Dioxine scandal picks up steam in Germany

[K. A. Pital]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12120321

Up to 3,000 tonnes of an animal feed additive sold in Germany have been found to contain traces of dioxin, according to a government report.

Earlier, officials said they believed that just 527 tonnes of the additive - which is a type of fat - had been contaminated.

After dioxin was found in eggs and poultry last week, more than 1,000 farms were banned from selling eggs.

Officials said the level of dioxin did not pose a real risk to humans.

Some 136,000 potentially contaminated eggs were exported to the Netherlands, it has emerged.

Dioxin is a poisonous chemical, linked to the development of cancer in humans.

Holger Eichele, a spokesman for Germany's agriculture ministry, said the European Commission had been informed and it was not aware of exports to any other EU states.

There were no indications that the suspect ingredient or any potentially tainted feed had been exported, he added.

A spokesperson for EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli said it was "too early" to consider a ban on exports.
Farm search

Police carried out searches on Wednesday at the Schleswig-Holstein farm which produced the fat, Harles and Jentzsch, and a subsidiary in Lower Saxony.

Harles and Jentzsch sold the fat to 25 German feed manufacturers.

It has said the dioxin possibly came from a Dutch supplier.

Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner urged states affected by the tainted food scandal to clarify whether eggs contaminated with dioxin had been sold to consumers.

To date, North Rhine-Westphalia has been the only state to name two chicken farms that delivered products out to regional grocery stores, German radio says.

Most of the affected farms are said to be located in Lower Saxony.

As a result of the scandal, more than 8,000 chickens have been culled.

Germans have been urged to keep an eye out for eggs that may have been tainted.

Officials say the warning to consumers applies only to eggs sold before 23 December.
Demand for stricter penalties

Under current German law, offenders who use harmful or banned substances in food and animal feed can be fined or face up to three years in prison.

Regional agricultural ministers plan to meet later this month to discuss the consequences of the dioxin scandal.

"There is an urgent need for much stricter penalties against those who break the law when it comes to food and animal feed regulations," said Juergen Reinholz, agriculture minister for Thuringia.

Such "charlatans" can only be swayed by strict, deterrent sanctions, he said.

And just recently Slovakia and South Korea banned imports of poultry from Germany, as our news said.

[Thanas]

Basically, what seems to have happened is that people got greedy and used (too much) surpluss from biofuel production. Thankfully, our food agency caught it quite early.

[Shroom Man 777]

How does dioxin get into food and animal feeds?

[Thanas]

Read above. Biofuel is produced by burning crops, and apparently some stuff not used was contaminated and later used for food purposes.

[Skgoa]

Officials said the level of dioxin did not pose a real risk to humans.

This is the important part. Its not like lead in children's toys or mad cow, I am going to continue to eat eggs.

Germans have been urged to keep an eye out for eggs that may have been tainted.

Officials say the warning to consumers applies only to eggs sold before 23 December.

How exactly am I supposed to do that?

Demand for stricter penalties

Under current German law, offenders who use harmful or banned substances in food and animal feed can be fined or face up to three years in prison.

Regional agricultural ministers plan to meet later this month to discuss the consequences of the dioxin scandal.

"There is an urgent need for much stricter penalties against those who break the law when it comes to food and animal feed regulations," said Juergen Reinholz, agriculture minister for Thuringia.

Such "charlatans" can only be swayed by strict, deterrent sanctions, he said.

[Thanas]

How exactly am I supposed to do that?

Look at the eggs, they carry stamps.

Der Code zeigt, aus welchem Mitgliedsstaat (DE = Deutschland, NL = Niederlande, AT = Österreich, BE = Belgien) das Ei kommt, aus welchem Haltungssystem (0 = Ökologische Erzeugung, 1 = Freilandhaltung, 2 = Bodenhaltung, 3 = Käfighaltung) und die restliche Nummer aus welchem Betrieb. Dabei geben die ersten beiden Nummern an, aus welchem Bundesland das Ei stammt. So steht z. B. 11 für Berlin und 12 für Brandenburg. Besonders viele vom Dioxin betroffene Betriebe gibt es in Niedersachsen (03) und Nordrhein-Westfalen (05). Die dritte bis sechste Nummer kennzeichnet den Betrieb und die siebte Stelle den Stall.Achtung: Das NRW-Verbraucherschutzministerium hat die Nummern veröffentlicht, an denen man dioxinbelastete Eier erkennen kann. Sie sind auf die Schale gestempelt. Zum einen geht es um XL-Eier mit der Nummer 2-DE-0513912 und die Nummer 3-DE-0514411 (beide haltbar bis 20.1.2011).

