IDENTIFICATION OF CATTLE AND LABELLING
OF BEEF PRODUCTS
(a)
(20604)
12031/99
COM(99) 486
(b)
(20627)
12030/99
COM(99) 487
|
Commission report on the situation regarding the implementation of
beef labelling systems in the different Member States as laid down in
Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97.
Draft Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification
and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef
and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97;
and
Draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No.
820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of
bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products.
|
| Legal base:
| (a) —
(b) Article 152 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 8 May 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (Both) HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (1 December
1999)
((b) only) HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (9 February
2000) and HC 23-xv (1999-2000), paragraph 6 (19 April
2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| Common Position already agreed
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| (a) Cleared
(b) Cleared (decision reported on 19 April 2000)
|
Background
4.1 Towards the end of last year, the Commission
put forward two new documents relating to Regulation (EC) No.
820/97[13],
which, following the BSE crisis, introduced more stringent labelling
of beef and beef products; provides for a central animal database;
requires stricter tagging provisions; and ensures that the documents
accompanying cattle movements are adequate.
4.2 The first (document (a)) comprised a
report on the implementation of the Regulation. The second (document
(b)) proposed two further Council Regulations, which would have:
- deferred by one year, until 31 December 2000,
the ending of the existing voluntary scheme;
- introduced thereafter a two stage compulsory
labelling system and a parallel voluntary system under which:
(1) the first stage of
the compulsory system would require, as from 1 January 2001, the
labelling of all beef with traceability codes, showing the link
between the meat and the animal from which it is derived; approval
numbers of slaughterhouses and deboning plants (together with
the relevant region or Member State); date of slaughter; and ideal
minimum maturation period of the beef;
(2) the second stage, to take effect from 1 January
2003, would introduce compulsory origin marking for birth, fattening,
slaughter and de-boning;
(3) other indications on characteristics or production
conditions would remain subject to a voluntary scheme.
4.3 In our Report of 1 December 1999, we
noted that the Government had a number of detailed points which
it wished to pursue, and that, after it had consulted industry
organisations and other interested parties, it would produce a
full Regulatory Impact Assessment. We therefore said that we would
withhold clearance, pending receipt of this further information.
4.4 We were subsequently informed by the
Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (The Rt. Hon. Joyce Quin) that the Council had been unable
at its meeting in December 1999 to agree on the Commission's detailed
proposal, and that, in order to avoid a legal vacuum, it had therefore
decided to provide for the continuation of the existing system
for a further eight months until 31 August 2000.
4.5 In a letter and second Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 17 April 2000, the Minister told us
that the Portuguese Presidency would be presenting a compromise
proposal to the Agriculture Council on 17-18 April, and that the
UK might wish to agree then to a Common Position in advance of
our having cleared the proposal. She added that the Presidency
text was likely to provide for the first stage of the compulsory
system to come into effect from 1 September 2000, requiring labelling
with individual traceability codes, and the Member State or Third
Country, and approval number, of the slaughterhouse and cutting
plant; information on the date of slaughter and ideal maturation
period would, however, no longer be required. The second stage
of the compulsory system was likely to come into effect from 1
January 2003 (or earlier, if amendments proposed by the European
Parliament are eventually accepted), and would require additional
labelling with Member State or Third Country of birth and fattening.
4.6 As regards detailed aspects of the proposal,
the Minister said that the Presidency had proposed a derogation
for minced beef, which would provide only for labels to contain
a traceability code, and an indication of the Member State where
the beef was minced. She went on to say that a few Member States
were keen to retain power to require additional labelling details
on their own beef for sale in their territories, whilst a small
number also favoured retention of "EU origin" as an
optional description, instead of the name of the Member State;
however, the UK recognised that origin labelling was necessary
in order to export, and had not pressed for the retention of the
"EU origin" option (which was strongly opposed by those
who want the Member State of origin to be specified). She also
commented that there had been no support for the UK's wish to
see a derogation, from at least the second stage of the compulsory
system, for beef labelled with Protected Geographical Indications/Protected
Designations of Origins.
4.7 In the conclusion to our Report of 19
April, we noted that a Common Position had indeed been agreed
at the Council the previous day, and we said that we assumed the
Minister would let us know whether this was indeed along the lines
she had indicated. We added that we would like her to explain
further two points in her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.
First, the proposal regarding minced beef appeared to require
only the processing plant to be identified, and thus to weaken
the link between the end-product and the animals from which it
comes. Secondly, it was not clear precisely why the UK was pressing
for a derogation for Protected Geographical Indications/Protected
Designations of Origin, and what the consequences would be if
this were not agreed.
Minister's letter of 8 May 2000
4.8 In her letter of 8 May 2000, the Minister
confirms that a Common Position was agreed, and that a copy of
the English text will be forwarded separately as soon as it is
available. This will now be put to the European Parliament, with
a view to its adoption by 1 September. She also says that the
Common Position was along the lines envisaged in her Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 17 April, the main change being that
the second stage of the compulsory scheme will be brought forward
by a year — to 1 January 2002.
4.9 As regards the detailed points raised
in our Report of 19 April, the Minister says that the derogation
for minced beef has been diluted somewhat by the country of slaughter
being included as a compulsory indication, but that some derogation
from the full origin details was considered desirable to facilitate
economic production of mince by industrial processors. A reference
code would, however, still provide traceability back to the animals
from which the meat was derived.
4.10 So far as protected names as concerned,
the Minister says that, as expected, no derogation was agreed.
She adds that the concerns on this point had come mainly from
the devolved administrations as regards Protected Geographical
Indications (Scotch, and probably, Welsh Beef) and Protected Designations
of Origin (Orkney Beef). The absence of a derogation will require
any beef labelled with a protected name to include as well all
the indications required under the compulsory system. In the UK's
view, this would have cost implications, and present the consumer
with potentially confusing or conflicting information.
Conclusion
4.11 We are grateful to the Minister
for this further information, which does not of course affect
our clearance of this document on 19 April. At the same time,
we are also taking this opportunity to clear the Commission Report
referred to in paragraph 1.2 above, which we considered at our
meeting on 1 December 1999, but which was not cleared then because
of the points still outstanding at that time on the proposals
to which it gave rise.
13 OJ No. L 117, 7.5.97, p. 1. Back
|
