Government response
Introduction
The Government welcomes this report.
Historically, the egg and poultry industries have
both been success stories and this was recognised in our memorandum
of evidence submitted to the Committee. But we are well aware
that these industries face a number of serious challenges in the
near future and those are reflected in the Committee's report
and recommendations.
Both industries have a strong record of self-reliance,
product development and innovation, and we have made clear our
view that significant Government intervention in the way the egg
and poultry industries operate does not represent the way forward.
From the industry's perspective, the principal need is for Government
to avoid unnecessary burdens or obstacles, while ensuring that
standards - environmental, animal health and welfare etc - meet
public requirements. As we have already made clear, our priorities
in this sector are therefore to:-
- continue to act where there is clear evidence
of illegal competition from third countries;
- work within overall government policy to achieve
satisfactory WTO outcomes;
- domestically, and in international negotiations,
strike an appropriate balance between need for regulation and
overburdening industry;
- in line with the Government's wider Sustainable
Farming and Food Strategy, encourage industry to look increasingly
towards value added/premium products, while recognising that this
sector has already made significant moves in this area;
- support poultry industry participation in Defra's
sustainability forum; and
- continue to participate fully in EU negotiations
on animal welfare issues affecting the egg and poultry industries.
Poultry Meat Sector
Recommendation 1
We agree that assurance standards in the meat
poultry sector are primarily a matter for the industry, although
consumers are obviously interested parties. We are concerned that
some standards are below those contained in Defra 's welfare codes,
and consider that the industry should bring its codes and standards
up to those set by Defra. In addition, Defra should consider its
codes in the light of current academic work and, if necessary,
revise them accordingly. We recommend that Defra should then bring
forward proposals to enforce the standards outlined in its welfare
code (paragraph 18).
As the Committee acknowledges, assurance standards
are primarily a matter for the industry but we have drawn the
Committee's recommendation to the attention of Assured Food Standards,
which is currently reviewing the animal welfare standards in assurance
schemes that use the Red Tractor logo. The review of the Defra
welfare codes is an ongoing process and we recognize the need
to take account of advances in research and development as well
as good industry practice. Those responsible for keeping farm
animals are required by law to be familiar with and have access
to the relevant welfare codes.
The Government believes that food assurance schemes
have the potential to deliver a range of benefits for consumers,
including contributing to the range of choice of foods produced
in different ways. Research and consultation by the Food Standards
Agency highlighted a number of concerns about assurance schemes;
particularly about the involvement of consumers in schemes, and
the ways in which scheme standards are communicated to consumers.
When industry groups choose to operate schemes they must follow
clear guidelines to allow consumers to benefit.
FSA advice provides that schemes should:
a) set minimum production standards (taking proper
account of consumer interests);
and
b) inspect and maintain the application of these
standards.
Recommendation 2
We welcome the development of legislation on welfare
standards in the poultry meat sector that will apply across the
European Union. We hope that Defra and all stakeholders will play
a positive and critical role in the development of a welfare directive,
in order to permit its adoption and implementation as quickly
as possible. Defra must therefore ensure that it allows adequate
resources to achieve this (paragraph 19).
The development of minimum welfare standards across
the European Union is an important step. We recognise the importance
of involving industry at the earliest opportunity and will work
with all stakeholders to develop the Government's policy on the
review of the laying hens Directive and forthcoming meat chicken
welfare Directive.
Although the European Commission
has yet to issue proposals, Defra is arranging workshops through
ADAS to discuss the development and implications of an EU directive
on meat chicken production. These workshops will take place in
the New Year and will provide an opportunity for the poultry industry
to inform the UK negotiating position.
Egg Sector
Recommendation 3
We believe that a science-based solution must
be found to the welfare issues related to enriched cages. We suggest
that the framework of the five freedoms outlined by the Farm Animal
Welfare Council should be carefully considered as the basis for
any decision. We welcome the co-operation between Defra and the
industry in the research into 'colony cages' (paragraph 25).
The Five Freedoms form a basis
for the assessment of welfare within any system. Both Defra and
industry have research programmes which aim to evaluate the development
of new systems of production.
Recommendation 4
Defra should reconsider its decision not to ban
enriched cages only when the research work into enriched cages
is completed (paragraph 26).
The Government announced in March 2003 that a decision
on the future of enriched cages would not be made until the Agriculture
Council next considers the welfare of laying hens directive in
2005. By then it is hoped we will be in a strong position to address
some of the questions on the welfare concerns of enriched cages
as research programmes are completed. The Government believes
that any changes should apply to all EU producers, not just those
in the UK.
Addressing Animal Welfare Concerns
Recommendation 5
The Government should commission research and
develop proposals relating to animal welfare (paragraph 28).
