Memorandum submitted by the British Egg
Industry Council (X18)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Industry background
1. The UK egg industry is responsible, efficient
and innovative, and does not benefit from production subsidies.
2. It is a model for all other food industry
sectors, having responded to the call of successive Governments
who have encouraged the private sector to improve efficiency (by
both reducing costs and adding value by innovation) and respond
to consumers. It has adopted the latest technology and working
practices.
3. The egg industry is arguably one of the
most efficient sectors of UK agriculture.
4. Currently, some 80% of UK eggs are produced
to the stringent standards of the Lion Quality scheme. This provides
for compulsory vaccination of hens against Salmonella, traceability
of hens, eggs and feed, high levels of bio-security on farms,
a "best before" date on eggs shorter than required by
legislation, and controls on feedingstuffs that can be fed to
hens. The Lion Quality scheme has been credited for the significant
reduction in human cases of Salmonellosis.
5. However, the future competitiveness of
the industry is under serious threat from new legislation and
commercial challenges during the next decade.
6. While this includes environmental and
food safety legislation, the greatest threat is from implementing
new animal welfare legislation at the same time as world trade
is further liberalised.
Animal Welfare/World Trade
7. Council Directive 1999/74/EC (on the
welfare of laying hens) alone is set to increase the cost of UK
egg production by a minimum of 12%, or 4.8 pence/dozen (13% in
the EU).
8. An independent study into "The Impact
of the EU Directive 99/74/EC `Welfare of Laying Hens' on the Competitiveness
of the EU Egg Industry", which was carried out at the Dutch
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), confirms that
Third country imports of eggs and egg products will become competitive
on the UK/EU market even after paying the general tariff rate
of duty.
9. Unless action is taken, the UK egg industry
is likely to be faced with a triple "whammy"—the
cost of the welfare Directive; reduced import protection; and
distortion within the EU as some Member States provide financial
support to their producers via "Green Box" payments,
and others do not.
10. A significant section of the UK egg
industry is therefore likely to be made uncompetitive because
of its position in relation to animal welfare. This is unacceptable
and is simply exporting animal welfare concerns, which does not
benefit the hen, UK consumers or UK producers—the so-called
"Clean hands, dirty mouth" scenario. We believe that
animal welfare is promoted by ensuring high domestic standards
and not by importing eggs produced from systems prohibited in
the UK/EU.
11. While the total cost of egg production
in the UK is high in comparison to many third country competitors,
this is not due to poor production efficiency, but simply due
to the inclusion of a far higher proportion of costs related to
food safety, animal welfare and the environment.
12. A BEIC Report entitled "Internal
Costs and Trade liberalisation" shows that over 40% of the
cost of production by 2012 will be due to legislation and consumer
demands. Without these costs, the UK could produce a dozen eggs
cheaper than producers in the USA, even with their lower feed
costs.
13. In introducing legislative measures
which go beyond those demanded by the marketplace, it is essential
that a combination of import tariff protection and "Green
Box" compensatory payments are made available to protect
the industry's future competitiveness.
14. The UK is the only country with an effective
assurance scheme that ensures the highest standards of food safety
and animal welfare across the majority of egg production. If low
cost eggs were to be imported, it is extremely unlikely that they
would conform to the high standards of food safety required under
the Lion Quality scheme. This will put consumers at risk.
15. Products banned due to food safety concerns
in the EU are used to produce eggs in third countries, which may
be subsequently imported into the EU.
Legislative Burden
16. In proposing new legislation, it is
vital that all current scientific and research evidence is taken
into account before decisions are made, rather than decisions
being made which are based on perceived public opinion. Legislation
must be proportional to the risk posed.
17. Government's commitment to not "gold
plate" EU Directives must be fully upheld.
18. There is a need to ensure that legislation
does not conflict with other legislation eg as has happened in
the case of animal welfare and Pollution Prevention and Control.
