Despite dioxin scare''', born in Germany following the discovery of the contamination of large quantities of eggs and poultry, the Italian government decided not to have the ban on imports of unsafe food from the country. The choice was based on " because of the traceability of food such as eggs at higher risk of contamination ", and the decision to subject to strict controls on other food samples.
The ladies [...] and [...] ask the Minister of Health " provide a clear answer about the real risks, including immediate health of consumers in case of ingestion of food contaminated with dioxin " , also in view of the fact that at the time, German food is still awaiting a definitive figure.
RESPONSE - Minister of Health Ferruccio Fazio explained that the maximum levels for dioxins established by Community legislation are " very conservative and, in fact, the security parameter is intended one hundred times less than the limit that can actually cause toxicity in humans ".
Reflection: but then, what sense does it set limits of the law, then if they consider themselves 'very conservative' and exceeded by estimates ‘di fatto’, che variano, in quanto tali, da interprete a interprete?
A nostro parere, è giusto che i consumatori italiani conoscano i termini della questione.
Riportiamo quindi, di sèguito, tutta l’interrogazione (n.3-01389) di qualche giorno fa, che abbiamo resa anonima per non dare senso politico alla segnalazione:
Il 27 dicembre scorso il Ministero dell'agricoltura tedesco dello Schleswig-Holstein veniva a conoscenza che una società aveva utilizzato oli industriali, idonei alla produzione of biodiesel in the production line of animal feed, producing the dioxin contamination of eggs and meat farming and causing the closure of over 4,700 farms of chickens and pigs. The German Ministry of Health made it known that the level of contamination of eggs was three or four times above the permitted threshold, only to be corrected by the Minister mentioned that he would speak of contamination values \u200b\u200bequal to 78 times the permitted . The association of German consumers Foodwatch instead denounced the exceeded the legal limit up to 164 times . The German health authorities, however, pointed to the absence of an acute health risk as a result of consumption per un breve periodo di uova e carni agricole contaminate ai livelli riscontrati.
Le chiediamo pertanto, signor Ministro, in considerazione delle ulteriori gravi notizie riguardanti la diossina rinvenuta nelle carni suine in Germania, se possiamo avere una risposta chiara in merito ai reali rischi, anche immediati, per la salute dei consumatori in caso di ingestione di cibi contaminati da diossina.
Le chiediamo pertanto, signor Ministro, in considerazione delle ulteriori gravi notizie riguardanti la diossina rinvenuta nelle carni suine in Germania, se possiamo avere una risposta chiara in merito ai reali rischi, anche immediati, per la salute dei consumatori in caso di ingestione di cibi contaminati da diossina.
FERRUCCIO FAZIO , Ministro della salute. Signor Presidente, onorevole […], i valori massimi di diossina stabiliti dalla normativa comunitaria sono di un picogrammo per grammo di grasso per le carni suine, tre picogrammi per gram of fat for beef and eggs for three picograms.
The criteria by which places are the maximum values \u200b\u200bare very conservative and, in fact, the security parameter is intended hundred times less than the limit that can actually cause toxicity in humans .
As to the finding of food in Germany, first of all the dioxin was found in 18 samples of eggs and one sample of pork, with a value of 1.51 picograms. What is a picogram? It is a billionth of a milligram.
Since under normal conditions there is dioxin in the environment and food , a man who weighs 60 kilograms has a body burden of dioxin due to normal environmental exposures of about 350 000 picograms total. So is clear and intuitive that significantly change the body burden this man should ingest hundreds of kilograms of pork meat contaminated at the level found in the one positive pig farms in Lower Saxony.
In fact, the EFSA, which is the Agency for Food Safety, has established as acceptable weekly intake of dietary intake of dioxin for a value of 14 picograms per kilogram of body weight man. Then, a man of sixty pounds tolerate 840 picograms of dioxin per week, which would mean taking of 140 pounds of pork a week to levels found in Lower Saxony.
