Dioxin in Fishmeal - Threat to the European Aquaculture Industry

[Don Staniford <don.staniford@virgin.net>]

FISH FARMING INTERNATIONAL (AUGUST 1999)

MEAL REPORT - EU BOMBSHELL HITS THE DESKS

BY GAVIN MILLAR 


On Monday, July 19, a potentially devastating bombshell landed on the
desks of most people involved in the fishmeal business - a notice from
IFOMA (the International Fishmeal and Oil Manufacturers Association)
informing the trade of a move by the EU Standing Committee on Animal
Feeding Stuffs to introduce a lower permissable level of dioxin in
fishmeal and oil.  The proposal, to be voted on at the committee's next
meeting, was a reduction from 10,000 to 2000 picogrammes of WHO-TEQ/kg. 
The little information available suggested that, if the member states
vote to go ahead and enforce the ruling, it would make the importation
of fishmeal and oil practicably impossible.  The meeting and vote was
due to take place on July 26 - the following Monday.  It was felt that
the various EU ministries were fairly split on the issue and the vote
may well go in favour of the new proposed lower permissable limit.  

This would have a devastating effect on aquaculture in Europe.  Fishmeal
production in Europe would be stopped almost immediately, and this side
of the business on its own has a turnover of $275 million a year.  The
trade reacted immediately and went about lobbying various European
ministries.  Fishmeal producers from Peru and Chile e-mailed and faxed
their embassies in Europe, the trade in Europe called for emergency
meetings in Spain, Italy, Germany, UK, Iceland and Norway.  Agriculture
ministers from every country were bombarded with information and
requests to postpone the meeting.  One senior EU official was reported
to have disconnected his telephone and fax line on the Friday afternoon
because of the volume of information he was receiving.  The meeting went
ahead on the Monday, and other major issues for the feed trade were also
on the agenda - the proposed banning of RVO (Recovered Vegetable Oil)
being a pressing one.  The committee decided not to proceed with a vote
on either issue, but gave no indication as to what will happen next. 
The committee is reflecting on its tactics with a view to returning to
both matters in September.