The Marketplace/Retailers
19. The voluntary investment made by Lion
Quality packers and producers in marketing during the last four
years has returned the sector to growth, but not profit, as borne
out by the year-end accounts of the major packers and producers.
20. We believe that the marketplace has
an important role to play in maintaining high levels of animal
health and welfare. It is unsustainable for producers to be unable
to achieve a satisfactory return for their investment. This could
possibly lead to corner cutting, which could result in a future
food safety crisis. The egg industry's customers must therefore
recognise their responsibility in this area.
Imports
21. Imports of eggs and egg products should
be rigorously monitored to ensure that they comply with our own
high standards.
22. It is noted that the terms of reference
of the inquiry are:
"The Committee will examine the state of
poultry farming. It will look particularly at the impact of new
regulations on the industry and its competitiveness, and on animal
welfare issues".
23. The BEIC welcomes the opportunity to
provide evidence to this inquiry, being well versed in the effects
of legislative requirements on our competitiveness in what is
an increasingly competitive marketplace.
INTRODUCTION
Legislative burden
24. The UK egg industry is subjected to
a considerable legislative burden, covering: egg marketing standards,
food safety, animal welfare, and the environment. Sometimes this
is conflicting.
25. We recognise that much of the legislative
burden originates in Brussels and is applied either as Directives
or Regulations. In implementing such legislation, our EU competitors
should, in theory, comply with the minimum standards of Directives
and the letter of Regulations ie the cost of implementing such
legislation should be broadly similar. However, the reality is
that the application of legislation in certain Member States is
rather different to our own and leads to distortion of competition.
26. We welcomed the Prime Minister's undertaking
at the Agriculture Summit in March 2000 that there would be no
"gold plating" of EU Directives when implemented into
national legislation.
The role of the BEIC and Background facts on the
UK egg industry
27. The BEIC is an inter-professional organisation
of 11 trade associations in the UK, which cover all aspects of
the egg industry—breeding, hatching, rearing, laying, packing,
egg processing and marketing (see Annex A for further details).
The BEIC is therefore the representative voice of the UK egg industry.
28. The BEIC also administers the Lion Quality
Scheme. Currently some 80% of UK egg production complies with
the Lion Code of Practice which sets higher standards of both
hygiene and animal welfare than is currently required by UK or
EU law.
29. Background facts on the UK industry
are enclosed as Annex B.
No Market Support measures
30. It is important to note that the egg
industry does not benefit directly from any market support mechanisms
(subsidies). There is limited funding towards export subsidies
to take account of the high cost of grain as a result of CAP policies.
However, UK exporters in the main do not benefit as there are
negligible exports to third countries.
31. The industry is therefore subject to
the vagaries of the marketplace, which becomes increasingly competitive,
and egg producers are working on very narrow (or negative) margins.
32. Within the EU there is free movement
of eggs and egg products. Until the GATT Uruguay Round, the EU
egg market was protected from imports from third countries by
a system of variable levies and sluicegate prices, which reflected
the higher cost of cereals in the EU. Following tariffication,
these have been replaced by a system of duties and a special safeguard
clause based on reference prices.
Current Status
33. The UK egg industry is responsible,
efficient and innovative, and responds to market signals. The
voluntary investment made by Lion Quality packers and producers
in marketing during the last four years has returned the sector
to growth, but not profit, as borne out by the year-end accounts
of the major packers and producers.
34. Successive Governments have encouraged
the private sector to improve efficiency (by both reducing costs
and adding value by innovation) and respond to consumers needs.
The egg industry has responded to this challenge and is arguably
one of the most efficient sectors of UK agriculture. The number
of non-cage hens is evidence enough of the industry's willingness
to respond to market signals (the UK houses 46% of the EU's free
range hens and 61% of the barn hens).
35. However, the industry is faced with
severe regulatory challenges, which threaten its future competitiveness.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Legislation applicable to laying hens
36. As noted above, eggs are produced in
different systems of production, according to market demand.