The Defra research and development programme is used
to provide a sound scientific base to support the achievement
of the highest possible welfare standards, particularly in negotiating
in the EU and Council of Europe. One aim of the programme is the
development of production systems, which improve welfare.
Recommendation 6
Defra should continue its consultation on sustainable
procurement with other Government departments, emphasising the
legal requirements that already apply to poultry farmers and those
that will apply in future. In consultation with the Office of
Government Commerce, it should consider developing standard tender
documents for all Departments to use (paragraph 30).
As part of the public sector food procurement initiative,
Defra plans to develop model specification clauses and conditions
of contract that would require suppliers of poultry to ensure
that the methods used for farming and processing the finished
products meet appropriately high standards.
This would be in line with general guidance on procurement
of food and catering services for the public sector that Defra
has published on its web site. In that guidance priority is given
to farming and food production standards. Authorities are advised
to set criteria for food safety, production and process methods,
animal welfare and environmental protection in their technical
specifications that are consistent with the standards set by assurance
schemes. Buyers can accept products certified as meeting the standards
of such schemes and be assured that regular documented independent
inspection of the farmers and growers has been undertaken to ensure
that they are producing primary agricultural products according
to foundation standards.
The public procurement rules allow suppliers to furnish
means of proof of contract compliance other than certified and
labelled products. Suppliers have the option of providing alternative
evidence such as technical dossiers, auditors' reports and test
reports. This is to ensure that the specification and the means
to assess the conformity with the specification do not result
in the reservation of the contract to national or local companies.
Furthermore, in pursuance of their duty to obtain
value for money, Authorities must ensure that any price premium
paid for higher standards is justified by the particular requirement
and consistent with their stewardship criteria for affordability,
efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally there is a need to
cover EU hen welfare standards if these are not included under
existing assurance criteria. The drawing up of such specifications
is therefore fairly complex and will require Defra to liaise with
key bodies such as the Office for Government Commerce, the FSA
and also procurement managers elsewhere in the public sector to
ensure they are practicable.
Recommendation 7
We accept the Minister's argument that Government
should not subsidise producers for obeying the law but conclude
that this in turn imposes a requirement on Government to legislate
only when strictly necessary. If Government cannot demonstrate
that the costs of the legislation to those affected are proportionate
to improved standards, it must question the reasons for proposed
legislation (paragraph 31).
An assessment of the costs and benefits of proposed
legislation is carried out by the Government through the Regulatory
Impact Assessment process. Any decisions on proposed legislation
will take this into account along with other available scientific,
economic and veterinary evidence.
Tariff Protection
Recommendation 8
We believe that it is essential for those who
wish to sell in our national marketplace to meet the standards
expected of our own producers, though we accept that this requires
common European Union standards and common enforcement at European
ports (paragraph 37).
As the Committee recognises, whilst we understand
domestic producers' concerns over imports from countries with
different standards of animal welfare legislation, WTO rules do
not permit us to restrict trade in products based solely on the
method of production. Restrictions can only be applied where there
is a threat to human, animal of plant health in the importing
country.
The UK and EU have pushed hard to get animal welfare
recognised in the current WTO negotiating round. We will of course
continue to engage with the Commission and other Member States
on this issue to do all we can to ensure the most favourable outcome
possible for UK producers, and continue to work to raise broader
animal welfare standards internationally by building trust and
understanding for the EU's position on standards.
Recommendation 9
We believe that efforts should be made to ensure
that accurate labelling of production and processing methods is
required. The Government and its European Union partners must
work within the WTO to highlight the concerns our consumers have.
They should explore with the WTO how existing rules can be interpreted
and ultimately press for the reform of rules on production and
processing methods to allow distinctions to be identified (paragraph
39).
As the Committee recognises in paragraph 38 of its
report, the introduction of a non-tariff barrier such as labelling
is likely to be a clear breach of the WTO Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) and subject to the WTO's dispute proceedings.
The TBT is a means to ensure that WTO members only use such measures
in accordance with agreed principles.
Furthermore, competence to make proposals that impact
on trade rests with the European Commission in consultation with
EU member states. Whilst we can pursue this issue with our EU
partners, we cannot unilaterally enter into negotiations within
the WTO. Consequently, whilst the Government acknowledges the
Committee's concerns in this area, any progress is likely to be
very limited.
Animal Welfare Payments
Recommendation 10
In the light of the revised EU rural development
rules, Defra should indicate at the earliest possible opportunity
whether, and to what extent, it plans to amend the England Rural
Development Programme to include animal welfare payments, and
what level of total payments are realistically foreseeable (paragraph
42).
Defra's initial view is that the new measures do
not provide strong grounds for the diversion of resources away
from the existing England Rural Development Programme (2000-2006).
