WELFARE OF LAYING HENS: COMPULSORY LABELLING
OF EGGS
(21587)
11244/00
COM(00) 522
|
Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1907/90 on
certain marketing standards for eggs.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2771/75; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 6 September 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 7 September 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 27 September 2000 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 12 October 2000 |
| Previous consideration:
| None, but see (18999) 6985/98: HC 155-xxviii (1997-98), paragraph 3 (13 May 1998); HC 34-vi (1998-99), paragraph 2 (20 January 1999); and HC 34-xii (1998-99), paragraph 1 (10 March 1999); and (20173) 8411/99 and (20233) 8624/99: HC 34-xxiv (1998-99), paragraph 10 (30 June 1999)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
19.1 In 1998 and 1999, the Council considered
Commission proposals on the welfare of laying hens[74].
As we noted in our Report of 13 May 1998, the Commission had said
that, in addition to the measure it was putting forward, it would
subsequently be proposing the compulsory labelling of eggs, including
the method of rearing used; and, when the welfare measure was
adopted in July 1999 as Directive 1999/74/EC[75],
the Council asked the Commission to fulfil by 1 January 2002 its
earlier undertaking on labelling. This proposal is in response
to that request.
The current proposal
19.2 The main element in the proposal would
introduce, with effect from 1 January 2001, a requirement that
the method of production for Class A fresh eggs should be indicated
both on the eggs themselves and on the packs. With the exception
of organic production (whose labelling is the subject of separate
Community regulations), this condition would apply to all eggs
sold in the Community other than at the place of production. It
is also intended to apply irrespective of whether the eggs were
produced within the Community or in Third Countries. However,
where the Community considers that the labelling procedures in
force in the exporting country are equivalent to those in the
Member States, the application of the indications proposed would
seem to be permissive, rather than mandatory; and, where the labelling
procedures are not equivalent to those within the Community, the
indication of farming method could be replaced by one or other
of the indications "farming method not specified", "origin:
non-EC", or by the country of origin.
19.3 In addition, a separate, and unrelated
proposal would combine the current Class B (second quality or
preserved eggs) and Class C (downgraded eggs intended for industry)
grades into a new single Class B.
The Government's view
19.4 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 12
October 2000, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (the Rt. Hon. Joyce Quin) says that the Government
has been strongly in favour of compulsory labelling of eggs with
their system of production, but that the proposal to stamp eggs
on shell is less welcome. She maintains that, provided adequate
traceability systems are in place, there is very little justification
for repeating the same information contained on the pack. The
Minister goes on to point out that some 70% of UK egg production
is already stamped under the industry-run Lion Code scheme with
a best before date, which also requires an indication of alternative
system production methods (which we understand covers free range
and barn production, but not that in cages). She says that the
new requirement would, therefore, place on existing Lion Code
members the additional burden of stamping cage production, whilst
non-Lion Code producers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises,
would struggle with the capital outlay required to install printing
equipment. In view of this, she considers that a longer lead-in
period than that proposed would be needed.
19.5 As regards eggs imported into the Community,
she says that the proposed indicators would assist consumers to
differentiate between home produced and non-EC eggs. However,
whilst she considers this to be a "welcome" development
in terms of fresh shell eggs sold at retail, she suggests that
the industry and welfare campaigners will oppose a lesser requirement
for eggs imported from certain Third Countries
19.6 Finally, the Minister points out that,
so far as both home produced and imported eggs are concerned,
information differentiating the system of production will not
be available on egg products or to consumers of eggs eaten outside
the home. However, she suggests that, while such information would
be desirable, it "could appear disproportionate" to
industry to impose the full range of egg marketing regulations
onto egg products, which she says are already covered by general
food labelling requirements.
19.7 On the separate proposal to amalgamate
Classes B and C eggs, the Minister points out that, since Class
B eggs are not currently sold at retail in the UK, there are no
issues of consumer confusion to address, and that the proposal
is likely to ease the regulatory burden by simplifying record
keeping requirements. She adds that the Government will be looking
into whether there are any quality issues which need to be addressed
for eggs which go into boiling plants or into further processing.
19.8 More generally, the Minister says that
a consultation exercise on the proposal is currently under way,
and that a Regulatory Impact Assessment will be submitted once
this is complete.
Conclusion
19.9 Since the Minister has promised
a Regulatory Impact Assessment in due course, we will reserve
judgement on this proposal until we have seen that analysis. In
the meantime, we have to say that, although we appreciate the
difficulty of explaining a complex and technical area such as
this, we have found it difficult to form a clear impression of
exactly what is proposed. For example, as we have suggested in
paragraph 19.2 above, it seems from the wording of the proposal
that the application of the Community designations to eggs imported
from countries with equivalent labelling provisions would not
be mandatory. We also question whether the designation "farming
method not specified" would convey to the average consumer
that the product in question had been imported.
19.10 Consequently, when the Minister
provides her promised Regulatory Impact Assessment, we would find
it helpful if she could set out both for eggs themselves and for
their packaging precisely what the present Community Regulations
require; the arrangements under the Lion Code scheme; what would
be required of Community producers in future were the Commission's
proposal to be adopted; and what this proposal would require as
regards imports on the one hand from Third Countries which have
labelling procedures equivalent to those of the Member
States and, on the other hand, from those which do not.
74 See headnotes above. Back
75
OJ No. L 203, 3.8.99, p.53. Back
|