37. There are two individual pieces of legislation
related to the welfare of laying hens:
— Council Directive 88/166/EEC (fully
implemented in 1995).
— The Welfare of Livestock (Amendment)
(England, etc) Regulations 2002, implementing Council Directive
1999/74/EC, laying down minimum standards for laying hens (fully
into force on 1 January 2012).
38. Council Directive 88/166/EEC was fully
implemented in 1995 and introduced minimum standards for laying
hens. This legislation increased the cost of production by 3.5
pence/dozen, as industry moved from 350 cm2/bird to 450 cm2/bird.
However, the implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC involves huge
costs, which the industry is unable to bear without financial
assistance.
39. Here, the cage area per bird has further
increased from 1 January 2003 to 550 cm2/bird, the building of
new conventional laying cages was prohibited from 1 January 2003;
and the use of conventional laying cages will be prohibited from
1 January 2012. The Directive also requires increased space for
non-cage birds.
40. This Directive authorises the use of
"enriched" cages, which provide birds with significantly
more space (750 cm2/bird), increased height, a nest box, a perch
and a scratching area. This permits birds to display a wide range
of normal behaviours, and is in line with the UK Farm Animal Welfare
Council's "Five Freedoms". It also provides for additional
space in, and other requirements for, non-cage systems.
41. BEIC has calculated that the capital
cost of meeting the full requirements of Directive 99/74/EC will
be £432 million as producers move to either enriched cages
or free range or barn systems. This, at a time when the industry
profitability in a "good" year is only some £10
million. Even DEFRA's own calculations show a figure of £409
million over 10 years.
42. The Directive will also increase the
cost of production by a minimum of 12%, or 4.8 p/dozen (13% in
the EU). This is £109 million per annum in perpetuity.
DEFRA consultation on the future of enriched cages
43. Following the implementation of Directive
99/74/EC into domestic legislation in June 2002, DEFRA held a
full public consultation on a possible ban on the use of enriched
cages in England (only). Our response to the consultation pointed
out that a ban on enriched cages in England would have had a devastating
effect on the egg industry in terms of a reduction in the size
of the industry and massive job losses, as egg imports would have
greatly increased. As some 80% of eggs in the UK are produced
to the stringent standards of the Lion Quality scheme, any imports
would have been extremely unlikely to conform to these standards,
giving rise to food safety concerns for consumers purchasing low
cost eggs. It would also have been totally against the Government's
commitment to not "gold plate" EU Directives.
44. Thankfully, the Animal Welfare Minister
Elliot Morley announced on 18 March 2003 that he had reached his
decision ". . . after thorough consideration
of the comments received and the available scientific, economic
and veterinary evidence". He concluded that "as there
is a lack of definitive evidence currently available, there are
insufficient grounds at present to justify making a decision on
a unilateral ban on enriched cages from 2012".
45. One of the greatest threats to a business
is "uncertainty", ie not knowing if the "goal posts"
will be moved. This effectively results in investment decisions
being either cancelled or postponed, with the knock-on affect
on competitiveness.
Animal Welfare and World Trade
46. The cost of production increase in all
systems by 2012 is also likely to coincide with increases in market
access associated with the ongoing WTO trade liberalisation negotiations.
47. We have consistently argued that the
combination of increasing costs, coupled with reductions in import
tariffs, will lead to a huge loss of competitiveness for large
sections of the egg industry as imports of eggs and egg products
enter the UK/EU market even after paying the general tariff rate
of duty. This is likely to lead to the export of a significant
proportion of the egg industry to third countries where animal
welfare concerns are either non-existent or of much lower priority.
48. To provide an independent assessment
of the threat to our industry's future, BEIC provided the lead
role in commissioning an EU wide study into "The Impact of
the EU Directive 99/74/EC `Welfare of Laying Hens' on the Competitiveness
of the EU Egg Industry", which was carried out at the Dutch
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI).
