome of that commendable work is a text on which MEPs agree in principle. We are unanimous both in our overall opinion that the transitional period should be extended by a reasonable amount of time and in our adherence to the principle of a consistent ban on the feeding of animal protein to ruminants. We support the Commission in bringing the existing legislation into line with new international requirements. Draft amendments, proposed jointly by several political groups, have highlighted inconsistencies and in certain parts they constitute a compromise which is not otherwise ideal, but which is practical at this stage.

An example of this is the issue of feeding fishmeal to cattle. Fish are, in fact, not a risk factor, as fishmeal is not a vector for TSE. The problems with fishmeal lie elsewhere. Fishmeal is unnecessary to the physiological development of ruminants, whether old or young, and, as they are the only animals which can produce protein from grass, they satisfy their protein needs in other ways. Notwithstanding ethical reservations, this issue is also connected to questions of the medium-term orientation of the common agricultural policy and, amongst other things, the advisability of the prevention of protein aggregation in milk.

We have opted for the solution of feeding fishmeal to young cattle under Commission supervision, for practical control reasons, as a compromise solution, with the aim of ensuring that there is not even a theoretical chance of instances arising on farms where fishmeal can be mixed with bonemeal. This is the reason for our support for the compromise solution, even though the unanimous view, backed up by expert opinion, is that there is absolutely no justification for feeding fish protein to young animals.

  Bart Staes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the past decade, the European Parliament has played a decisive role in the political response to BSE, which, although this disease emerged in the United Kingdom as long ago as the 1980s, was given another dimension when the British Health Secretary stated in the Parliament at Westminster that there is a probable link between BSE and a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease.

Parliament was quick to give its political response in the shape of an inquiry committee under the leadership of Mrs Roth-Behrendt, which carried out excellent research into the state of affairs and the Commission’s and Member States’ shortcomings. This was followed by a conditional vote of no-confidence and one of the key results was that food safety was taken away from DG Agriculture and became an area of policy that falls within the codecision procedure.

Since the adoption of BSE legislation in 2001 and 2002 and the detailed regulations about animal by-products, quite a few controversial measures have also been approved under the comitology procedure. Since June 2001, BSE legislation has had no fewer than 19 updates on comitology decisions, and so vigilance on the part of this House must be the order of the day.

Let me give you just two examples. The Commission’s proposal to reintroduce fishmeal as a feed to ruminants was only withdrawn following strong protests in this House. The second example is about feed provisions described in Annex 4 to the Act which were changed by comitology decisions, without Parliament’s involvement, from detailed descriptions taking up half a page to no fewer than 9 pages of detailed provisions and exceptions.

The comitology procedure remains a huge problem, therefore, and one that we failed to resolve in this negotiation round with the Council. We are pleased though, that, from now on, consideration must be given to a scientific risk analysis in respect of the impact on man and animal, and this is certainly a good thing. The agreement reached with the Council at first reading, which is reflected in Amendments 41 to 56, receives our group’s unqualified support. The key areas in this respect remain the ban on all animal proteins as a feed for ruminants, the stipulation that fishmeal can only be fed to young ruminant species following scientific assessment and sufficiently strict control measures, as well as regulations about separator meat, which should finally be laid down.

It is particularly regrettable that the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, cannot be present for this debate. I wish her much strength, a speedy recovery and I look forward to her resuming her role here in this House very soon.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, I should like to start by congratulating my honourable friend, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, on her exceptional work and to take this opportunity to hope that she will soon be well and back here with us, so that we can continue our very good cooperation.

I endorse, on behalf of my political group, all the compromise amendments which we prepared following discussion, except for two: Amendments 41 and 48. My political group cannot support these two amendments, because we believe that the ban on the use of animal proteins should remain, even for young ruminants, for two reasons. The first reason is because we must oppose cannibalistic phenomena; we are talking here of herbivores being fed animal proteins. The second reason is because we are not fully convinced that the risks of this specific diet being linked to the risks of spongiform encephalopathy have been eliminated.

I would remind you that years ago there was no established link between phenomena of spongiform encephalopathy and sheep and goats and yet recently we have had such cases, which are being carefully examined by the competent laboratory in the United Kingdom; for the moment the specialist scientists are not in a position to assure us that there is no such danger.

