|
Select Committee on European Legislation First Report
IDENTIFICATION OF CATTLE AND LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS |
5.1 Council Directive 92/102/EEC[7] introduced arrangements to identify and register cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. The Commission wishes to strengthen the arrangements for cattle to provide a central database for full traceability and to ensure that documents accompanying cattle movements are adequate.
Commission proposal
5.2 The Commission believes that labelling of beef and beef products needs to be developed in order to reassure consumers about quality. In order to enforce such labelling animals must be traceable. It argues that the implementation of the current Directive is not satisfactory because the absence of movement records in a centralised database and deficiencies in accompanying documents hinder the tracing of animals. The Commission reiterates many of the reasons behind the introduction of the current Directive, which was primarily concerned with tracing animals for veterinary purposes, and with the prevention of fraud in relation to livestock premiums as part of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
5.3 The Commission's arguments for further regulation are less persuasive. It would require the introduction in each Member State of a computerised database and a passport for each animal, and registers of animals on each holding. The Regulation would provide minimum requirements based on an ear tag in each ear, one of the tags being of plastic material. The Commission will be carrying out a feasibility study for electronic identification systems in a three-year trial, involving the use of electronic transponders and may further amend ear tag provisions in the light of this trial.
5.4 The computerised database would record details for all holdings on the territories of Member States, the identity of the cattle and their movements. The proposal would require that any cattle moved from the holding must be accompanied by a passport. The Commission would be able to adopt further detailed rules via Management Committee procedure.
5.5 On the labelling of beef and beef products, the Commission proposes that each operator or organisation in the beef trade should submit a specification indicating the information to be included on the label and measures to be taken to ensure its accuracy. The specification would also have to describe the control system to be applied as well as measures to be taken in relation to operators who do not comply with its provisions. "The specification must establish the link between the identification of the carcase and cuts of meat or meat products with the identification of the individual animal from which it came." The further information which may be included on the label includes the method of fattening and other feeding information.
The Government's view
5.6 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 25 October, the Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs Browning) states that much of the proposal on animal identification has already been anticipated by the Government through measures to improve cattle traceability: in particular, compulsory cattle passports, double tagging and examination of a computerised database for cattle and their movements in Great Britain. Such a database already exists in Northern Ireland.
5.7 She points out, however, that the proposal would require a number of changes to the current method of ear tagging in the United Kingdom replacing alphanumeric information (a mixture of letters and numbers) with a system of numbers only. This would require all alphanumeric tags to be replaced by 31 December 1997 with a double ear tagging system. The deadline for tagging beef cattle would be brought forward to 14 days after the birth of the animal. The Parliamentary Secretary considers that the operational date of 31 December 1997 is unlikely to be achievable for Member States, and that the requirement to issue passports within 7 days of application rather than 14 would also create problems. The likely cost of a computer database of cattle movements in Great Britain is expected to be around £10 million with running costs of around £20 million per year and no decision has yet been taken as to who would bear the cost.
5.8 On the labelling provisions, the Parliamentary Secretary considers that the proposals go too far and would cut across the labelling and assurance schemes already operated by many supermarket chains and the Meat and Livestock Commission. There would be an additional level of bureaucracy. The Parliamentary Secretary does not comment on the practicability of identifying meat products with the individual animals from which they came but in a large-scale cutting line there would be obvious practical difficulties in ensuring traceability of a product such as mince back to an individual animal.
Conclusion
5.9 We recognise that the Commission is seeking to restore consumer confidence but we are not convinced that some of its proposals are likely to achieve that objective, particularly on labelling of meat products. The proposal raises matters of political concern and we recommend further consideration by European Standing Committee A. The following aspects will be particularly relevant.
Identification of cattle
-- are the changes proposed for the identification of animals likely to command greater confidence?
-- is the suggested timescale realistic?
-- when the original proposal was debated, concerns were expressed about animal welfare (tags that could tear the ears of cattle, particularly in farming systems where hedgerows were more common than fences). Is the Government satisfied that these concerns will be met?
-- to what extent will the system proposed for cattle identification represent a real improvement rather than a cosmetic one? In particular, will there be more or fewer errors in recording of long numerical numbers compared to an alphanumeric system?
-- who is going to pay for the database?
Beef labelling:
-- how would they be enforced?
-- how much would they cost and what would be the penalties for incorrect labelling?
-- is it practicable to relate products such as mince to an individual animal?
-- in the Government's view, are consumers likely to be helped or hindered by a labelling system that cuts across those already adopted by supermarkets and quality assurance schemes in the UK?
| |
| |
| © Parliamentary copyright 1996 | Prepared 12th November 1996 |