The objective and principles of the animal welfare option are
welcomed, but since extra funding (beyond that already required
for the introduction of an entry-level agri-environment scheme)
will not be available, very difficult decisions on reductions
in other schemes would have to be taken if it was wished to broaden
the ERDP in this way. However, Defra's consultation letter, on
the CAP Reform package, issued on 22 July seeks views on this
issue. Further consultations will take place over the coming years
on the arrangements, objectives and priorities for rural development
expenditure over the next programming period (2007-2013).
Import Quality
Recommendation 11
We recommend that Defra should consider what steps
it can take to increase confidence among the industry, politicians
and consumers that imports from inside and outside the European
Union are appropriately checked and conform to Union standards.
Defra should also address concerns about the lack of action taken
against those who infringe food safety and labelling rules (paragraph
47).
We acknowledge that there is concern about imports
from third countries of animal products for human consumption.
Under EU harmonised requirements, poultry meat and
eggs imported into the UK from a non-EU country (third country)
must meet import conditions set out in EU law which ensure that
imported produce meets standards equivalent to those applied to
Community produce. Consignments of products from third countries
may only be imported into the EU via an authorised Border Inspection
Post (BIP) where they are subjected to inspection by an official
veterinarian to ensure that the import conditions are met. The
detailed rules under which these checks are carried out are also
set out in Community law and Defra has in place a programme of
regular visits to BIPs to ensure the checks are carried out correctly.
Within the European Community, minimum standards
of production are set out in Community law and are enforced by
the authorities in the producing Member State. Products introduced
from another Member State may be subject to random, non-discriminatory
checks at the point of destination and may be inspected en route
if there are grounds to suspect that the products pose an animal
or public health risk.
In response to the Committee's recommendation, Defra
is happy to consider new ways to increase the confidence of industry
and others in the system of checks on imported produce. In the
short term we will establish a liaison group with representatives
of the poultry industry and consumers to discuss their concerns
about import checks. The FSA would also take part in such a group,
given their policy responsibility for food safety aspects of all
imported food.
The FSA is already taking several actions to ensure
correct labelling of food as well as ensuring that unsafe poultry
are not allowed into the food chain:
a) it is working with Local Authorities (LAs) to
follow-up and prevent poultry meat containing unauthorised or
illegal veterinary residues from entering the food chain. Where
illegal residues are found the meat is destroyed;
b) in the case of chicken with added water, the FSA
in collaboration with 20 LAs is taking follow-up actions (in terms
of formal (court) action and warning letters) against offenders.
LAs are maintaining a continued watching brief/monitoring of the
sector;
c) it is also working with the Dutch authorities
to increase sampling and inspection of plants supplying the UK
market. As a result formal action has been taken against five
Dutch companies;
d) it has successfully lobbied the European Commission
to tighten up the labelling requirements for products with added
water. A proposal will be discussed in September; and
e) It has requested that the Commission considers
a cap on added water of 15% and a ban on non-poultry proteins.
The Commission is actively considering this proposal.
The issue of import quality has been of
concern to the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, which
was established to advise on the safety and use of animal feeds
and feeding practices, with particular emphasis on protecting
human health and with reference to new technical developments.
At the time it reviewed the issue in 2001-2002, however, there
were few controls available in this area.
There are two measures under negotiation
in Brussels which will impact on imports of food and feedingstuffs
from third countries, as well as imports of food. Both measures
were prefigured in the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety,
published in January 2000:
a) a Regulation on official feed and food
controls will cover operational criteria for competent authorities
and control staff, control methods, rules for emergencies, certification,
and reference laboratories. These controls will also apply to
imports of food and feed products from third countries exporting
to the EU, which will be subject to Community audit to confirm
compliance or equivalence of their legislation with the EU's,
to have a control plan to ensure adherence to these conditions,
and to provide guarantees of this prior to inclusion on the Commission's
list of approved exporting countries. Non-complying products would
be refused entry to the EU; and
b) a Regulation on feed hygiene will cover
improved traceability of ingredients, Hazard Analysis of Critical
Control Points (HACCP) procedures in feed manufacture and use,
the approval and registration of establishments, and a code of
good manufacturing practice. Third countries exporting feed to
the EU will need to be included in an approved list and be able
to produce an up-to-date list of establishments manufacturing
feed for export.
Recommendation 12
We believe it is incumbent upon those who import
poultry products to demonstrate to domestic producers that equivalent
standards are met by those imports. We suggest that this means
that auditing of producers and processors overseas should therefore
occur on the same frequency as home producers and processors,
and that importers supplying the catering trade should inspect
producers they source from in the same way as supermarkets and
other retailers (paragraph 48).