I remember in 2008 in Ireland there was a similar phenomenon of dioxins in pork and that EFSA, although the level was a hundred times, that it was about 200 picograms per gram at the time, had declared that with daily consumption based only highly contaminated pork there would be no adverse health findings.
So rule out that at present, on the basis of this information, there is no risk to the health of the Italian consumer .
But what about the control plan, as a precaution, we will have a meeting tomorrow with the Higher Institute of Health and institutions Zooprophylactic regions and at the end we will notify the press of the situation of the control plan.
The criteria by which places are the maximum values \u200b\u200bare very conservative and, in fact, the security parameter is intended hundred times less than the limit that can actually cause toxicity in humans .
As to the finding of food in Germany, first of all the dioxin was found in 18 samples of eggs and one sample of pork, with a value of 1.51 picograms. What is a picogram? It is a billionth of a milligram.
Since under normal conditions there is dioxin in the environment and food , a man who weighs 60 kilograms has a body burden of dioxin due to normal environmental exposures of about 350 000 picograms total. So is clear and intuitive that significantly change the body burden this man should ingest hundreds of kilograms of pork meat contaminated at the level found in the one positive pig farms in Lower Saxony.
In fact, the EFSA, which is the Agency for Food Safety, has established as acceptable weekly intake of dietary intake of dioxin for a value of 14 picograms per kilogram of body weight man. Then, a man of sixty pounds tolerate 840 picograms of dioxin per week, which would mean taking of 140 pounds of pork a week to levels found in Lower Saxony.
I remember in 2008 in Ireland there was a similar phenomenon of dioxins in pork and that EFSA, although the level was a hundred times, that it was about 200 picograms per gram at the time, had declared that with daily consumption based only highly contaminated pork there would be no adverse health findings.
So rule out that at present, on the basis of this information, there is no risk to the health of the Italian consumer .
But what about the control plan, as a precaution, we will have a meeting tomorrow with the Higher Institute of Health and institutions Zooprophylactic regions and at the end we will notify the press of the situation of the control plan.
PRESIDENT . Mr [...] has the right to reply.
HONOURABLE [...]. Mr. President, thank you Mr. Minister for being so prompt in answering our questions. I would however point out that, as you know, works for dioxin accumulation , ie d anneggia body over time due to the accumulation formed . It is clear that we must still provide accurate data, since Germany has not provided this information and I understand that they are still doing checks to see exactly what was the actual amount of dioxins in these products.
say, however, that here's another problem, namely to protect the one hand, the Italian consumers' health and, second, that of protecting the same products of Italian .
So, for the first point, we would like to suggest an Italian proposal to do well in Europe, which is to impose the separation of plants producing animal feed fat for those that produce it for industrial use. For example, this is a first step.
I would also say that perhaps it would be appropriate, at least this time, until even Germany has not done accurate readings, block the entry of such products coming from Germany .
Also, I would also suggest that perhaps it would be important speech on the traceability of products, and it seems that you are starting to do at the level of the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as those that are consumed directly, or to anything that involves working of these products. Consider the fact that the eggs are still found in many processed products.
So, we need to work on the traceability of Italian products, which are still controlled enough already by now, and I would say to make our voice heard in Europe for the protection of our products .
say, however, that here's another problem, namely to protect the one hand, the Italian consumers' health and, second, that of protecting the same products of Italian .
So, for the first point, we would like to suggest an Italian proposal to do well in Europe, which is to impose the separation of plants producing animal feed fat for those that produce it for industrial use. For example, this is a first step.
I would also say that perhaps it would be appropriate, at least this time, until even Germany has not done accurate readings, block the entry of such products coming from Germany .
Also, I would also suggest that perhaps it would be important speech on the traceability of products, and it seems that you are starting to do at the level of the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as those that are consumed directly, or to anything that involves working of these products. Consider the fact that the eggs are still found in many processed products.
So, we need to work on the traceability of Italian products, which are still controlled enough already by now, and I would say to make our voice heard in Europe for the protection of our products .
0 comments:
Post a Comment