49. This study clearly shows that both the
EU shell egg and powdered egg processing industries will be severely
disadvantaged by the combination of mandatory increases in production
costs associated with animal welfare legislation and proposed
tariff reductions (we have attached a copy in pdf format [not
printed]).
50. So exactly how much of our industry
is at risk?—It is estimated that by 2012, 40% of EU production
will be broken out of shell, as compared to 25% at present. Currently
the ratio of powdered to liquid products is 25% powder: 75% liquid.
In 2012, it is estimated that this ratio will switch to 75% powder:
25% liquid, as new technology is developed that makes it attractive
for food manufacturers, bakeries, and others to use powdered products.
Transport costs for powdered egg are low and do not present significant
barriers to trade. Shelf life is also not a trading issue for
powdered eggs. (The Study shows that food manufacturers are mainly
concerned with the microbiological quality and price of a product
when purchasing egg products, with little attention being paid
to production method or country of origin).
51. This puts at risk almost one-quarter
of the UK egg industry and almost one-third of the entire EU egg
industry.
52. We consider that there are four egg
tariff lines of critical importance in securing the future competitiveness
of the UK egg industry. These are; Eggs in shell, Dried whole
egg, Dried albumen and Dried yolk. These four tariff lines must
ideally be exempted from tariff cuts, or at the very least receive
minimum reductions. The egg sector must also be regarded as highly
sensitive during trade liberalisation negotiations.
Why should we be so uncompetitive in the future?
53. Quite simply, imports from third countries
which leave many of their costs "external to" sale price
(ie the cost of animal welfare, food safety and environmental
measures are not included within the sale price), are entering
the EU in increasing volumes. It is unlikely that these imports
will meet domestic production standards.
54. We are aware of products banned due
to food safety concerns in the EU which are used to produce eggs
in third countries, which may be subsequently imported into the
EU.
A Fundamentally Efficient UK egg industry
55. In February 2003, BEIC published a report
"The UK Egg Industry—Internal Costs and Trade Liberalisation"
(a copy is available on request in electronic format). This report
demonstrates that, although the total cost of egg production in
the UK is high in comparison to many third country competitors,
this is not due to poor production efficiency (hens in the UK
produce on average 291 eggs/hen/year compared to 263 in the USA).
56. Due to a combination of legislation
and customer demand, the UK egg industry includes a far higher
proportion of total costs in its sale price than its main competitor
countries (ie a higher level of cost internalisation). These "internalised
costs" include those related to food safety, animal welfare
and the environment, as well as more general costs related to
society and human welfare.
57. To survive in its current format the
industry needs to compete on equal terms with third country products
that exclude these costs from their sale price. These countries
are prepared to leave such costs to future generations.
58. The difference in egg production cost
between the UK and USA (the UK's main third country competitor)
is between 11.0 and 12.0 p/doz.
59. UK/EU legislation is calculated to increase
the cost of egg production by at least 10.87 p/doz. Of this figure,
5.24 p/doz is incurred currently (including minimum space allowances
and prohibition of feeding meat and bonemeal), with a further
5.62 p/doz that will be incurred by 2012 (predominantly through
the provision of additional extra space per hen).
60. Customer requirements increase costs
by a further 8.07 p/doz, giving a combined cost of 18.94 p/doz
for legislation and customer demands.
61. If egg producers in the USA were required
to operate under UK regulatory conditions (with mandatory requirements
for space provision, meat and bonemeal prohibition, salmonella
vaccination and shell marking), it is likely that UK producers
would be highly cost competitive, due to the UK's higher levels
of production efficiency.
"Green Box" Compensation
62. The European Commission has proposed
that "Green Box" compatible compensation payments should
be allowed for increases in costs directly related to animal welfare
measures, which has been recognised by Stuart Harbinson in his
recent "Agriculture Modalities Proposals" paper.
63. The UK egg industry has two specific
concerns about these proposals. Firstly; the CAP budget is already
under pressure and spending has been capped over the next 10 years
at the same time as the EU is accepting many new member countries.