With my congratulations once again to the rapporteur and my warm personal wishes, that brings me to the end of my statement. We say yes, except for Amendments 41 and 48.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Madam President, profit-driven, unnatural methods of animal husbandry, together with the feeding of livestock with bone meal and mechanised meat separation have led to the recent increase in the risk of BSE spreading. Meat which still contains elements of periosteum, fragments of spinal cord tissue and other nerve tissue is more likely to be infected with prions dangerous to humans and animals.

The positive aspects of the current solutions include prevention, the implementation of a variety of control tests and a return to using traditional feed. However, fishmeal fed to livestock still poses a threat. If the afore-mentioned practices had not spread to Poland as well, all farm animals would eat natural feed and meat would be processed using traditional methods. Fortunately, our agricultural sector is still organic, and there are no demands to introduce innovations for economic reasons.

We are critical of excessively expanding the phytosanitary administration, implementing an unnecessary number of programmes, and also of unnatural compromises, driven by the financial lobby groups, all of which increase costs and increase the threat of diseases, not just spongiform encephalopathy.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Madam President, having experienced not just the trauma of BSE but the very protracted and painful recovery until we recently secured the return of British beef exports, none of us wants to see that happen again. Thus I support the essence of the TSE structures endorsed in this report.

I wish to raise one concern, however, with regard to beef imports into the EU. It is correctly suggested in one of the amendments that we legislate for acceptable feeding regimes for the cattle whose meat is imported. But my question is: how do we police those regimes so that the consumer can be truly satisfied that cheaper imports are subject to the same tough control as indigenous produce?

Not only must we lay down the same standards for imported produce as domestic produce, we must be sure that those standards are demonstrably met. That is the issue I invite the Commissioner to address when he replies in this debate.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, in 2001, during the BSE and CJD scares and outbreaks, the Commission implemented a temporary ban on feed of animal and fish origin being fed to ruminants, pending thorough scientific risk assessment of the regulation. In accordance with the precautionary principle and as a measure to promote consumer confidence, a policy of zero tolerance of processed animal proteins and meat and animal bonemeal in animal feed was put in place. And although no case of TSE in fish had ever been discovered, the feeding of fishmeal to ruminants was also subjected to a temporary ban. This initial six-month ban has been extended on a rolling basis ever since, despite a categorical Commission announcement in 2004 that there was no risk of TSE occurrence, let alone transmission, from fishmeal fed to ruminants and that the policy of zero tolerance of meat and bone spicules in animal feed should be lifted.

The Commission argued that this zero tolerance policy could not be implemented, since the technical detection methods for identifying processed animal protein had not previously been sufficiently accurate to take account of the so-called adventitious presence of small amounts of protein from small birds, mammals and rodents accidentally caught in the harvesting process.

The impossibility of distinguishing these proteins and bone spicules, which do not pose a TSE risk from proteins of ruminant origin which could contain BSE-carrying prions, resulted in a number of high-profile, extremely costly, wasteful and unnecessary withdrawals from shipments and, more controversially, beet-based animal feed, owing to this harmless and unavoidable adventitious presence of non-ruminant proteins.

The proposal before us is intended to amend and update the regulation. In particular, the categorisation of countries according to existing BSE risk, surveillance and monitoring, specified risk material, giving a permanent legal basis for breeding programmes for resistance to TSEs, giving Member States the option to keep BSE cohort animals in their herd and of course revising the feedback.

Given the protracted uncertainty that the failure to come to a decision on lifting the feed ban has caused to farmers and industry, I sincerely hope that this dossier will be adopted at first reading. I welcome the compromise reached and support the provisions relating to the possible lifting of the feed ban, because the provision is based on sound science. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect all interests. Furthermore, I feel it is important to underline that protein is a necessary component of animal diets and the current feed ban is placing us in a precarious position regarding protein supply for animal diets. In Europe, we are only 23% self-sufficient in proteins. Most of our higher quality proteins, for example Brazilian soya, are shipped vast distances from countries where the sustainability debate is now raging.

While there is a debate on the ethics about how animals are being fed, it must be borne in mind that the alternatives sometimes pose even bigger ethical questions. The fact remains that the food industry in the EU is protein deficient. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached on feeding fishmeal to young calves that have high protein requirements. We cannot be driven by emotion; otherwise our credibility as legislators will be severely undermined. Scientific rigour is at the core of this regulation. We should respect the undisputed scientific consensus that fishmeal poses no risk of TSE.

