Farming News - France’s food safety agency rejects PAP
News
France’s food safety agency rejects PAP
France's food safety agency (AFSSA) has published a negative opinion on the reintroduction of non-ruminant processed animals protein (PAP), which some in the European farming industry want to see return.
image expired
The protein was banned in the EU during the BSE crisis, after being linked to the disease. However, PAP proponents say BSE is no longer a threat and promise regulatory measures would be taken to ensure PAP was not fed to animals of the same species or to ruminants, thereby lessening the associated risks.
Although the European food Safety body EFSA has supported the reintroduction, national bodies have been more sceptical, stating that the strict regulation which would need to be implemented to govern PAP would be difficult to realise and could not be guaranteed as failsafe. Many said not enough is known about TSE diseases to risk a reintroduction.
Although it acknowledged that progress had been made in tracability and organisation within the industry, AFSSA nevertheless announced that it would not be supporting a return of PAP; it said the necessary conditions to allow a safe use of PAPs have not yet been met.
In 2009, the reintroduction of PAP in feed was made conditional on a reliable testing method being devised to differentiate between the proteins. Since this testing method is still not available, the agency refused to support a reintroduction.
In September, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in Britain advised the government not to lift a ban on the use of processed animal protein. Earlier in the month the FSA had conducted a series of research studies which showed that, having discussed the issue and been allowed to weigh up the potential risks and benefits of reintroducing PAP, the vast majority of consumers in the UK remained opposed to such a reintroduction.
The FSA also withheld support for PAP. It concluded that, "Having carefully considered the responses to the stakeholder engagement process, [the board] could identify no real benefit from the change that would justify putting consumers at any additional risk, however tiny."