Such "charlatans" can only be swayed by strict, deterrent sanctions, he said.

He's right though. Currently the perpetrators (who more often turn out to be rather larger agrarian corporations) get away with a slap on the wrist. They should get their license revoked.

[K. A. Pital]

Currently the perpetrators (who more often turn out to be rather larger agrarian corporations) get away with a slap on the wrist. They should get their license revoked.

As I heard, a Dutch argicultural monster corp was behind it. I see no reasons for lenience whatsoever.

[Skgoa]

But thats more of an enforcement issue, that guy is playing tough-on-crime politician.

[Thanas]

But thats more of an enforcement issue, that guy is playing tough-on-crime politician.

How can you tell the difference?

[Dahak]

Basically, what seems to have happened is that people got greedy and used (too much) surpluss from biofuel production. Thankfully, our food agency caught it quite early.

They used industrial fatty acids to produce animal food, which were cleary marked as not suited for that purpose.
And the food agencies didn't catch it quite early since there have been reports as far back as spring last year.

[Thanas]

And the food agencies didn't catch it quite early since there have been reports as far back as spring last year.

There were? Have you got a link or a source? Because if that is true, somebody screwed up royally.

[Dahak]

And the food agencies didn't catch it quite early since there have been reports as far back as spring last year.

There were? Have you got a link or a source? Because if that is true, somebody screwed up royally.

Spiegel, in German
Spiegel, again in German

Why they rely (and trust) results done by the producers themselves and not verify them is interesting, to say the least.

[Thanas]

I guess it is because doing the tests all by themselves might be a tad too costlySo I guess they just do exemplary testing.

[Dahak]

I guess it is because doing the tests all by themselves might be a tad too costlySo I guess they just do exemplary testing.

Maybe they should revise that policy, given that they are shown time and again that some people will do anything in the name of "cheap food for the masses" to cut corners criminally. After the umpteenth scandal it would be time for some lasting changes. At least I can safely eat eggs where I personally know the chickens and what they eat, but friends with babies are somewhat more concerned.

[Thanas]

I guess it is because doing the tests all by themselves might be a tad too costlySo I guess they just do exemplary testing.

Maybe they should revise that policy, given that they are shown time and again that some people will do anything in the name of "cheap food for the masses" to cut corners criminally. After the umpteenth scandal it would be time for some lasting changes. At least I can safely eat eggs where I personally know the chickens and what they eat, but friends with babies are somewhat more concerned.

Sure, as soon as people are not in favor of lowering taxes anymore. Lab testing is very, very expensive. You need manpower just to bring in the samples, then you need to log them, test them etc.

[Dahak]

I guess it is because doing the tests all by themselves might be a tad too costlySo I guess they just do exemplary testing.

Maybe they should revise that policy, given that they are shown time and again that some people will do anything in the name of "cheap food for the masses" to cut corners criminally. After the umpteenth scandal it would be time for some lasting changes. At least I can safely eat eggs where I personally know the chickens and what they eat, but friends with babies are somewhat more concerned.

Sure, as soon as people are not in favor of lowering taxes anymore. Lab testing is very, very expensive. You need manpower just to bring in the samples, then you need to log them, test them etc.

Then people with just about have to shut up and stop being panicked when shit like that happens. When you don't give inspectors enough money and people expect food to be dirt-cheap, the next food scandal is pretty much assured. Quality is expensive, but I rather pay more than to fear what I eat...

[Thanas]

Then people with just about have to shut up and stop being panicked when shit like that happens. When you don't give inspectors enough money and people expect food to be dirt-cheap, the next food scandal is pretty much assured. Quality is expensive, but I rather pay more than to fear what I eat...

Sure, we two agree on that. The majority sadly does not.

[madd0ct0r]

Just found out I have it in my back garden. Legacy of the American War.

There goes my vegetable patch. grr

[Stargate Nerd]

Sure, as soon as people are not in favor of lowering taxes anymore. Lab testing is very, very expensive. You need manpower just to bring in the samples, then you need to log them, test them etc.