In conclusion, as regards setting the tolerance thresholds for adventitious presence of bone spicules and technically unavoidable contamination, it is imperative that we apply scientific rigour through standing committees under the comitology procedure. This procedure is not perfect, but it is more responsive than codecision and ensures informed scientific analysis and risk assessment, rather than risking emotive concerns guiding European decisions in technical areas.

For this reason, I cannot support Amendment 57, which I believe would threaten the chances of reaching a hard-won first reading agreement in the interests of all concerned. But having said this, as parliamentarians, we should exercise fully and vigilantly our right to scrutinise the outcomes of comitology meetings and to hold the Commission to account when their standing committee experts’ decisions exceed the powers conferred on them by the TSE regulation.

Madam President, may I send my best wishes to Mrs Roth-Behrendt for a speedy recovery and thank her for her long-term interest in this important issue. Thank you for your patience.

  Linda McAvan (PSE). – Madam President, I should like to congratulate my colleague, Mrs Roth-Behrendt. She has drawn up a balanced report based on common sense.

Turning to the issue of fishmeal, maybe I am a bit emotional, but I tend to agree with those who say that we should not go back to feeding animal protein to ruminants. We moved away from that a number of years ago. We continue to feed ruminants and eat them in our countries. Therefore I believe that is a step backwards. I wonder what the public would say if we asked them about this. Would they want us to go back to feeding fish discards to ruminants? Is that what the public wants?

I can accept the compromise that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has put before us, because it makes sense and it would help us achieve a first reading agreement.

The second issue is the policy shift on tolerance levels for small amounts of animal protein. In concrete terms, that means that, in my constituency for example, a feed plant which at the moment is producing feed for ruminants will be able at the same time to manufacture feed for pigs and poultry. At the moment they have to transport feed from other parts of the country at greater expense, with more of an environmental impact because of the transport. It is a common-sense idea to have the tolerance thresholds to make sure that we have proper clean-up between the different kinds of feed manufacture.

I send my good wishes to Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I hope she will be back soon. She has produced a very good report and I know that she has worked very hard on TSE and BSE for many years on behalf of this Parliament.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Madam President, I wish Mrs Roth-Behrendt a speedy recovery. She has produced an excellent report, dealing with the subject matter under discussion most diligently. Consequently I voice my support for her position on almost all aspects of her report except one: the issue of fishmeal.

Fishmeal is a rich source of protein and it is extremely nourishing to animals, including ruminants. Such animals are able to metabolise the proteins contained in fishmeal and use them for their structural and energy needs. Therefore the use of fishmeal to feed animals provides the farming industry with an efficient low-cost diet supplement.

There are two main issues concerning feeding fishmeal to ruminants. The first is how ethically correct it is to feed animal protein to animals that do not normally eat such protein. That is indeed controversial. It remains, however, an ethical issue and not one that concerns the aim of the regulation at hand today, which is to prevent, control and eradicate certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

The second – and most relevant – question is the following: can certain TSEs be transmitted from fishmeal to ruminants? The answer, based on scientific evidence so far available, is ‘no’. To my knowledge, there has never been a documented case of TSE being transmitted from fishmeal to a ruminant, even though fishmeal has, in the past, been used extensively by farmers and the practice continues today on many farms outside the EU.

Of course we have the precautionary principle to consider. But how far can we take that principle when we have no hard evidence that TSEs can pass from fish to ruminants? We know that, in the highly unlikely event of such evidence being found, we could halt the practice straight away. The precautionary principle works well only when used with caution. Otherwise it can be a severe impediment to our existence. For example, why do we not ban travelling in order to prevent transport-related deaths and injuries? After all, we humans eat fish, and we are not worried about contracting fish-derived spongiform encephalopathy, something that is far more likely than for a cow to contract it from fishmeal.

Had she been here, I know I would not have managed to convince Mrs Roth-Behrendt of my point that fishmeal is good as a ruminant food, but I hope that I have provided the rest of my colleagues with food for thought.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, warmest congratulations to Mrs Roth-Behrendt, best wishes for her recovery and many thanks for her excellent report and the good negotiations with Council and Commission. I am very confident that we will reach agreement here with the first reading.