For the reasons outlined in response to recommendation
8, there would be no legally enforceable basis for the proposal
that poultry importers be required to demonstrate that their imports
meet equivalent EU standards, other than in the closely defined
areas of public and animal health.
Supermarket Power
Recommendation 13
We welcome the current review by the Office of
Fair Trading of the Code of Practice on Supermarkets' Dealings
with Suppliers, and the commitment to further annual reviews.
We urge the retail sector to respond carefully, constructively
and rapidly to the concerns that have been expressed about the
operation of the Code (paragraph 52).
We endorse the Committee's recommendation
on the Code of Practice. We have drawn the Committee's comments
on this subject to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading,
the British Retail Consortium and the supermarkets who are bound
by the Code.
Environmental Regulation
Recommendation 14
The Environment Agency (EA) should review the
time taken to process Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
permit applications for new installations. It should assess whether
it has the resources that will be required to ensure that all
existing installations have permits by 2007, and publish the results
of this assessment (paragraph 54).
The EA has so far issued five permits for new intensive
poultry installations and is considering four permit applications.
Determination of the five issued took two, three, four, seven
and eight months respectively. The two longer periods arose from
the requirement for the applicant to provide further information
to the EA. In one of these cases, modelling work was required
to enable the EA to complete an assessment under the requirements
of the Habitats Regulations.
IPPC is a regulatory regime being applied to an industry
sector with no previous experience of such regulation. As more
applications are processed, the EA will gain experience and the
speed of processing applications should increase. The industry
will also benefit as it gains experience of the application requirements.
A model application has been developed and will shortly be available
through the EA Website.
IPPC has to be applied by the EA to some 5,000 installations
in the period to November 2007 by when all existing installations
are required by the Directive to be operating under an IPPC permit.
Based on its experiences in issuing some 350 IPPC permits in a
variety of industry sectors to date, the EA has recently set up
Strategic Permitting Groups (SPGs) to handle this task and is
confident that this approach will enable it to deal effectively
with permit applications from the intensive poultry industry and
all other industry sectors. Arrangements are being made for charts
showing progress in dealing with IPPC applications to be available
on the EA's Website.
Animal By-Products Regulation
Recommendation 15
Defra should outline the food safety implications
that arise when imported meat products come from animals fed on
feedstuffs banned in this country, and indicate what action is
taken to minimise the risk to human health of such imports (paragraph
55).
At present there are no rules to cover this contingency.
However, this should be addressed by the proposed Regulation on
official food and feed controls referred to in the response to
Recommendation 11. As explained, third countries which export
to the EU will be subject to Community audit to confirm compliance
or equivalence of their legislation with the EU. This should eliminate
the possibility of products for human consumption being derived
from animals which have been fed on by-products and other materials
prohibited for use as feed in the EU, with consequent additional
safeguards for the health of the ultimate consumers.
An Uncertain Future?
Recommendation 16
We believe that the Government can help to bring
about more certainty in the poultry industry. It can ensure that
the industry is fully consulted in the review of the hen welfare
directive and in the development of the meat chicken welfare directive.
The Government should set out its current thinking on both these
issues: in particular, the extent to which its current welfare
code reflects its objectives for the meat chicken welfare directive
and under what circumstances it will support the continued use
of enriched cages. We believe that transparent negotiations on
these issues will assist the poultry industry to meet any new
obligations and contribute to reducing the uncertainty facing
the industry (paragraph 57).
We agree, as set out earlier in our response to Recommendation
2.
Recommendation 17
We believe that without some form of intervention
United Kingdom and European Union poultry farmers will lose market
share to overseas producers who do not have to meet such stringent
animal welfare standards. The Government, with its European Union
partners, must develop a strategy to ensure that all poultry meat,
eggs and their products on the European Union marketplace conform
to the standards that we expect of producers in the Single Market,
and have been produced to equivalent animal welfare standards
(paragraph 58).
In response to previous recommendations, the Government
has made clear that it recognises the industry's concerns about
competition from third country imports. Furthermore, we recognise
the importance of the egg and poultry sectors to the UK's agriculture
industry. We would not dispute the view that over time, the volume
of imports into the UK is likely to increase rather than decrease.
In accordance with overall Government policy, we see the development
of trade as being in everyone's long term interest. Increasingly,
producers will have to look to producing premium products which
will attract premium prices. We are sure that the egg and poultry
industries understand that well and we readily acknowledge their
excellent record in product development and innovation.
It would however be misleading for us to pretend
that there is a ready answer to their concerns. We would however
like to place on record that we are well aware of those concerns
and we will continue to engage with the Commission and other Member
States to do all we can to ensure a level playing field with the
EU and, more generally, the most favourable outcome possible for
UK producers.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
October 2003
| 