The government should do the testing on the companies dime. Just make it a requirement for doing business in Germany.

[Tribun]

Sure, as soon as people are not in favor of lowering taxes anymore. Lab testing is very, very expensive. You need manpower just to bring in the samples, then you need to log them, test them etc.

The government should do the testing on the companies dime. Just make it a requirement for doing business in Germany.

Good luck.

Both parties currently in power are in a competition how to best suck the dick of the big business. Therefore it's very unlikely that legislation like this will come any time soon.

[Thanas]

The government should do the testing on the companies dime. Just make it a requirement for doing business in Germany.

Fine by me, unless you have any objection of paying much more for your food.

[[R_H]]

The government should do the testing on the companies dime. Just make it a requirement for doing business in Germany.

Fine by me, unless you have any objection of paying much more for your food.

Food in Germany is very, very cheap though. It's now easier for companies to import food from the EU, which in somecases has led to lower quality goods (ex. grated mozzarella cheese is allowed to contain corn/rice starch instead of 100% cheese, fruit syrup containing a lot less fruit juice, something like 1/3). I wouldn't be surprised if that has some part in the lower cost.

Some more English Spiegel articles.

'Germany Must Do More To Prevent Food Scares'

The discovery of dioxin-contaminated pork in Germany has led to the culling of pigs and heightened concerns about food safety across Europe. Newspaper editorialists in Germany are calling for better tracking systems and an increase in government vigilance to ensure that the food we buy is safe.

Germany's food safety scandal widened this week after high levels of dioxin were found in pigs intended for food for the first time on Tuesday. Hundreds of pigs are to be slaughtered in a bid to contain a scare which is weighing on consumer confidence in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The dioxin levels found in the pigs exceeded the legal limit by 50 percent.

News of the tainted meat prompted China on Wednesday to halt imports of German pork and eggs. The decision came on the heels of a similar step taken by South Korea last week.
German officials said they cannot rule out that the dioxin-tainted pork may have been sold in supermarkets. Officials from the state of Lower Saxony said it was possible that the meat went to consumers before the scandal surfaced. Pork represents two-thirds of all of the meat consumed in Germany.

Over-the-Limit Levels

The farm which produced the contaminated pork was among 4,700 that were banned from selling food last week. The scandal stemmed from the sale of up to 150,000 tons of potentially dangerous animal feed to farms across the country, mostly for poultry and pigs.

Before the pork was shown to contain over-the-limit levels of dioxin, only eggs and three chickens had been confirmed to be contaminated, the German Agriculture Ministry said in a statement. Of the closed farms, all but 490 had been given the all-clear to resume selling their products on Tuesday.

The health scare began on Jan. 3, when authorites reported that dioxin-contaminated feed had been given to hens and pigs. The discovery led to the destruction of some 100,000 eggs and the culling of some 9,000 chickens. It also emerged that as much as 150,000 tons of feed pellets for poultry and swine had been distributed across Germany that included industrial fats that had been contaminated with dioxin. Officials have repeatedly insisted that the levels of dioxin, which is mostly found in the fatty tissue of animals, did not pose a risk to human health. However, high levels of the toxin have been linked with an increased cancer risk.

Consumer Worries

In response to the scare, the European Commission has warned it may need new rules for the animal feed industry. Earlier this week, officials with the European Union executive told reporters they had held a "disappointing" meeting with industry representatives because "no concrete proposals were presented" to prevent further contamination in the future. Among its plans, the Commission wants to usher in a system which strictly divides fats for industrial use and those used in food production.

Richard Ashworth, a member of the European Parliament with Britain's conservatives, said: "This latest scare makes the case for effective labeling and traceability systems all the more urgent."

Meanwhile, consumer worries are on the rise in Germany, with sales of organic foods increasing amid the food-scare headlines. A survey commissioned by the mass-circulation daily Bild showed that the latest food scandal has given a boost to public support for organic foods. Some 48 percent of consumers interviewed said they preferred certified organic products -- although only 43 percent were prepared to pay more for the pesticide- and chemical-free products.

German newspapers on Wednesday probe the issue, questioning the extent to which such scandals can be prevented in the future.