It affords an excellent guarantee of consumer protection. We fully support the stricter measures the rapporteur calls for. We consider the rules provided by Parliament, namely TSE checks for cattle over 30 months slaughtered for human consumption and for all cattle over 24 months that have died or been sent for emergency slaughter, to be sufficient and correct. This measure will save the small Land of Schleswig-Holstein alone 4 to 5 million euros a year without prejudicing the safety of consumers.

The adaptation to the World Organisation for Animal Health’s three risk categories is also logical and necessary. The definition of active and passive surveillance categories safeguards epidemiological monitoring and preserves its quality. I believe the limited ban on feeding animal proteins to ruminants is correct, even if not totally adequate. Nature did not envisage ruminants eating animal proteins, except for calves in the form of mother’s milk. The argument that cleaned proteins from fishmeal are no different may well have a scientific basis, but in my opinion it is not correct. From an ethical point of view, I find the feeding of fishmeal problematical and undesirable.

Periods of up to eight years in doubtful cases are sufficient for the ban on the sale of animals from third countries. The abolition of zero tolerance for the presence of animal proteins in feed as a result of accidental contamination is a quite crucial and logical step forward. In my country, zero tolerance resulted in tens of thousands of tonnes of sugar beet having to be destroyed because animal protein was found in it when it was delivered. The up to 0.5% protein admixtures that will now be tolerated come predominantly from small animals that were killed in the process of harvesting or had died in the fields long before and are certainly free from TSE. The new limit here is a real step forward towards sensible legislation.

I agree to the proposal, but cannot refrain from making one small remark in conclusion, namely that life for Parliament would surely be even better and even more democratic if there were less or no comitology.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, even ten years after the outbreak of BSE, prevention, control and eradication of certain spongiform encephalopathies are still necessary and still under discussion.

The regulation on this, which we are also discussing today, is intended to bring EU law into line with international requirements and the standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health, particularly important among which are all the precautions. Food safety and consumer protection are both priorities, but it is equally important to take a measured approach. Wherever possible, action should be based exclusively on scientific evidence.

As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I endorse the results and compromises achieved so far. I should like to express my particular thanks to all members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety who have been working on this issue for their constructive cooperation and their practical handling of this important issue. It has proved possible to push through pragmatic simplifications that reduce bureaucracy. Three aspects are important in this regard. The first is that we really want to see three instead of five risk categories. This will make it possible to take nationally coordinated action against BSE, and will bring greater safety overall. The list of specified risk materials also forms part of this.

Secondly, a point on which we are undoubtedly in agreement is that animal proteins should not be fed to ruminants now or in the future. However, it is right to allow young calves – and by this I mean very young calves – to be fed fishmeal in some cases, subject to appropriate controls. Young calves do not yet have fully developed ruminant stomachs, and they need animal protein.

The third point is that there should really be a tolerance of up to 0.5% for animal protein accidentally present in feed; be it a mouse, bird, small animal or bone in the field. Zero per cent tolerance is rarely achievable in this world.

One of the most important points as far as the Committee on Agriculture is concerned is that the EC regulation significantly restricts comitology powers. Together with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, Parliament decisively influenced risk management in the legislation in the first version of the regulation. Since then, Parliament has been bypassed and numerous amendments made through comitology. This does not seem very democratic and often impedes cooperation and acceptance. Let us take an approach to the beginning of the end that is characterised by moderation and responsibility.

I should like to express my particular thanks to Mrs Roth-Behrendt for her good work. I send her my sincere good wishes and hope, for her sake and ours, that she is soon back among us.

  Christa Klaß (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, ‘better regulation’ has already become a catchword that no longer needs translating. It is important to review acts, regulations and directives on an ongoing basis, and it is right to then incorporate into the legislative text any amendments that new findings render necessary and possible. Consequently, I, too, welcome the Commission’s proposal to amend EC Regulation No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

I am obliged to the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, for her report. The improvements it introduces reveal a great deal of knowledge of practical necessities and possibilities, and we hope that the Council and the Commission will follow our recommendations. When we set this regulation in motion in 2001 – with inner uncertainty and without sufficient scientific evidence, and prompted by contemporary events – it was a good measure that pointed the way ahead. In the present day, we can see that there has been a change – indeed an improvement – in our sensitivity in dealing with animals, animal husbandry and feeding animals, at least.