It therefore seems highly unlikely that even if WTO rules permit
Green Box compensation payments, in practice they will be forthcoming
over an extended period of time.
64. Secondly; as any monies would be co-financed,
the Fontainebleau Agreement, whereby the UK Government would contribute
71% of any EU funding which is normally made on a 50/50 basis,
tends to discourage our Government from taking up any such funding.
65. We are therefore caught by a triple
"whammy"—the cost of the welfare Directive; reduced
import protection; and distortion within the EU as some Member
States provide financial support to their producers and others
do not. This situation could lead to internal trade distortion
within the EU, compounding the initial problem of distortion of
costs in comparison to third country competitors.
66. We believe that the UK Government has
a responsibility to provide resources to compensate for internalised
costs associated with animal welfare standards that go beyond
those demanded by the market. This action will permit UK egg producers
to compete with third country eggs and egg products that do not
include the same level of animal welfare, food safety and environmental
costs in their sale price.
2005 Review of Council Directive 1999/74/EC
67. In 2005, Council Directive 1999/74/EC
is subject to a review. We believe that decisions relating to
animal welfare and health should be based on sound science and
not on emotion, and that they should also be taken at an EU level
to avoid distortion of competition.
Beak Trimming of hens
68. While Council Directive 1999/74/EC authorises
beak trimming, domestic legislation will prohibit the procedure
from 31 December 2010. This is a clear case of "Gold Plating".
69. This ban is of particular concern to
the UK as a result of the large number of non-cage laying hens,
where beak trimming has been shown to be of net benefit to hen
welfare. The cost imposed by this ban will be in the form of increased
mortality and reduced egg output, although this has to be balanced
against the cost saved by not carrying out beak trimming (currently
3.0-3.5 p/hen).
70. The increased cost of egg production
(assuming the current balance of all UK egg production systems)
caused by a one per cent increase in mortality is estimated to
be 0.25 p/doz. The increased cost caused by a 1% drop in egg output
is estimated to be 0.5 p/doz.
71. BEIC has formally asked that a review
be carried out on progress aimed at phasing out the need to beak
trim at least 12 months before the ban comes into force. In other
words, if insufficient progress has been made by the breeding
companies and others in obviating the need for beak trimming,
the ban would need to be reconsidered. We believe that this is
a totally responsible course of action, as to press ahead with
a legislative ban without such progress could result in widespread
animal welfare problems.
Environmental Issues
72. BEIC supports measures introduced to
protect the environment. However, there are inconsistencies in
that this can often be in conflict with other legislation, eg
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPC) and animal welfare
legislation, and Climate Change Levy and IPPC.
IPPC
73. It is generally accepted that the most
significant environmental impacts from poultry farms are emissions
of ammonia and odours from housing. The most effective method
of reducing these emissions is to rapidly dry manure. This is
difficult to achieve in free range and barn systems but can be
achieved very effectively in conventional cage and enriched cage
systems by air drying manure on belts. A manure dry matter content
of 60% or more can be achieved within 48 hours in cage systems
and emissions of ammonia and odours are consequently reduced to
very low levels. Values of around 35g NH3 per bird per annum can
be achieved compared with values in excess of 200g NH3 per bird
per annum for alternative floor systems. A further advantage of
reduced ammonia and odours in caged systems is a better internal
environment for birds and workers in the housing. As some 71%
of UK egg production is from cage systems, moves to alternative
systems could result in an increase in the amount of ammonia emitted
to the UK environment from laying hens. This would not be in keeping
with the principals and requirements of pollution prevention and
control legislation.
74. We are also concerned that IPPC legislation
is enforced in the UK on a full cost recovery basis, which is
not always the case in other Member States. On a farm with 40,000
hens, this could increase costs by £3,500 per annum.
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
75. To comply with Council Directive 91/676/EEC,
significant areas of farmland in the UK will be designated as
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones by the end of 2003.