The Berlin-based Der Tagespiegel writes:

"(German Agricultural Minister Ilse) Aigner (of the conservative Christian Social Union party) has not managed to reassure consumers that she realizes the extent of the mess and will call those responsible into account and, most importantly, that the scandal will not happen again."

"Responsibility is the name of the game. Consumers should at least be able to expect the government to create structures that produce good food. That should be the case, regardless whether officials or private representatives carry out safety tests and whether the 16 heads of German states get involved. After the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease) scandal, Renate Künast, Aigner's predecessor, set up a national seal to help consumers' identify good quality food. The current dioxin-contaminated foods obtained this seal in 2010. What more needs to be said about the effectiveness of the current control system?"

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Right now, the preferred target is Aigner, despite the fact that everyone knows agricultural policy, which forms the framework legislation for the food industry, is decided in Brussels and that it is up to the German states (and not the federal government) to oversee controls on foodstuffs. Aigner would be in a better position if (her predecessor) Renate Künst hadn't been giving the feed industry lobby a tough time -- and if the German states' food industry monitoring authorities weren't so chronically understaffed. That is why, up to now, we only have a random system of voluntary self-monitoring. But in a market as sensitive, hard-fought and spread out in Europe as this one is, such self-monitoring cannot work. Instead of channelling our outrage into bringing down a minister, it would be a better idea to kick consumer protection into action."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"The suggestion that the situation is especially bad in Germany because food is cheaper here than in neighboring countries, isn't very convincing. The idea that expensive food is healthier is questionable and even the issue of whether organic food is better than non-organic sparks debate among experts."

"For that reason it is foolhardy and inappropriate to call for an overhaul of farming on the basis of the questionable theory that cheap food is the cause of the scandal. Whoever makes such demands should recall that a large proportion of society weighs up costs versus risks when it comes to purchasing decisions and they still opt to buy cheap food. And those people will continue to live well, despite the alleged toxin contamination."

"It is up to German states to build up their neglected control systems and to do more to prevent future scandals."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Does it sound absurd that a little dioxin in our breakfast eggs could trigger a turnaround in agricultural policy? In the past we have survived rotten meat, pesticides in our vegetables and mad cow disease without seeing any real change. In reality, the actual and perceived threat of BSE was much greater than that of dioxin in animal feed, eggs and meat."
"But the situation has changed. In this respect, scientists and environmentalists are right to call for a 'Change in agricultural policy 2.0.' ... It may sound like eco-science fiction, but the initiatives open up genuine perspectives -- because only a conservative government can enforce painful cuts within their own clientele, the farmers. ... The CDU targets a young, educated, urban and female electoral base -- women who opt for organic sausages as part of their daily consumer choice, and not for ideological reasons. The CDU is under pressure from this group to make some changes."

"Minister Ilse Aigner (CSU) must rid herself of her current image as protector and patron of the agricultural industry. Pressure from the base has already forced the CSU to speak out against genetic engineering in the land. This current popular issue gives Ilse Aigner a chance to position herself at the forefront of the movement. There is nothing to prevent a minister from becoming smarter through a scandal."

The Criminal Machinations of the Feed Industry

Once again, contaminated animal feed is threatening the health of consumers. The control system is too lax, and information policy is a disaster. The most recent dioxin scare shows that the authorities have learned very little from the food safety scandals of the past.

Belgium, the spring of 1999: Inspectors find high levels of dioxin, along with other toxins, in eggs. An oil-and-fat recycling company had supplied a feed producer with fats that contained high levels of dioxin, and the toxic substance found its way into chickens, pigs and cattle -- and eventually into the stomachs of German consumers.

The losses were in the billions. The German Health Ministry was outraged over the Belgians, and the European Union announced drastic changes.
German, the winter of 2011: Eggs remain unsold on supermarket shelves. Mothers are concerned about giving their children cow's milk to drink. The authorities shut down close to 5,000 farms and order hundreds of thousands of eggs destroyed. Some 150,000 tons of feed were contaminated with fat containing dioxin supplied by a producer in Uetersen near Hamburg.

German Consumer Protection Minister Isle Aigner says that she finds it "truly deplorable that an entire industry is affected by individual offenders." Aigner, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrats, announces talks with the German states aimed at improving consumer protection in the future.

The images, the complaints and the pledges to improve conditions are all too similar.

