Select Committee on Agriculture Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 12

Memorandum submitted by the British Meat Manufacturers' Association (S 17)

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The British Meat Manufacturers' Association (BMMA) represents the interests of the UK meat manufacturing sector and has 70 companies in full membership accounting for 100 manufacturing sites. BMMA's members use meat to make products such as bacon, ham, sausages, pies, burgers, pâtés and ready meals. The meat manufacturing sector accounts for over half of the £10.5 billion spent on meat in the UK each year.

  2.  BMMA is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the implications for UK agriculture and EU agricultural policy of trade liberalisation and the World Trade Organisation round. In response to the stated areas of difficulty, BMMA will address animal welfare, scientific dispute and consumer resistance as they relate to the meat manufacturing sector. Specific reference will be made to hormones in beef and restrictions on trade in GM foodstuffs.

SEATTLE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE OF THE WTO

  3.  For the purposes of the Seattle Ministerial Conference of the WTO, the Agriculture Council has resolved to continue to develop the existing European model of agriculture based on its multifunctional character. The decisions adopted regarding the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) within the framework of Agenda 2000 will constitute the essential elements of the Commission's negotiating mandate.

  4.  It has been made clear that:

    "European agriculture as an economic sector must be versatile, sustainable, competitive and spread throughout Europe, including the regions with specific problems. It must be capable of maintaining the countryside, conserving nature and making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life. It must also be able to respond to consumer concerns and demands regarding food quality and safety, environmental protection and the safeguarding of animal welfare."

  5.  BMMA accepts the general approach adopted by the EU but appreciates that animal welfare and environmental issues will be difficult to negotiate in global market terms. With WTO's membership standing at 134 countries, most of which are less developed than the EU, agreement on these issues will not be easy. Forecasts point to a steady expansion in the global economy. Against the backdrop of growth in the value of international trade, many WTO members will be disinclined to change the goalposts at this stage. The European Commission has published figures which indicate that between 1988-97, the growth in the value of EU exports in agricultural commodities and processed food products stood at +70 per cent and +140 per cent respectively.

  6.  BMMA supports the need to increase the access for manufactured food products to third country markets. This might be achieved by reductions in tariff protection for value added food products. Since the cost of reducing barriers to exports to third country markets may be to reduce barriers against imports from third countries, care should be taken to ensure the continuing incentive to process food and therefore add value within the EU.

  7.  BMMA supports equitable liberalisation of world trade. There should be close relationships between raw materials (either from inside or outside the EU) and value added products, thus ensuring that the EU food industry remains competitive both inside and out. So long as EU prices for agricultural commodities are above the world level, restitutions are essential to achieve competitively priced exports. Costs for pigmeat production are set to rise due to higher feed costs, higher welfare standards and, eg the reduction in the use of antibiotics. Beef and dairy sectors are also vulnerable. There should be no further cuts in export refunds in the current climate. To implement a cut in export refunds would put the EU at a competitive disadvantage to the USA.

NON-TARIFF BARRIERS TO TRADE

  8.  BMMA agrees with the need to take into consideration the multifunctional role of agriculture including environmental protection, safety and quality of food and animal welfare. As stated above, these are difficult areas that will not be afforded the same level of priority by all WTO members.

  9.  We support the proposal that the EU should seek solutions that assure consumers that the WTO will not be used to force onto the market products about whose safety there are legitimate concerns. Some appropriate level of protection is required.

SOUND SCIENCE AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

  10.  BMMA notes the proposals for an EU White Paper on Food Safety which will be for the year 2000 and supports the philosophy of "a single body of legislation based on solid updated scientific knowledge". It is also noted that the precautionary principle will be a top priority. It is essential that trade decisions are taken in the light of sound science. There is a place for the precautionary principle but as yet there appears to be no agreed interpretation of the concept. The EU might seek to obtain from WTO a clearer general recognition of the principle but an agreed definition is required in the first instance. It must not be used as a market protection mechanism.

  11.  The response to the potential dangers involved in the use of hormones in beef illustrates the use of the precautionary principle. A ban is in place but scientific evidence is far from substantial. There are no fewer than 17 EU commissioned studies investigating the potential dangers of hormone-treated beef.

  12.  Independent scientific advisers in the UK have now concluded that the scientific evidence in a recent report does not support the EU ban on the use of hormonal growth promoters in food producing animals or the import from third countries of meat and meat products derived from animals treated with these substances.

  13.  The evidence was provided by the EU's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health and is the first part of an EU risk assessment which relates to the ban currently in operation. Until the results of these studies are available the ban on imports will remain in place based on the precautionary principle.

ANIMAL WELFARE

  14.  The EU and, in particular, the United Kingdom, are well aware of the high costs of implementing animal welfare legislation. The UK pig industry is gravely disadvantaged as a result of implementing legislation in advance of other member states.

  15.  Whilst in principle we would applaud the intention to establish international acknowledgement of animal welfare rules as one of the EU's key negotiating points for the WTO round, we are dubious as to the likelihood of success. A level of prosperity is required before animal welfare becomes a priority issue.

  16.  In order to satisfy consumers, imports from third countries should be required to state the welfare criteria or rules in existence and enforceable in that country. Consideration should be given to additional tariffs on imports from countries that cannot demonstrate adherence to international animal welfare rules.

  17.  Adequate labelling will be required to support such initiatives. Labelling rules must be equitable, clear and consistent not only to provide consumers with the information they need but also to meet the practical and commercial requirements of manufacturers. Unrealistic and impractical labelling requirements will ultimately let the consumer down. They will also penalise the UK manufacturing sector if demands have to be met which foreign competitors have no requirement or incentive to match.

RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE IN GM FOODSTUFFS

  18.  The BMMA supports the UK Government in pressing for EU-wide regulations or labelling rules that indicate the presence of GM materials. We also support proposals for a de-minimus threshold of 1 per cent for ingredients for foods from non-GM sources.

  19.  BMMA members could be severely disadvantaged if retailers take a blanket decision to demand that feed for animals should be GM-free. Given the current availability of identity preserved GM-free soya and maize, it would be impossible to guarantee wholly GM-free feed for all animals. The consequences of such a decision would lead to demand far outstripping supply and producers would be denied nutritionally valuable feed ingredients. Alternative animal feed ingredients are limited as a result of the meat and bonemeal legislation. The resultant rise in prices would make UK producers less competitive and encourage significantly cheaper imported products from countries where GM ingredients are used in feed for meat, milk and egg production.

3 December 1999


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 4 July 2000