Kippenvlees op grote schaal behandeld met runder- en varkenseiwitten uit slachtafval

• 2003-07-01

Samen met de Europese Groene fractie steunt Agalev-europarlementslid Bart STAES het voorstel om het 'oppompen' van kippen met water en eiwitten te verbieden. Recent raakte bekend dat in Engeland op grote schaal uit Nederland afkomstig kippenvlees wordt verkocht dat is ingespoten met water waarin runder- en varkenseiwitten zijn verwerkt. Het thema komt vandaag aan bod in Straatsburg tijdens een uitgebreid debat over voedselveiligheid. De groenen zetten het thema op de agenda middels het stellen van een mondelinge vraag. Bart Staes is verwonderd: "Zo gek had ik het eerlijk gezegd zelf niet kunnen bedenken. In onze vraag willen we van de Commissie weten of zij (a) meer informatie heeft over deze praktijken en (b) of deze beperkt zijn tot Nederland of dat er ook andere lidstaten bij betrokken zijn. Vanzelfsprekend vragen we een Europees verbod op het verkopen van dit soort kippenvlees. Dit voorval bewijst alleszins dat voedselcriminelen voor niets terugschrikken en dat een zeer streng voedselveiligheidsbeleid noodzakelijk is en blijft. Om de consument te beschermen, maar niet in het minst ook de producent. België heeft dat als eerste ingezien. Het kan niet anders of dit moet een slag zijn in het gezicht van de betrouwbare kippenkwekers. Zij verdienen beter." Het inspuiten van het kippenvlees met water - of 'oppompen', vandaar ook 'plofkippen' - gebeurt om ze zwaarder te maken. Dat verhoogt de verkoopprijs. De consument wordt gewoon bedrogen. De toevoeging van runds- of varkenseiwitten gebeurt dan weer om zoveel mogelijk water in het vlees te kunnen pompen. Men gebruikt specifiek dit soort eiwitten omdat ze goedkoop zijn: ze worden betrokken uit slachtafval. Bart Staes: "Deze praktijken blijken volgens Europese regelgeving legaal te zijn, zolang de vermelding 'bevat gehydrolyseerde eiwitten' op het etiket staat. Als deze labeling al adequaat gebeurt, dan nog weet de consument niet wat dit betekent. Hij zou er terecht van gruwen als hij dat wél wist. Deze onduidelijke etikettering maakt ook dat het kippenvlees aan moslims en joden wordt verkocht als 'halal' of 'kosjer'. Maar," zegt Bart Staes, "het is niet omdat iets legaal is, dat je het moet dulden: daarom ook vragen de Groenen dat deze additieven zeker in deze context worden verboden." In afwachting van een verbod eisen de Europese groenen dat de etikettering correct is. Ze denken daarbij aan een vermelding als 'kippenvlees dat rund bevat' of 'kippenvlees dat varken bevat'. Het Antwerpse Agalev-europarlementslid benadrukt dat een verbod van deze praktijken op termijn wel noodzakelijk is. "Het oppompen van kippen gebeurt enkel en alleen om de consument te bedriegen. Dat kan niet. Punt. Een totaalverbod is noodzakelijk, temeer omdat de afkomst van de eiwitten kan worden gecamoufleerd. Er bestaan immers enzymen die het DNA uit de mengsels van toegevoegde runder- en varkenseiwitten vernietigen. Ik hoef er geen tekening bij te maken dat die enzymen ook worden gebruikt," zegt Staes. "Het geknoei met voedsel ten nadele van eerlijke producenten en consumenten moet gewoon stoppen." Consumentenlinks Integrale debattekst over dit onderwerp in het Europees Parlement - in originele taal van de spreker. De Roo spreekt voor de Groenen. EU-commissaris Byrne (Consumentenzaken) antwoordt Le Président. L'ordre du jour appelle la question orale à la Commission, de M. Lannoye et autres, au nom du groupe des Verts/Alliance libre européenne, sur l'ajout d'eau et de protéines à de la viande de volaille (O-0045/2003 Œ B5-0099/2003). de Roo (Verts/ALE) Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, op dit late uur willen we toch een probleem aansnijden. Het gaat om wat we in het Nederlands "plofkippen" noemen. Het is nu wettelijk toegestaan om kippen te vullen met water. Er mag 30, 40, 55 procent water aan die kippen worden toegevoegd. Het probleem is dat er vervolgens aan die kippen, om ze nog een beetje op kippen te laten lijken, eiwitten worden toegevoegd, eiwitten van slachtafval, van kippenvlees dat aangevuld wordt met varkenseiwitten en met rundereiwitten. Dat gebeurt met name in Nederlandse bedrijven en dit kippenvlees, als je het nog kippenvlees kunt noemen, wordt vervolgens in Engeland als halal aan de moslims en kosjer aan de Joden verkocht. Dat is onaanvaardbaar en in een BBC-documentaire werd daar ook met nadruk op gewezen. Ik weet dat de Commissie zal voorstellen om te labellen: "kip met varken" of "kip met rund". Maar het probleem is dat het met moderne DNA-technieken heel makkelijk is om dat DNA van die kippen, het DNA van die runderen en varkens kapot te knippen zodat de Engelsen niet kunnen bewijzen dat er iets anders inzit dan kip. Daarom stellen wij voor het eenvoudigweg te verbieden: aan die kip mag geen water worden toegevoegd. Het Engelse food agency heeft voorgesteld om slechts maximaal 15 procent water toe te voegen. Wat is hierop uw antwoord? Byrne Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Lucas, Mr Lannoye and Mr de Roo for tabling a question on adding water and protein to chicken meat. In May 2002 the Irish and British authorities published the first worrying results of their investigations concerning chicken breasts imported from the Netherlands and intended for the catering industry. The results published by the same authorities on 12 May 2003, show that the problem remains. The practice of artificially increasing the weight of meat by the addition of protein and water - in some cases up to 40% or 50% water in the final product - in order to mislead the purchaser is despicable. It appears that purchasers and, by association, consumers are being misled on three counts. First, the labelling of the product may lead to the assumption that it is fresh poultry meat, when it is clearly not. Second, some products have been labelled as Halal despite containing pig as well as other animal proteins. Third, the meat contents expressed have been overstated. Enforcement and possible sanctions arising from the infringements of legislation relating to the labelling of foodstuffs and unfair practices are the responsibility of Member States. According to the information transmitted by the Irish and British authorities, the chicken products concerned are in the main manufactured in the Netherlands. That does not mean that there is no other country concerned with this issue. I have asked Member States to strengthen their controls and reinforce their cooperation. Fraud appears when you are looking for fraud. As regards the