Annexes to COM(2013)412 - Application regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 banning the placing on the market and the import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)412 - Application regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 banning the placing on the market and the import or export of cat and dog fur, and ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2013)412  |
| date | June 13, 2013 |
Member States used mostly microscopy, DNA analysis and species Identification of Animals by MALDI – TOF mass spectrometry. Each of these methods has its pros and cons depending on the type of samples taken, the level of identification required, the repeatability and the costs involved.
Microscopic hair identification can determine whether the sample contains animal or synthetic fur.
DNA analysis can identify whether the sample is not from a domestic cat or dog and the species of origin of the fur provided the relevant species-specific primers are available; DNA analysis can differentiate samples of domestic dog fur from fox, coyote, jackal and raccoon dog fur. However, DNA analysis cannot differentiate fur of domestic cats from fur obtained from hybrids of domestic and Bengal cats. To be successful, DNA analysis requires a minimum amount and quality of isolated DNA which may be difficult to obtain sometimes when the sample is coming from treated fur (e.g dyed).
Species identification of animals by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry has a larger spectrum of species of origin that can be identified compared to DNA analysis and can detect the species of origin of the fur even on treated fur.
Further details on the different methods of analysis were provided at the stakeholders and Member States meeting organized by the Commission on 18 January 2012 and are available at the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/seminars/docs/methods_analysis_identifying_species_origin_fur_en.pdf
The range of costs of the methods of analysis used to identify cat and dog fur is given in the table below.
Table 2: Costs of methods of analysis to identify the species of origin of fur
Method || Costs
Microscopy || 30 – 60 €
Species identification of Animals (SIAM) by MALDI – TOF mass spectrometry || 150 – 250 €
DNA analysis || 150 – 1075 €
Source: Member States' replies to the questionnaire on implementation sent by the Commission
Most Member States designate a laboratory on their territory where samples for detection of cat and dog fur can be sent by their official staff. Several Member States chose or consider subcontracting samples to a laboratory located in another Member State, due to the current lack of expertise of their laboratories and the small number of samples to be analysed.
4.1.6. Dissemination of information
As mentioned earlier, the customs tariff database TARIC is available on line to business operators. Through TARIC, business operators can have access to the Regulation and be informed that in order to import or export fur they will have to state in their customs declaration stating that the goods they intend to import or export do not contain cat and dog fur.
In addition, several Member States provided information to the potential business operators concerned, importers and retailers, and to consumers. Letters of information were published in the official journal or in the official website of the Member States.
4.2. Results of the controls
Member States focussed their control activities on imports. In addition, these controls were completed within the Union by checks carried out mainly in retail shops.
Where necessary, samples were taken for analysis to confirm the presence of cat and dog fur. Illegal products were seized and destroyed when identified. Sanctions were pronounced in case of infringements.
A summary of the checks performed by the Member States and their outcomes is provided in the tables below. The Member States did not provide specific data on the quantity of cat and dog fur found and the sanctions applied.
Table 3: Controls performed for preventing commercial illegal imports of cat and dog fur
Year || Number imported commercial consignments checked || Number imported commercial consignments sampled for analysis || Number consignments not accepted for import || Number consignments seized || Number imported consignments destroyed
2009 || 9687 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0
2010 || 25275 || 5 || 2 || 67 || 0
Source: Member States' replies to the questionnaire on implementation sent by the Commission
Table 4: Control performed for illegal placing of cat and dog fur on EU market
Year || Number of controls performed in shops and retailers || Number of consignments sampled for analysis || Number of commercial consignments seized in shops and retailers[9] || Number of commercial consignments destroyed from shops and retailers[10] || Number of targeted checks on internet selling websites || Number of targeted checks on packages sent by -mail
2009 || 119 || 46 || 66 || 56 || 0 || 0
2010 || 169 || 52 || 40 || 28 || 0 || 0
Source: Member States' replies to the questionnaire on implementation sent by the Commission
Table 5: Number of samples analysed
Member State || Number of Samples analysed
|| 2009 || 2010
Austria || 1 || 10
Czech Republic || 0 || 1
Germany || 1 ||
Denmark || 15 for 2009 and 2010 together
Finland || 0 || 2
France || 46 (of which 17 non complied[11]) || 20 (all samples complied)
Italy || 20
UK || 0 || 3
Total || 119
Source: Member States' replies to the questionnaire on implementation sent by the Commission
The number of controls increased in 2010 compared to 2009 as well as the number of samples taken and sent for analysis. 2009 was the first year when the Regulation came into force and the level implementation increased in 2010 as by that time Member States had taken measures to organise the checks.
From the information sent by the Member States, goods identified by Member States as potentially containing cat and dog fur were mainly jackets and coats, scarves, neckerchiefs, key rings and skin.
5. Implementation Issues
Some stakeholders considered that, not enough official controls were performed regarding the placing on the EU market of cat and dog fur and in particular on sales on the Internet.
