MARKETING OF COMPOUND ANIMAL FEED
(20912)
5247/00
COM(99) 744
|
Draft Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 152 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 7 January 2000
|
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 10 January 2000
|
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 2 February 2000
|
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 10 February 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| Following the Opinion of the European Parliament
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 Council Directive 79/373[20]
lays down certain conditions on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs
to ensure that stock farmers have objective and accurate information
on the composition of the material they feed to their stock. One
of its provisions requires manufacturers of such feedingstuffs
to list the ingredients of compound feed, in descending order
of weight, either by specific ingredient or by category, though,
since 1997 any meat material still permitted has to be declared
in full.
The current proposal
3.2 This proposal would remove the category
option for farm animal feed (but not for petfood), and it would
also require manufacturers of farm animal feed to declare the
amount of each ingredient in terms of percentage by weight (an
"open declaration"). However, in response to manufacturers'
concerns about the need for frequent label changes if flexibility
in the use of feed material is to be maintained, the Commission
has proposed a separate label or document specifically for the
"open declaration" of ingredients. The Commission justifies
these changes largely on the grounds of increasing traceability,
particularly in the light of BSE and the dioxin contamination
last year of oils and fats in Belgium.
The Government's view
3.3 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 10
February 2000, the Minister of State (Lords) at the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman) says that the
main element in the proposal — the deletion of the category
option for declaration of ingredients — is in keeping with
domestic policy, would not require significant changes for compounders
here, and is therefore supported by the UK. She goes on to say
that the only real problem would be the requirement for the "open
declaration", which is not a requirement for human food,
and which would place additional burdens on manufacturers and
enforcement authorities, without providing any meaningful information.
Nor does she consider that the need to provide these details would
have prevented the Belgian incident, which she says was probably
caused by criminal contamination, and thus better tackled by other
traceability measures. She adds that the UK would, however, support
the optional declaration of ingredients by percentage,
which is not currently allowed under Directive 79/373.
3.4 The Minister also makes the point that,
along with other Member States, the UK does not believe Article
152 to be the correct legal base as, contrary to the Commission's
assertions, the measure has consumer information, not public health,
as its direct objective. She says that the UK will be pursuing
this issue in forthcoming discussions.
Conclusion
3.5 Whilst we have noted the Minister's
comments about the policy implications of this proposal, we have
some concern that the UK should appear to be weakening it by suggesting
that the declaration of ingredients by percentage should be optional.
Consequently, before clearing the document, we would like her
to spell out more fully why she favours this approach. We were
also interested in the Minister's comments on the proposed legal
base, and we support the Government's approach to this. We would,
however, like to be kept informed should there be any change in
the UK position on this point.
20 OJ L 86, 6.4.79, p.30. Back
|