Germany has a new food safety scandal on its hands. And once again it is being sold as an isolated case. Yet, can this really be the regrettable lapse of a single company? Insiders believe that Aigner's position is naïve. There are too many signs of deficiencies within the system.

The radical reforms in agriculture that former Consumer Protection Minister Renate Künast, a member of the Green Party, had called for with such great passion in 2001 are now long forgotten. Nowadays, the food industry is based just as much on the division of labor as any other industry. The most important factor is price. To be able to sell eggs, meat and poultry as cheaply as possible in discount supermarkets, producers are forced to cut costs, mainly in what they feed their animals.

An Industry with a Battered Repuation

Parts of the livestock feed industry are not particularly squeamish, willing to add anything to their products that promises to improve the bottom line -- and doing their best to circumvent inconvenient regulations.

Hardly anyone in Berlin wants to jeopardize the economic success of the German food industry, the country's fourth-largest sector. It now earns about a quarter of its €150 billion ($194 billion) in annual sales in other countries.

Under these circumstances, what politician is likely to enact tougher laws and tighter regulations likely to drive up prices for German producers?

The most recent food safety scandal involving dioxin-tainted fats shows how negligently the authorities treat an industry with a reputation battered by countless infractions. "Until now, we have dealt primarily with food products and not feed," admits Eberhard Haunhorst, head of the Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety in the northern state of Lower Saxony.

Last year, Haunhorst's employees took just 2,500 random samples from 3,600 commercial feed producers. Conditions are not much better in the rest of the country, where inspectors conducted 14,557 spot checks in 2010. About the same number of drug tests were done on the relatively small number of top German athletes.

Lacking sufficient staff to conduct their own inspections, government agencies rely on self-inspection within the companies in question. Under the somewhat vague regulations, each company must ensure that the products it puts into circulation are safe. According to Haunhorst, there are no regulations specifying what exactly feed producers have to inspect. Although many companies have introduced their own quality assurance system, none of these systems are binding, and regular dioxin testing is not explicitly required.

Johannes Remmel, a member of the Green Party and the environment and consumer protection minister in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia, is calling on his counterparts in other states to introduce legislation that would impose stricter regulation on food producers. However, traditional farming states like Lower Saxony and Bavaria are not willing to make significant changes to existing practices. They expect that their opposition will soon convince their outspoken counterpart to come to his senses.

Industry Machinations

Harles und Jentzsch, the oil-and-fat recycling company from outside Hamburg at the center of the scandal, is a prime example of what happens when producers are held to lax standards. When CEO Siegfriend Sievert was confronted with the initial dioxin results, his first reaction was to downplay the issue, which is common practice in the industry whenever unpleasant inside information reaches the public. So-called technical fats inadvertently found their way into fats used in animal feed, he said. Sievert called it a regrettable error -- nothing more than a mistake.

It is astonishing, however, that an animal feed supplier is even handling so-called technical fat, which is not intended for use in the food chain. Commenting on the technical fat issue, Siebert said that his company maintains a "parallel production for the paper industry." And when asked why this part of the business is not mentioned on the company website, he told SPIEGEL: "It's hard to say, at the moment."

Wolfgang N. has worked in the animal feed industry for more than 15 years. He knows the Uetersen company and all of the other businesses in the industry, and he is familiar with their machinations. It is by no means a coincidence, he says, that this company, with its 15 employees, is now in the media. Many smaller and mid-sized businesses resort to trickery and cover-ups, he says. The larger companies can afford to inspect the raw materials they purchase, says N., and they do so to avoid becoming embroiled in scandals that could harm their business.

But even these market leaders do not inspect every incoming shipment, says N. The tests, including the one for dioxin, are expensive, costing about €400 apiece, and take several weeks to perform. A possible way of avoiding attention, says N., is to dilute questionable fats with other materials to keep contaminants below allowable limits in the final product.

Saving Costs

Experts like N. are also critical of the fact that many fat recyclers also handle special waste. It comes as no surprise that hardly any other industry extracts as much from trash as the animal feed industry. It turns garbage into meals and degrades animals into waste disposal systems. In this system, it can easily happen that ground feathers and sawdust are used as fillers. There are no limits to the audacity of some businesses in the feed industry, which has been known to use sewage sludge in feed and to experiment with liquid manure and tannery wastewater.