letter from the Dutch authorities of July 2002, I have, along with my colleague Commissioner Fischler requested more information from the Dutch authorities about the measures taken and the origin of the protein. In March of this year the Dutch authorities undertook to ensure that these products were correctly labelled. However, inspection results from the UK and Irish authorities indicate that the problem of fraudulent labelling continues to exist. I have therefore asked the Member States to improve collaboration between national authorities and to strengthen the controls. Furthermore, I have decided that there is a need to improve the labelling requirements for chicken and other meat preparations. The Commission will propose two Member States in the foodchain committee to include an explicit mention, for instance, of chicken preparation with added water, on the food label. The standing committee on the foodchain and animal health composed of representatives of Member States welcomed this suggestion at its meeting on 8 April 2003. The technical discussion will continue during the next committee meetings. I have also asked my services to consider the development of standards for meat preparations that would limit the amount of water that can be added to such products and the use of animal proteins for the purpose of bulking. Your suggestion to indicate chicken meat containing beef or chicken meat containing pig is one that will be examined along with the possibility of banning the use of such proteins in poultry meat preparations. As regards the detection of the addition of pork or beef protein following enzymatic treatment to destroy the DNA, this will be examined by the Commission Services with the experts from the Member States. In addition, it is important to emphasise that other control methods, including documentary checks, should be used to check the origin and traceability of products. Whitehead (PSE). Mr President, I associate myself with everything Mr de Roo has said, and his outrage at these events is shared by many in the United Kingdom, which is the principal destination for these adulterated products. I would like to press the Commissioner further. Since chicken at the moment can be legally sold when it is 55% water and is adulterated by other proteins which the perpetrators of this scam boast is PCR negative and, therefore, cannot be detected by most tests, is it not the case that there should be a more direct form of action from the Commission? The FSA in Britain has now proposed, through Sir John Krebs, its chairman, that we should set a limit of 15% for the water content of what is labelled and sold as chicken. He has further said that at that level the addition of these proteins - which intended to sustain the holding capacity of a much larger proportion of water - would therefore become unnecessary. It is still the case, however, that many of those who are at the moment exporting these tainted products will continue to attempt to evade legal provisions and checks. I would like to hear from the Commission that it will intervene not merely by recommending better labelling and better testing - though, of course, we need that - but by taking action to outlaw these activities, which are a total fraud on the public and are likely in one respect to cause serious concern, because the injection of beef protein - which the perpetrators admit has come from countries where there is BSE, and they have not tested the products for that - may cause serious public concern as well. This is a matter that has outraged the United Kingdom and many others. We need improved testing, but we need direct intervention here from the Commission, and I am confident that we will get it. Wallis (ELDR). Mr President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that this has gone on for far too long. I welcome the question, but what I would welcome even more is a promise of clear legislative action. In fact, as far as the Trading Standards Officers in my home city of Hull are concerned, this has been a running campaign against chicken cheats for over six years. That is long enough. During the last of those years I have had correspondence and contact on their behalf, both with our national authorities and with the Commissioner's bureau. Now, of course, recent publicity has highlighted the problem with chicken, but this deception is not confined to chicken - adulteration of other meats, particularly ham, is commonplace. This entire practice of adding water and, therefore, also other animal proteins to meats is misleading, deceptive and downright immoral in respect of its impact on some religious communities. Whilst labelling might be one possible improvement, my understanding, as other speakers have said, is that the best answer would be a ban on the adding of water above, say, 15%. I want to be able to go back to my home city - which is a large port through which much of this adulterated meat comes in - and tell our local authorities that they can now expect legislation to back up their long-running pursuit of this deceitful and harmful trade. Byrne In response to the questions that have been put to me by Mr Whitehead and Mrs Wallis, let me repeat what I said earlier: I have asked my services to consider the development of standards for meat preparations that would limit the amount of water that could be added to such products and indeed the use of animal proteins for the purpose of bulking. My intention is to analyse the work that has been undertaken by my services, to determine what further work can be done. I agree, to some extent, that labelling may not be sufficient. I, like you, have also watched that television programme. I found that some of the labelling that was identified in the programme indicated that the particular product was 65% chicken. It raises a question for the consumer: what is the other 35%? We have spent a great deal of time in this Chamber debating - as we did this afternoon - questions relating to GMOs and the labelling of GMOs. But it requires some degree of vigilance from consumers: they must read these labels and draw appropriate conclusions. Having said that, this does not relieve us from examining the appropriate responses to situations such as this and seeking a more satisfactory response. As I said earlier, in my original answer, I am looking at this. However, I also appeal for some consumer vigilance as a response to the work that we do here in relation to labelling. Le Président. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Commissaire.