76. Although it is still too early to assess
the impact of this legislation, it will undoubtedly add extra
cost to egg production, through restrictions on spreading of poultry
manure, including closed seasons, quantity restrictions and additional
transport costs.
Environmental Assessment Regulations
77. The Environmental Assessment Regulations
result from EU Directive 85/337/EEC and are amended by Directive
97/11/EC.
78. They result in significant expenditure
at the planning stage. In the past other agricultural sectors
(with the exception of pigs) have not been subject to the same
degree of planning control, even though environmental impacts
may be comparable or greater.
79. These legislative demands are calculated
to cost the equivalent of £680 per annum for medium-sized
units (100,000 hens) and £850 per annum for large units (400,000
hens) (Sharp, Scottish Agricultural College, 2002).
Climate Change Levy
80. As noted above, to reduce ammonia emissions,
manure should be dried quickly. This is best achieved by blowing
air over it, driven by electric motors. However, producers are
then penalised by the CCL for using electricity.
FOOD SAFETY
Lion Code of Practice
81. The UK egg industry has invested heavily
in improving food safety standards through the Lion Code of Practice,
which accounts for some 80% of all eggs produced in the UK. This
demands standards of animal welfare and food safety above UK or
EU legislation, and includes the compulsory vaccination of hens
against salmonella.
82. In addition, the industry has invested
heavily in communicating the benefits of the Lion Quality standards
to consumers.
83. The success of the Lion Quality scheme
in reducing the number of cases of human Salmonellosis was confirmed
by the Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological
Safety of Food (May 2001), who led with the headline "we
are seeing a real success story here". Human Salmonellosis
cases had reduced by 54% over a three-year period following the
introduction of compulsory vaccination of laying hens against
Salmonella.
84. Government Ministers have also recognised
the achievements of the industry in raising food safety standards
and communicating the message effectively to consumers, without
any financial support.
European Commission Proposals on Measures for
the Control and Prevention of Zoonoses
85. The European Commission has published
proposals on a Directive and Regulation for the control and prevention
of Zoonoses. While much of what is being proposed is already contained
in the Lion Code, problems are likely to arise if flocks were
found to be Salmonella positive. Egg processors are unlikely to
be willing to process eggs from known positive flocks due to the
cross contamination risks involved and the requirements of customer
assurance codes, which they are required to follow. Additionally,
slaughterhouses may also be unwilling to take known positive flocks
due to meat hygiene concerns. Slaughter and disposal of laying
hens could therefore be a huge problem during a disease incidence.
Consumer choice
86. The UK egg industry, via the Lion Quality
scheme, offers consumers a choice of which eggs to purchase. Despite
honest labelling, eg no misleading descriptions or pictures of
farmyard scenes on packs containing cage eggs, and the inclusion
of the term "eggs from caged hens" on packs, there remains
a significant proportion of consumers who make their egg purchases
based on price. In fact, for those eggs sold at retail level,
value/economy eggs account for over 40% of sales in the major
multiple retailers. We do not expect this situation to change.
Power of the Retailers
87. We believe that many of the problems
facing agriculture in general are the direct result of the buying
policies of the multiple retailers, coupled with consumers' demand
for cheap food.
88. The BEIC is very concerned that, historically,
there has been no recognition of cost of production during negotiations
with multiple retailers. This is despite the £32 million
investment by the egg industry via the Lion Quality Scheme, which
has raised food safety standards to what are arguably the highest
in the World. BEIC producers and packers have not even been able
to recoup any of this investment. We believe that this is unsustainable
from a supplier's point of view, and is not in the long-term interest
of consumers or even more concerningly, food safety.
89. As with every fresh, perishable product,
the greatest fear of a supplier to the retail trade is losing
business. Historically, in the egg sector where there has been
generally more than one supplier to a particular retailer, the
fear of losing business could, and inevitably did, lead to prices
being pitched downwards, even below the cost of production in
an effort to maintain business.
