What happens to the animal feed industry after the maleic hydrazide ban?


Paul Featherstone, Procurement Director for SugaRich, shares his initial thoughts on the EU decision to prohibit the use of maleic hydrazide (MH) treated potatoes and potato derivatives in the animal feed industry, and its likely negative impact.


A legislative change with significant impact As a professional working in the animal feed industry, the latest amendment to EU legislation concerning the ban of maleic hydrazide in animal feed is cause for alarm in my opinion, as its implications are wide reaching. The EU legislation authorising the use of maleic hydrazide (MH)


to inhibit potato sprout growth was revised and re-approved for use in November 2017. Following the requests for re-authorisation by manufacturers, Article 29(6) of the EC Regulations 1107/2009, was revised and re-issued, however, with a new condition: “Member States shall ensure, where appropriate that the label of


the treated crops included the indication that the crops were treated with maleic hydrazide and the accompanying instructions to avoid exposure of the livestock.” This fundamentally means that potatoes themselves, their peelings,


or any potato products derived from MH treated crops cannot be added to animal feed. This decision affects many areas of potato processing or co-processing, crop trade and potato derived former food stuffs, with MH exposed content.


What has caused the change? What worries the EU about MH is the possibility that a carcinogenic metabolite of MH known as 3-pyridazinone - might be produced during farm livestock digestion. There have been initial data searches on its effects. However thorough tests need to be undertaken to establish whether 3-pyridazinone actually causes gene mutations in mammalian cells, which is the big, yet unsubstantiated fear behind banning MH. Adequate proof of harm to livestock has not been demonstrated in the initial trials. Prohibition of potatoes and potato products derived from MH treated


crops is applied as a ‘blanket provision’ and, therefore, this appears to be a completely disproportionate reaction based on incomplete data. The EU Maleic hydrazide Task Force has carried out its first toxicity


trials, but this needs to be now be followed by a 90-day study, to be conducted over Q2-Q3 2019. After the data findings are submitted to the EFSA, (European Food


Safety Authority), it could take another 12-18 months for the EFSA to respond to the findings. Once there is an agreed strategy, each member state will then need


to update the authorisations of maleic hydrazide products at national level. Regarding the UK, this has yet to be decided and will likely depend on the nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU in the future.


Possible impact of a blanket ban A great deal of economic damage could be wrought in the animal feed market in that two-year gap, not to mention elevated frustration if it were


proved to be an unnecessary ban. The company I represent processes former foodstuffs (such as


potato snacks, cakes, cereals) and re-purposes them into high quality animal feed. A high percentage of the former foodstuffs that we process includes potato content such as potato starch. It is estimated that nearly 21% of the national crop is treated with


MH. The amount of MH treated potatoes directly fed to livestock is about 114,400 tonnes. A further 29% of MH treated potatoes enters the animal feed chain from 116,500 tonnes of factory processed potatoes. Furthermore, if you consider former foodstuffs, from which our high- grade animal feed is produced, that amounts to 250,000 tonnes of potential source lost due to an MH ban. After discussions with industry colleagues on this new MH usage


decision, we estimate that one million tonnes of MH treated potatoes or potato-based products, when removed from the food chain, could negatively impact ancillary feed businesses to the amount of approximately £130m per year. Of course, it won’t just be the UK that’s affected as the probable impact will be at least ten-fold if you include the EU countries. Furthermore, if we consider that the UK government has recently


unveiled its Waste and Resource Strategy, which tables food waste as a priority, the new decision on MH usage will frustrate efforts to comply with it. This decision ultimately pushes about 6-8 million tonnes of viable former foodstuffs below the line into the ‘waste’ category, rather than resource, across the EU.


The response must be proportionate to the risk The UK regulators are compelled to follow the EU Commission’s mandate on MH, like their EU counterparts. However, the concurrent challenge in the UK/EU animal feed sector, is to galvanise on the issue and approach the EU Commission with a unified voice. This is how we ensure a complete risk management and chemical analysis investigation is carried out to obtain full and final evidence to justify this blanket provision. The negative effects of this ban will probably include increased


landfill usage, reputational damage to brands and filling the nutritional vacuum left by removing hitherto, viable, re-usable feed materials in the industry. The hardest pill to swallow is the possible task of re-building the industry in two years’ time, if the MH decision proves to have been unnecessary. In a situation like this, we must pursue reason, investigation and


hard facts. Be risk averse by all means, but the response to risk should be proportionate to the possible hazard and not, in effect, creating another. A solution should not generate a crisis – that makes it self-defeating. We have the ability and expertise to find reasonable solutions, grounded in measurable data.


FEED COMPOUNDER MAY/JUNE 2019 PAGE 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68