We support an internationally agreed system of measures to tackle bovine and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies at the level of the World Organisation for Animal Health. This will also make it possible to gather more information from countries that, unfortunately, do not yet have any data available. As Konrad Adenauer once said, there is no law against becoming cleverer. Our knowledge is now much greater as a result of the increased efforts in the field of research, too. Yet we have also been confirmed in our old knowledge of nature. Our measuring procedures have become so refined that it is possible to detect a sugar cube in Lake Constance. Zero tolerances can be measured, but they naturally entail problems – which some Members have just described – because zero tolerance does not exist in nature. That is why we need a tolerance for natural contamination of feed with animal protein, a practicable limit, which we should like to fix at 0.5% today. I think that this is a compromise that all parties can support, and for that reason I would also ask the Council and the Commission to support Amendment 57.

Finally, I should like to remind the Commission that a loophole has emerged as regards the recycling of swill. The deadlines are about to expire. We are anxiously awaiting a proposal from the Commission on this, with a view to optimum, safe use and recycling of these materials, which are not waste products but recoverable materials that, if properly processed, can also be properly used.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I should like to join in wishing Mrs Roth-Behrendt all the best and a speedy recovery, and I should also like to thank her for her excellent report. We should not forget that there is no prophylaxis or treatment for transmissible and bovine spongiform encephalopathies in either humans or animals, that these diseases are always fatal, and that the impact chain with regard to the formation of these deadly prions has not yet been fully researched by scientists.

I should also like to remind the House that the last few days have seen the discovery of a case of BSE on an organic hill farm in Upper Austria, and that the entire herd of 40 animals has had to be culled – which, of course, has entailed a loss of livelihood for the farmer concerned.

Nevertheless, adjustments should be made in the way we deal with these justified precautionary measures. We can also note that there has been a fall in the overall number of cases of illness and that, therefore, the measures have obviously taken effect. On the other hand, these controls, or the measures taken, are very expensive and represent a real threat to the livelihoods of many farmers. Yet, in essence, the chain of measures should not be broken. In particular, the ban on animal protein in feed must be retained. The compromise reached, that is, that ruminants may be fed fishmeal until they are one year old, is an absolute maximum, in my opinion, and is really most accommodating to the fishing industry.

I consider the adjustments contained in this proposal absolutely necessary, particularly if we consider that the measures have now been extended to all animal species and, in principle, are no longer limited to sheep and cattle.

It is also important to extend these measures to the controls and export bans. The alignment with the requirements of the World Organisation for Animal Health, namely the reduction of the five risk categories to three, is justified; provided, of course, that this does not result in the measures as a whole being watered down.

Another thorn in my side is that the comitology procedure is being fostered to a certain extent. Parliament as an institution should make a real effort to keep this to a minimum, so that these measures, which are after all very technical, remain subject to democratic control.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I was a journalist at the height of the BSE crisis, so I have very vivid memories of the unfolding of that story and its impact not just on politicians but on consumer confidence. It was the story of the century in its impact on farming and how we do our business and on the animal feed industry. I recall interviewing a feed compounder at that time who had no idea where most of his ingredients were coming from, because the word traceability had not been invented. I think perhaps we forget how serious the situation was.

In Ireland now, we are looking forward to not slaughtering cohorts when we discover a BSE case in a herd on farms, but many farms have suffered as a result of our more stringent policy in this regard.

Fishmeal is an important protein source and I think that fear alone should not keep it out of the food chain. As has already been said, Europe produces only about one-fifth of its protein needs and we import soya to fill that gap. Much of that is genetically modified and it is ironic that European consumers are concerned about GM and yet we have to rely on GM protein for much of our animal feed.

Zero tolerance is a big issue for the feed industry and for farmers. It has caused huge problems and is unworkable. In my view, Amendment 50 is better than Amendment 57 when it comes to the adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination of feed ingredients. We need science to rule here and we need scientific risk assessments of the level of adventitious protein sources in feed. I think the feed industry itself would welcome clarity on that, because too often zero tolerance has given rise to huge costs as well as concern and confusion within that industry.

We are ten years down the road. I think it is good that tonight we are debating in less emotive terms than we would have ten years ago, but I would urge that people look at the science of the debate, rather than the emotion of the past, when they are voting on this very important report.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.