The Agricultural Ministry responded in 12 pages in details while NationalFood Chain Safety Office responded 1,5 pages on the questions we published earlieron our homepage (click here for the questions ). Herewith we made a summary fromthe responds:
I. WasteManagement
1. Determine more precisely waste prevention, waste status
Agricultural Ministry agreed that in the Hungarian legal practice the expressionof “discarding” in the definition of waste is difficult to be applied, howeverthe waste definition has objective and subjective meaning so these two well settlesall possibilities and further correction to the waste definition is notnecessary. However, the Circular Economy Package of the EU intends to amend sixEU directives, including the Waste Directive, which involves amendment to thedefinitions as well. The finalisation of those amendments are expected in 2017.
2. Execution decrees have to be passed regulating prevention, such as deposit,reuse, rules of life-circle analyses
Government revised the potential to introduce compulsory deposit in 2015 andconcluded that the costs of its introduction are higher compared to theenvironmental benefit results.
2013/179/EU Commission Recommendation of April 2013 on the use of commonmethods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance ofproducts and organisations is a good tool to rule Hungarian regulations, butMinistry stressed none of the Member Sattes made such regulations yet.
Ministry agreed that reuse legislation could help speeding reuse centres inHungary, however present regulations do not block civil organisations takingover used products for further use. This taking over should not be regarded ashandling such products as waste even if it needed to be prepared, so suchactivity does not require waste management permit.
3. Re-determine reuse regulations from the differentiated small-scaleprospective
Ministry is on the opinion that the definition of reuse should not be amended inorder to allow such reuse which alters the function of the product since such changein function is apparent, since the altered product also serves consumer needsas original product did so. And further such amendment would increase administrativeburdens.
4. A differentiated end of waste rules, prevention rules should be passed onEuropean level (as present regulations allow so) in relation to specificmaterial/product groups
Ministry answered that in the preparation works of the Circular Economy Packageit was unravel that many Members States are struggling to enact EoW rules,however there are provisions in the Waste Act in paragraphs 9 (1), 88 (29)which settles EoW rules.
5. Waste management rules has to determine lighter rules for small-scaleproducers in a differentiated manner
Waste Directive allows conduct certain activities without permit if regulationcontains the most important parameters. However such activities are ratherlimited so Ministry’s goal, generally, is to radically simplify permittingprocedure.
II. Product Fee
6. We propose to exempt all artisan, handmade products used for packagingpurposes, as artisan soap makers were already exempted.
Ministry responded that even present regulations do not classify folk artpottery products, graven or painted woodenboxes as packaging means, even if they can be used for packaging purposes,since the fundamental elements of the product, which is the basis of the CustomTariff classification, is the artisan element and not the packaging purpose. Inthe case such product is propeorly classified under the Custom Tariff, it isnot subject to product fee. Taking as example: the wooden fancy good isclassified under Custom Tariff 4420 which is not listed as subject to productfee payment.
III. Animal by-products
7. Adopting lighter rules for wool and animal hair treated on traditional way,even to accept traditional treatment as animal by-product treatment
Office just quoted article 23 of 1069/2009/EC according to which handling woolmust be registered.
Ministry said that no derogation is allowed according to EU regulations.
IV. Food and cosmetics (soap)
8. Upon the workshop proposal we support that such product produced accordingto food regulations should be allowed to use for cosmetic purposes.
Both Ministry and Office said that they do not have competence on cosmeticproducts even if made from food. Cosmetic products, even made out of food, aresubject to 1223/2009/EC regulation.
Kislépték is still on the opinion thatif a food produced and sold according to food and food hygiene regulations thereis no good reason to order chemistry examination for making out of it cosmeticproduct and to order the producer to have chemistry education. Kislépték shallrequest a statement from Brussels. If you agree with our goals please donate ourwork. Please make payment to our bank account HU50 1174 2049 2034 3394 0000 0000, OTP Bank SWIFT code: OTPVHUHB.
V. Food waste
9. We recognise the potential risk of slop, however, we propose to consider onmarginal (and not on international) level the following possibilities:
Both Ministry and Office responded that slop with animal content is strictlyforbidden to use for any purposes and their treatment requires permit becauseof the high pest risk.
Ministry mentioned that the Good Hygiene Practice of Catering already provides guidelinesfor the charity use of rest food. Any civil organisation uses them for charityreasons are regarded to be food business operators.