INTERVIEW: Poultry and Pig PAPs Expected to Be Reincorporated into EU Feed Later This Year

17 May 2021 - In response to the European BSE crisis in the 1990s the European Commission (EC) adopted Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), also known as “the BSE regulation”. Article 7, as detailed in Annex IV, installed a ban on the use of PAPs and meat and bone meal (MBM) in feed for farmed animals.

In 2009, the BSE-related feed ban was supplemented with provisions prohibiting intra-species recycling applicable to all food-producing animals (Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009). Other animal-derived products besides PAPs, such as collagen derived from non-ruminants and hydrolysed protein derived from parts of non-ruminants or from ruminant hides and skins, were not subject to the “feed ban”. By 2010, the EC had already published a TSE roadmap with the aim of gradually relaxing the feed ban for aquaculture, poultry and pigs. Subsequently in 2013, the feeding of PAPs from pigs and poultry as well as insect PAPs was reauthorised for aquaculture.

However, despite the TSE roadmap and several attempts by sector associations and players, the use of PAPs from poultry for pigs and the use of PAPs from pigs for poultry had not until now gained the necessary regulatory support.

That was until last month when the proposal for the re-introduction of poultry PAPs and pig PAPS gained approval in the recent Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) meeting in mid-April.

The next step is publication in the Official Journal of the EU, and the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) expects entry into force of the legislation in the autumn.

“It’s about time. It’s been 20 years,” Sjors Beerendonk, EFPRA’s President, told Feedinfo. “This proposal was adopted by an overwhelming majority [at the April SCoPAFF meeting]. It is a final and ultimate recognition that PAPS are a valuable, safe and a highly sustainable feed ingredient.”

“In our initial planning we thought early 2022 was the most likely date for reintroduction of PAPs into pig and poultry feed. But the target date for the EU has been brought forward and we are happy that it is happening slightly earlier than expected,” he added.

According to Beerendonk, sustainability was the element that wasn’t included in the discussion before, and EFPRA is expecting the general public to see that. Moreover, PAPs are explicity named in the EU’s Green Deal.

In Beerendonk’s view, it is most likely a combination of PAPs’ nutritional profiles and their lower carbon footprint potential which prompted the EC to accelerate the reauthorisation.

“Feed producers recognise the nutritional value of PAPs in their formulas. But additionally, all feed manufacturers have ambitious sustainability targets and the use of PAPs can significantly contribute to this. That is certainly a driver for the positive attitude and why the feed industry is looking at the change in regulation as an opportunity. PAPs have always been a highly valued and appreciated feed component,” he said. “There is a fast-growing interest from the feed industry to reuse PAPs.”

But Beerendonk warned that PAPs, being unavailable in Europe for pig and poultry feed for approximately 20 years, means feed compounders need to learn about how to effectively incorporate them in feed.

“EFPRA’s members’ technical teams are ready to support feed compounders so I do not foresee this being a problem, it will just take a little time,” he commented.

Asked if the EU PAP manufacturing sector is ready to cater to the new demand, the EFPRA President explained that it will take time. He also stressed, that unlike other ingredients, PAP volumes depend on animal slaughter volumes and raw material availability. So higher volumes of PAPs in Europe market won’t be possible unless there is a dramatic increase in slaughter rates. This isn’t on the cards.

“But with a 70% protein deficit, which the EU covers today by imports, the market for all these products [poultry/pig PAPS and suppliers of insect PAPS, collagen and gelatine] is still huge,” Beerendonk said. “Even with the new, fast growing and very interesting insect sector, the way to a full self-sufficiency is very long. But the changes in regulation will help close the gap.”

“New research results show that PAPs can replace soy efficiently and with a better carbon footprint. We have calculated that the use of the 2.9 million tonnes of PAPs available in Europe can replace 3.47 million tonnes of imported soy (46% protein). This is equivalent to 2.44 million tonnes CO2 eq per year for PAPs versus 14.02 million tonnes CO2 eq per year for soy,” he added. “Analysis from the renowned Schothorst Institute has shown that prohibiting the use of PAPs in Europe required an additional 880,000 hectares of land to grow soy.”

“In the long-term view, both aspects will play a key role in the manufacturing of European feed,” EFPRA’s President went on to say.

It is important to note that PAPs and MBM are produced from different categories of animal by-product and as a result have very different uses. In the EU, PAPs are defined as originating from category 3 material only, while MBM refers to products originating from the more dangerous categories 1 and 2 as defined in the BSE regulation. MBM cannot be used as a feed ingredient but is valued instead as a source of green energy and a raw material in a variety of industrial applications. And while PAPs and MBM are both derived by means of the rendering process, the regulations governing the production of PAPs ensures they are never produced in the same processing facility as MBM.

Nevertheless, there is a certain concern in the industry that there will be some unfounded, negative press nearer the time or once the reauthorisations come into force and that consumers will mistakenly think that “meat and bone meal is on the menu again”.

Reacting to this, Beerendonk argued: “There are misconceptions outside our industry but it won’t be a problem in the animal production chain. I think in the entire supply chain it is well understood that there is a clear distinction between PAPs and MBM. And that what comes from an animal that is declared fit for human consumption is – after treatment – also a sound ingredient in animal diets. For this reason, we have questioned the European restrictions for many years.”

Beerendonk hopes that EFPRA’s educational work (such as preparing fact sheets and FAQs) and ongoing discussions on sustainability and the circular economy will be used to use within the broader context to tackle these misunderstandings.