Ironically, the current scandal began with a company that was supposed to be the answer to the dioxin contamination scandals at the turn of the century. Petrotec Biodiesel specializes in turning spent cooking fat into environmentally friendly fuel. The company has operated a modern refinery in Emden in northwestern Germany since 2000. As early as the 1990s the business offered a clean alternative to the previous practice of disposing of rancid residues from the food industry but adding them to animal feed.
The business got a boost in 2002 when a Europe-wide ban on adding the spent cooking fats to feed was enacted. Roger Boeing, head of Petrotec until last year, says that it was always clear that the byproducts of the refinery operation "have no business being added to feed." After all, he adds, no one could rule out contamination of the spent fats that were being provided to the feed industry. Petrotec, for its part, did not conduct testing, because traces of dioxin are irrelevant in biodiesel, says Boeing.

Companies like Petrotec source their raw materials from all over the world. As a result, shipments from the United States are sometimes processed in Germany. And because fats are moved around a lot, contamination can easily occur during transport. Industry insider Wolfgang N. claims that shipping companies try to save costs by not routinely cleaning drums and tanks between two shipments.

Part 2: 'This Can Only Be the Result of Criminal Efforts'

The source of the dioxin that is now ruining business for thousands of German farmers is still unclear. When experts with the Chemical and Veterinary Inspection Institute in Münster in northwestern Germany examined the samples, they were astonished. "We have never seen this particular pattern," says Axel Preuss, director of the institute. According to Preuss, it is highly unlikely that the toxin was produced during processing at Petrotec. Now the state of North Rhine-Westphalia plans to commission a study to determine where the dioxin came from.

It is possible that the mystery will never be solved. Nevertheless, politicians are now debating publicly over changes that they say are urgently needed, although some completely underestimated the scope of the food contamination scandal at first. Several ministries in the affected German states knew before Christmas that a new dioxin scandal was brewing. Even the Federal Agriculture Ministry was in the loop, and yet the information was kept under wraps. The relevant EU agency was also not informed at first.

On the day before New Year's Eve, David McAllister, the governor of the state of Lower Saxony and a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), was sitting in the makeup room in a television studio at German broadcaster NDR, preparing for the recording of his New Year's address, when he received a call from Düsseldorf. It was North Rhine-Westphalia Environment Minister Remmel who, reacting to dioxin discoveries, wanted McAllister to provide him with the complete supplier lists of suspicious feed producers in Lower Saxony.

Remmel had already spent days trying to obtain important information from officials in Hanover, the capital of Lower Saxony. But it wasn't until he had called McAllister that something was done about his request. Seven days after the first dioxin report, the supplier lists were finally received in North Rhine-Westphalia.

The avalanche was not triggered by government inspection agencies or Uetersen fat recycler Harles und Jentzsch, but by a customer who had reported the dioxin discovery. An inspection laboratory at Wulfa-Mast, an animal feed producer, had found significantly elevated dioxin levels in two batches of its feed for laying hens, according to the Agricultural Ministry in Hanover. On Dec. 23, the state of Lower Saxony closed chicken farms to which the feed had been delivered.

A Profitable Undertaking

Inspectors then traveled to a Harles und Jentzsch warehouse in Bösel, a town in Lower Saxony, where the workers had a simple explanation for the problem. They said that technical fats were also stored on the grounds, and that a valve on tank 11 had probably been incorrectly operated during a mixing procedure on Nov. 11. It was human error, the workers maintained, and as a result the technical fat had been inadvertently mixed with the fat designated for use in animal feed. The contaminated fat was apparently supplied to six other feed producers, as well.

The authorities should have intervened then. However, the authorities calculated that the percentage of fat in the feed batches was so small that despite the dioxin content, the legal thresholds had apparently not been reached.

When the Lower Saxony inspectors paid another visit to the Bösel warehouse on Dec. 29, they discovered unsuitable technical fatty acids in other tanks of fats intended for use in animal feed. The same problem was discovered at company headquarters in Uetersen, were four tanks were filled with contaminated fat. This time, however, the problem could no longer be blamed on human error.

"This can only be the result of criminal efforts," says Hans-Michael Goldmann, a member of the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) and chairman of the consumer protection committee in the German parliament, the Bundestag. "And I had thought that the days of waste being added to feed were long gone." It was apparently a profitable undertaking, because technical fats are about a third cheaper than feed fats.

