20 June 2011

Reintroducing the practice of feeding animal remains to other animal is currently under debate in the EU; the highly controversial return of processed animal protein (PAP) has met with an especially lukewarm reception from many in the UK, for whom memories of BSE are still too fresh. However many pig and fish farmers have welcomed the debate.

The European Parliament will vote next month on a set of recommendations which would clear the way for PAP in animal feeds for the first time since the proteins were banned following their link to BSE. French agriculture minister Bruno LeMarie has publicly stated he will resist the reauthorisation of PAP while he remains in office. However, there may be a great deal of money to be made in PAP and its advocates are now touting it as a green solution which promotes food security. image expired

A reintroduction of PAP would see a high level of tracability and safeguards, according to France’s National Food Centre (CNA) which supports a reintroduction, claiming as it does that manufacturing processes have changed dramatically since the processed remains were outlawed for use as feed.

Scientists enamoured of PAP as a concept acknowledge that cannibalism must be forbidden, as well as feeding meat to ruminants such as cows; the circumstances under which BSE developed (scrapie-infected sheep remains being fed to cows). PAP exponents believe, for the time being at least, that only animals that are omnivorous in the wild should be fed PAP this time around. Under the new rules pigs could be fed to poultry, poultry to pigs, and both to fish.

Gilles Huttepain, president of the French Poultry Industry Federation, said “As we well know, pigs and chickens are omnivores by nature; they don’t only eat vegetables in the wild. However, some people seem to have forgotten this."

Veronique Bellemain, a veterinarian with the pro-PAP CNA, attempted a conciliatory statement, “BSE has almost been eradicated in Europe; less than five cases are recorded in France every year now.” Bellemain went on to say, “We have much stricter controls nowadays; the risks are altogether different. It is therefore normal to look into a possible reintroduction of PAP.”

Arguments for a return to PAP

The simple economic argument for reintroducing these products is that they are cheaper; upon their prohibition in 2000, PAPs were replaced with vegetable meal, which is often more expensive, as world grain prices are subject to extreme fluctuation and shipping costs must be factored in.

M Huttepain was also keen to present the ecological argument, “There are also ecological interests. Since 2000 we have had to feed our chickens with Brazilian soya or Indonesian palm oil. These both have a huge environmental impact from deforestation and transport.”

Furthermore, numerous factories in Europe still make PAP, which is now used as fertiliser, in cement or as pet food. Those in support of PAP also point out that the proteins are only forbidden in Europe’s 27 member states and within the European Union we can still buy meat from animals raised on PAP. Huttepain believes there is a certain irony in these facts.

Even so, public opinion on the subject suggests that consumers prefer to err on the side of caution. The proposed reintroduction remains extremely unpopular. However, industry insiders have revealed that much research has already been carried out and PAP could be rolled out as early as next year.