LAST MINUTE NEWS, INCREDIBLY SAD ONES: MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LACK SOMETHING TO EAST – THE FISHSTOCKS IN THE OCEAN ARE DEPLETED – BUT 22 TONS OF FISH MUST BE BURNED BECAUSE A LITTLE FAULT IN DESCRIPTION… Subject: Rotterdam/Holland: 22 t of edible fish sent for destruction today October 22th 2014 - invitation for the cremation - incapability of mankind and its regulations Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:39:47 +0000 From: Toby Herrlich To the attention of : - Authorities of the European Community - Authorities of the European Commission - Authorities of the Dutch NVWA - Swiss Government (EU agreement; Trading agreements with China ..). - Swiss Vets - Chinese Embassy in Switzerland Today, 22 t tons of frozen perch fillets, meant for human consumption and most likely still in perfect condition, were sent for destruction because 2 words were missing on the label : Origin « China » . Therefore, I invite the responsable authorities to the cremation in Rotterdam/Holland, to see the burning of 22 t good, nice and healthy fish. We as a family business have been fighting to avoid destruction and to find a reasonable solution with all stakeholder involved for almost 24 months (like adding the missing words on the label for instance, showing up in front of the commission and court couple times, talking to representatives of the commission …). But the final court’s decision wasn’t in our favour, although full traceability was given and confirmed, and there was no issue about risk for human health. When the NVWA of Rotterdam blocked the container in November 2012, three options were given to us: - Sending back to China: the supplier denied cooperation/redispatching even after heavy insisting (the goods were prepaid CAD „Cash Against Documents“ , a standard procedure in international trade) - Sending to a country outside EU: no other country would take this container (« our legislation is not inferior to EU legislation, no such product sellable » etc. ) - Destruction : which was never an option for us, but now reality I do have to admit that I’m personally very desillusioned and disappointed about the EU laws and its execution. Most authorities contacts I spoke with agree that this procedure and probable outcome is nonsense, but stating at the same time that they cannot do anything about it … ! A moral disaster and an incredible proof of incabability of mankind, knowing that hundreds of thousand of people starving to death and with overfishing the oceans and lakes as a great global concern ! I want the world to know what happened and what is happening on a daily basis (« we are sorry, but things like this happen every day on a larger scale … »). In addition, we don’t understand why there is no room/no alternative for local authorities to act under these facts and cirmumstances to modify minor formal errors. See also the final opinion and thoughts of our lawyer in Holland : « Since the Courts decision is final and not open to an appeal, we can only hope that the European Commission which is ultimately responsible for ensuring that EU law is applied correctly and equally in all Member States is willing to start an infringement procedure against the Netherlands, in order to obtain certainty and, most of all, clarity about the correct application of EC law. I hope that the European Commission will takes whatever action it deems appropriate in response to this complaint. The case is about the conflict of apparently overlapping rules of Directive 97/78 on veterinary checks, and Regulation 882/2004 on veterinary as well. The Dutch Court refrained from asking prejudicial question(s) to the European Court of Justice, and instead simply ruled that: Regulation 882/2004, which provides for other appropriate measures in article 19, only applies to non-veterinarian aspects of veterinary checks The error in the labelling is a veterinarian aspect . …..thus Regulation 882/2004 is not applicable. As a result, only Directive 97/78 applies which does not cater for the possibility of ‘other appropriate measures’. I want to emphasize that I would gladly discuss if, and under what conditions, relabelling qualifies as an “other appropriate measure”, and I would have understood if a Court had decided that relabelling is, under the circumstances of the case, not an (allowed) appropriate measure. But we don’t understand the complete rule out of Regulation 882/2004 for mistakes in the labels of products of animal origin. In our opinion, the Dutch Court applied simple and effective reasoning, but I have strong doubts whether the issue is indeed so obvious that the Court needn’t ask prejudicial questions to the Court. In particular because considerations nr. 24 and 25 to Regulation 882/2004 clearly state that the checks on feed and food from 3rd countries, referred to in Directive 97/78/EC are limited to veterinary aspects. It is necessary to supplement these checks with official controls on aspects that are not covered by veterinary checks, such as those on additives, labelling, traceability, irradiation of food and materials in contact with food. I would think that a mistake in the labels on our boxes does fall under the controls on “labelling and tracebility” of Regulation 882/2004. That, I think, applies even more knowing that a Regulation has direct effect, whilst a Directive doesn’t have direct effect.« There is nothing more to add, and hopefully the law and its interpretation and application will change in order such stupid destruction of good healthy food never happens again under these circumstances, on the back of taxpayers and decent working family businesses ! Truly yours. Tobias W. Herrlich CEO Bayshore SA Bayshore SA Passion for Fish Mühlemattstrasse 25 CH-4104 Oberwil (Basel) bayshore.ch Sustainable fishery and aquaculture fish4future.org
Posted on: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:04:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015