The issue of labelling requirements was also discussed in the frame of the future application of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2011[12] with regards labeling of clothes containing a small part of fur as obliged by Member States.
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2011 requires indicating the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin on the labelling or marking of textile products containing such parts, in order to enable consumers to make informed choices. The labelling or marking should not be misleading.
6. Impact of the Regulation
Main stakeholders highlighted the positive impact of the Regulation. The ban on cat and dog fur is now in place in all Member States. The Regulation harmonises the rules and simplifies therefore the work of business operators importing or placing on the EU market fur or articles with part of fur. In addition, according to the European Fur Breeders Association, the ban did not have a negative impact on fur trade.
Based on stakeholders' opinion, it could be assumed that the ban and the controls performed in the Member States ensure that the risk for European consumers to be placed in a situation where they could buy cat and dog fur is very limited.
7. Conclusion
Member States set up a system of controls in order to implement the ban. They mainly integrated checks for the ban in their existing systems of controls by taking the following actions:
– The modification of national legislations in order to repeal previous national measures prohibiting cat and dog fur and to introduce penalties;
– The designation of the competent authorities and officials responsible;
– The designation of the methods of analysis and laboratories performing them in order to identify whether the fur comes from a domestic dog or cat in case of suspicion;
– The training and elaboration of procedures in order to inform officials performing the controls;
– The dissemination of information to business operators and general public.
The primary objective of the systems of controls is to prevent the entry into the Union of illegal commercial imports of cat and dog fur from third countries because most of it originate from there.
In 2009 and 2010, Member States' controls were therefore mainly focussed on preventing illegal imports. Direct involvement of Customs authorities and the use of the Commission database TARIC by business operators and Member States allow for a harmonized implementation of the ban regarding illegal imports.
Overall the application of the Regulation had a positive impact as it simplifies the work of business operators since it has replaced several national bans applied with different procedures. In addition, according to stakeholders' opinion, the ban contributed to limit the risk that European consumers may be exposed to buying cat and dog fur or products containing such fur.
ANNEX I: Methods of identification of cat and dog fur used in Member States
No || Member State || Method applicable
1 || Austria || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis has been considered
2 || Belgium || No information available in the reply to the questionnaire
3 || Bulgaria || Microscopic hair identification + MALDI-TOF
4 || Cyprus || MALDI-TOF
5 || Czech Republic || DNA analysis
6 || Denmark || DNA analysis
7 || Estonia || Visual identification + Microscopic hair identification
8 || Finland || Microscopic hair identification
9 || France || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis
10 || Germany || DNA analysis + MALDI-TOF
11 || Greece || No reply to the questionnaire
12 || Hungary || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis
13 || Ireland || MALDI-TOF
14 || Italy || Visual identification + Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis + MALDI-TOF
15 || Latvia || Microscopic hair identification
16 || Lithuania || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis under consideration
17 || Luxembourg || MALDI-TOF
18 || Malta || DNA analysis
19 || The Netherlands || Microscopic hair identification + MALDI-TOF
20 || Poland || Visual identification + DNA analysis
21 || Portugal || Subcontracted Laboratory in abroad is under consideration
22 || Romania || MALDI-TOF
23 || Slovakia || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis + MALDI-TOF
24 || Slovenia || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis
25 || Spain || Microscopic hair identification + DNA analysis
26 || Sweden || DNA analysis + MALDI-TOF
27 || The United Kingdom || DNA analysis
Source: Member States' replies to the questionnaire on implementation sent by the Commission
ANNEX II: List of stakeholders consulted
Name of Organisation
AEDT - The European Association of Fashion Retailers
COTANCE
GAIA
HSI Humane Society International
IFTF, International Fur Trade Federation
European Fur Breeders Association
Euroleather
UNIC (Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria)
Fondation Brigitte Bardot
IFAW, International Fund for Animal Welfare
[1] Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of 11 December 2007 banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur; OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 1.
[2] The Report is on the application of the Regulation for the period between 2009 and 2010.
[3] The ban stands for "the ban on cat and dog fur". This is applicable for the rest of the text.
[4] All Member States replied except Greece.
[5] The agenda and presentations of the meeting are available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/seminars/docs/agenda_implementation_ban_cat_dog_fur_en.pdf
[6] The list of organisations attending the meeting is available in annex to the report.
[7] TARIC database is accessible on line at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/customs_tariff/index_en.htm
[8] When declared to customs in the Union, goods must generally be classified according to the Combined nomenclature or CN. Imported and exported goods have to be declared stating under which subheading of the nomenclature they fall.
[9] Consignments seized were not necessarily sampled for analysis since non-compliance may have been detected for other reasons than positive results from analysis.
[10] Consignments destroyed were not necessarily sampled for analysis since non-compliance may have been detected for other reasons than positive results from analysis.
[11] Non-compliance means positive results to the presence of cat or dog fur.
[12] Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products (OJ L 272, 18.10.2011, p. 1–64).