The German Animal Food Association boasts that the case was discovered through "self-inspections and safety measures," saying that this is proof that the system does work, after all.

But not entirely. Harles und Jentzsch inspected its fatty acids three times last year. In each of these self-inspections, dioxin levels were found to be substantial higher than the allowable maximum of 0.75 nanograms per kilo. Specifically, the tests revealed dioxin levels of 1.60 ng per kilo on March 19, 1.40 on June 21 and 1.44 on Oct. 7. But in none of these cases did the company inform the authorities, nor did it ever notify customers or recall its products.

When government inspectors paid a visit to Harles und Jentzsch on July 28, they were apparently not shown these test results. When they tested their own samples for dioxin, the results were supposedly negative. The inspectors were not even suspicious when they saw delivery notes indicating that the purchased fatty acids were not suitable for animal feed. By way of explanation, company officials now say that fats were also sold to the paper industry.

'Risk-Orientated' Inspections

The authorities apparently had confidence in the company. Because of staffing reductions, the inspectors in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein were working on a "risk-oriented" basis, meaning that conspicuous companies are inspected more often than inconspicuous ones. As a result, Harles und Jentzsch could expect only one inspection a year, even though the company supplies almost all the mixed feed plants in northern Germany. After the July visit, knowing that next inspection was unlikely to occur for a while, the company felt confident that it continue to adulterate fats without fear of detection.

The fact that the scandal has had relatively little effect on the health of consumers to date can be attributed to the properties of dioxin. Although the substance is considered highly toxic, the contaminated eggs and meat do not pose a specific danger. "The detected concentrations are so low," says Helmut Schafft, in charge of animal feed issues at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, "that a problem can only arise in the case of regular consumption over an extended period of time."

The EU limit of 3 picograms of dioxin per gram of fat in an egg was only exceeded in a few cases, and even this threshold is disputed among experts. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, considers it to be "tolerable" for a person to ingest four picograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight a day.

Accordingly, a person weighing 75 kilograms (165 lbs.) could easily handle a daily dose of 300 picograms, which would be plenty of the dioxin-contaminated eggs but only a few meals of fish like eel or salmon, which often contain relatively large amounts of dioxin. "Dioxins are everywhere," says scientist Schafft, "and every person automatically ingests tiny amounts of it every day."

More Transparency Required

Strictly speaking, even organic eggs, which are becoming increasingly popular, are counterproductive if the chickens scratch around on contaminated soil. "Eggs from the chickens that run around behind grandma's house and scratch around in the trash already have five picograms," concedes Rudolf Joost-Meyer zu Bakum, chairman of the Society for Ecological Animal Nutrition. And the most natural of all foods, which is especially healthy, would have to be banned if the WHO dioxin standards were used as the sole benchmark: The dioxin levels in breast milk are several times higher than the WHO limits.

To make matters worse, the authorities make it hard for consumers to determine how much risk they are being exposed to. The names of companies and the codes on their eggs ought to be "revealed immediately," says Günther Hörmann, head of the Hamburg-based consumer protection agency. This is taken for granted in Scandinavia, says Hörmann, and it's also possible under German law.

"But this is where nervous officials get bogged down consulting with their legal departments," Hörmann complains. It's been three weeks since the scandal became public, and yet the eggs codes of only 10 affected operations have been published to date.

Report Claims German Company Knew of Dioxin for Weeks

More than 4,700 farms have been temporarily closed in Germany as a result of a feed contamination scare. On Friday, officials in one German state said samples taken from the company at the center of the investigation indicated contamination with the carcinogen dioxin as far back as March.

State officials in Germany have found that animal feed discovered this week to have been polluted by industrial oil has apparently been in circulation longer than previously reported.

Germany has been shocked by the food tainting scandal, which has spread to 13 different German states and could have affected neighboring countries. At issue is dioxin, a known cancer-causing agent, which has been found at high levels in eggs and is feared be in poultry and pork coming from farms that used feed polluted by the toxin.
A spokesperson for the Agriculture Ministry in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein confirmed on Friday a report in the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper that a private laboratory discovered twice the amount of legally permitted dioxin in a test, taken in March, of animal feed from the firm Harles & Jentzsch, which is at the center of the scandal. The ministry first learned of that violation on Dec. 27, the report stated.