90. We believe that the marketplace has
an important role to play in maintaining high levels of animal
health and welfare. The egg industry's customers must therefore
recognise their responsibility in this area.
Imports
91. BEIC strongly supports moves to eliminate
illegal imports of animal products. However the egg sector is
concerned over some of the legal imports that arrive in the UK.
92. This was demonstrated in 2002 when imports
of shell eggs from Spain, which did not conform to the rigorous
standards demanded by the Lion Quality Scheme, were at the centre
of outbreaks of Salmonella in the human population.
93. BEIC believes that imports of eggs and
egg products should be rigorously monitored to ensure that they
comply with our own high standards.
British Egg Industry Council
May 2003
Annex A
THE BRITISH
EGG INDUSTRY
COUNCIL
The BEIC is an inter-professional organisation
of 11 trade associations in the UK, which cover all aspects of
the egg industry—breeding, hatching, rearing, laying, packing,
egg processing and marketing.
The principal function of the BEIC is to represent
the interests of its Members (the UK egg industry) in discussions
with Government, MPs, the European Commission, European Parliament,
and other bodies. BEIC also finances research and development.
BEIC is recognised by Government and Parliament as the representative
voice of the UK egg industry.
The 11 representative Trade Associations are:
— British Egg Association (BEA)
— British Egg Products Association
(BEPA)
— British Free Range Egg Producers
Association (BFREPA)
— National Egg Marketing Association
Ltd (NEMAL)
— National Farmers' Union (England
and Wales) (NFU)
— National Farmers' Union (Scotland)
(NFUS)
— Northern Ireland Poultry Breeders
and Hatcheries Association (NIPBHA)
— Pullet Hatcheries Association (PHA)
— Pullet Rearers' Association (PRA)
— Scottish Egg Producers Retailers
Association (SEPRA)
— Ulster Farmers Union (UFU)
The Council of the BEIC is made up of the 11
organisations listed above. The Chairman of each organisation
attends the quarterly Council meeting, where policy is determined.
BEIC is funded exclusively by a voluntary levy
on a number of packers and producer/packers who between them represent
some 80% of egg output in the UK. These "subscribers"
to the BEIC adhere to the "Lion" Code of Practice, which
sets higher standards of both hygiene and welfare than is currently
required by UK or EU law.
BEIC members and staff also hold key positions
in the following EU and global organisations:
— COPA/COGECA (the EU organisation
for producers and cooperatives)
— EEPTA (the EU organisation for egg
packers and traders)
— EEPA (the EU organisation for egg
processors)
— EUWEP (the umbrella organisation
for EEPTA and EEPA)
— The European Commission's Standing
Group
— International Egg Commission (the
global body for egg producers, packers, traders, processors and
allied industries)
Annex B
BACKGROUND FACTS
ON THE
UK EGG INDUSTRY
During 2002, the UK was the sixth largest egg
producer in the EU after Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the
Netherlands.
The UK is home to approximately 30 million laying
hens and is only 90% self-sufficient in eggs.
Eggs are produced in one of three main systems
(source—DEFRA Egg Statistics Notice—UK packing station
throughput—2002):
— 23% free range (including organic)
The UK is home to 46% of all EU free range laying
hens and 61% of all EU barn laying hens.
There are some 280 million laying hens in the
EU, of which 87% are housed in conventional cages.
The value of egg output in the UK in 2002 was
£476 million (ex-farm, eggs for human consumption—DEFRA
provisional data).
In terms of market volume, approximately 64%
of eggs were sold at retail level, 18% were purchased by the catering
sector and 18 per cent were manufactured/processed into various
egg products.
The UK egg industry is a significant employer
of labour. It is estimated that 10,000 persons are employed directly
by the UK egg industry, with a further 13,000 directly employed
in ancillary industries (eggs and poultrymeat).
The UK laying flock consumes a sizeable proportion
of the total grain fed to livestock—820,000 tonnes per annum.
The egg industry is therefore a significant purchaser of UK cereals.
| 