The newspaper reported that the animal feed company had commissioned the test on its own accord but did not share the findings with state authorities. The state's feed monitoring agency in the city of Uetersen seized the sample on Dec. 29 and turned it over to public prosecutors. A spokesman for the Agriculture Ministry told the newspaper that there had been other irregularities discovered during the company's own inspections since March, which are also being investigated.

Thousands of Farms Closed

The Federal Agricultural and Consumer Protection Ministry in Berlin announced Friday that a total of 4,709 farms have been temporarily closed in Germany, and have banned from selling meat or eggs as a result of the contamination scare. European Union officials have reported that eggs contaminated in the scandal have been exported to Britain and the Netherlands for use in the production of food. In South Korea, government officials moved on Friday to block imports of German pork and poultry products.

Most of the farms feared to have been supplied with the contaminated feed are located in the western state of Lower Saxony. A total of 4,468 companies have been affected, with a large number of those being hog farms. The ministry said the decision to close the farms was purely a precautionary measure. "Even if part of the first tests didn't show anything unusual, the preventative protection of public health takes absolute priority," ministry officials said in a statement.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, the European Commission said on Thursday night it did not believe that the levels of dioxin found pose health risks to humans. Dioxins are created by burning waste or in other industrial processes and are known carcinogens.

Although it remains unclear how the dioxin ended up in the animal feed, investigators believe that dioxin-tainted industrial oils were accidentally mixed in with fat used for animal feed at Harles & Jentzsch. On Thursday, the company denied rumors it was threatened with insolvency because of the contamination scandal.

In response to the issue, German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), has called for stricter regulations across Europe to ensure the protection of the food chain. Her ministry issued a statement saying she had spoken with the European Union's consumer protection minister, John Dalli, about the need for binding EU standards to isolate toxic materials. "Companies that produce fat for animal feed should not be producing materials on the same premises for the technical industry," Aigner said.

Dioxin 10 Times the Permitted Level

Independent tests have confirmed high levels of dioxin in Harles & Jentzsch's products. In nine of 20 tests at the company, dioxin levels exceeded the highest permitted value of 0.75 nanograms, the state Agriculture Ministry in Schleswig-Holstein has reported.

According to the ministry, the highest level found was 10.05 nanograms, 10 times the legal limit. The ministry said that the nine samples "were not suited for the production of animal feed because it exceeded the maximum permitted yield," the ministry said. The test samples were collected by the company.

The German federal government is reporting that up to 150,000 tons of feed for chickens, turkey and swine have been contaminated with the toxin. The fat provided by Harles & Jentzsch had been mixed into products made by 25 different feed manufacturers.

But Aigner, the federal agriculture minister, said that, so far, there is no knowledge of any health impact on consumers. On Thursday, officials in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate also discovered 500 eggs at a company that had received a delivery of dioxin-contaminated feed, broadening the scandal to 13 German states. In Hesse, young swine have been found that had consumed contaminated feed. There is also evidence that dioxin-contaminated goods reached the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg.

In Bavaria, eggs seized by authorities have tested positive for dioxin contamination. Contaminated feed was also sent to farms with laying hens and hogs in the states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia.
The scandal broke in Germany on Monday, and farmers are now demanding an estimated €40 million ($52 million) to €60 million ($78.1 million) in compensation for each week they are affected by the contamination.

Food contamination issues are particularly sensitive in Europe, where memories are still fresh of the spread of mad cow disease and problems with foot and mouth disease.

[Thanas]

Of course German food is cheap. It is taxed differently (indirect subsidy) etc. because the politicians want cheap food so that even lower-class or unemployed people can enjoy a "good" meal. And the people want it cheap because they are in general stingy. And it is not going to change. Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Maybe. Is it going to change? No.

[[R_H]]

Of course German food is cheap. It is taxed differently (indirect subsidy) etc. because the politicians want cheap food so that even lower-class or unemployed people can enjoy a "good" meal. And the people want it cheap because they are in general stingy. And it is not going to change. Can it change? Sure. Should it change? Maybe. Is it going to change? No.

Not just cheap, very cheap. I'll post some prices later today of the Migros' (one of the biggest supermarket chains here in CH) budget line products (milk, cheese, meat - what else?).

[Thanas]

Yeah, but what is your point?