2 Labelling of beef and beef products
| (25607)
8963/04
COM(04) 316
| Commission Report on the implementation of Title II of Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 27 April 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 May 2004
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 4
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 Largely as a result of the BSE crisis, the Council adopted
Regulation (EC) No. 820/97,[3]
which introduced a voluntary beef labelling scheme, enabling those
Member States that had established a system of individual livestock
identification and movement registration to enact national legislation
requiring the compulsory labelling of certain characteristics
of beef produced from animals born, reared and slaughtered within
their borders. That Regulation originally provided for the introduction
of a compulsory system for the origin labelling of beef in all
Member States from 1 January 2000, but, following a further proposal[4]
from the Commission, the Regulation eventually adopted (No. 1760/2000)[5]
made it compulsory for the complete origin of all cattle to be
indicated as from 1 January 2002, leaving other types of information
— such
as the breed, type of production and animal age, as well as information
on the way animals are reared and fed, and their general welfare
—
to be provided on a voluntary basis under national schemes. The
later Regulation also required the Commission to evaluate the
way in which Member States have applied the new compulsory labelling
provisions; to examine the possibility of extending the scope
of that Regulation, in particular to cover processed products
containing beef and beef products; and to bring forward, if necessary,
proposals on how some of the provisions in the current proposal
might evolve in the medium term. It has sought to do this in
the current document.
The current document
2.2 The Commission points out that the system now
in place for beef covers the product[6]
from the holding on which the cattle are born right up until it
appears in retail outlets, and says that this represents a major
advance in consumer information and transparency, made possible
by the individual cattle identification system which has been
compulsory in all Member States since 1997. It notes that, at
each processing stage, information is available on the national
origins of the cattle from which the meat is obtained; the reference
code needed to link the meat and the animal; and the Community
approval number of the slaughterhouses and cutting plants where
it has been processed. However, it also notes that origin tracing
of beef is more complicated than that for other agricultural products,
due to the movements of animals throughout their life and the
different stages of processing which the meat undergoes. As a
result, it says that, in order to ensure that the batches of meat
they produce are of homogeneous origin, operators have had to
make major changes in the organisation of their work, notably
in reviewing their suppliers and in investing in suitable computer-based
traceability systems.
2.3 Despite these changes, the Commission says that
inspection reports have revealed variations in traceability at
the different stages of beef processing, with difficulties arising
especially in secondary cutting plants, which assemble meat from
different batches to make up orders for consumers. It has therefore
recommended that industry trade bodies should draw up a Community-level
good practice guide for beef traceability, with a set of specifications
common to all traceability systems, which would represent a minimum
standard of performance, reliability and compatibility. In addition,
the report identifies a number of other shortcomings in the implementation
of the Regulation, including cases where meat has been labelled
with several slaughterhouse numbers for the same batch, the labelling
of non-pre-wrapped products, labelling in retail outlets, and
the labelling of trimmings; and it notes that, in many cases,
official bodies responsible for health and hygiene have been designated
to supervise beef traceability and origin, and often tend to give
this task a lower priority. Finally, the reports notes that the
same labelling provisions apply to beef imported from third countries,
and that the main countries involved (Argentina and Brazil) have
already adopted, and started to implement, legislation making
compulsory the individual identification of cattle whose meat
is intended for the Community. Overall, the report suggests that
origin labelling has made a significant contribution to the recent
recovery in beef consumption, and has increased transparency within
the sector, but that it has also led to a certain re-nationalisation
of trade. It says that this is particularly so in the case of
products sold to the final consumer, a trend which the report
suggests has been reinforced by the tendency of the retail trade
to offer consumers meat predominantly of domestic origin. It
says that this can lead to problems in finding outlets for meat
from animals of mixed origin.
2.4 In the light of these comments, the report examines
the feasibility of extending the scope of origin labelling. The
options considered include extending the system to cover beef
products mixed with other ingredients (which the Commission believes
would be extremely difficult to implement, given the multiplicity
of products involved), and extending it to processed products,
such as canned meats and ready meals (which it again considers
would be difficult to implement in view of the multiple batches
of raw materials used). The report also considers its application
within the restaurant, institutional catering and fast food sectors
(where the beef supplied is already covered by the Regulation,
but where consumers are not automatically told where it comes
from); however, the Commission says that, although it accepts
the case in principle for providing this information, it considers
that similar practical difficulties to those for processed products
would arise, given the heterogeneous nature of catering supplies.
2.5 The report also considers ways of simplifying
the origin labelling provisions. It rejects the possibility of
allowing batches of minced meat to be drawn from more than one
country of slaughter, but it suggests that the Commission should
itself adopt, under Management Committee procedure, measures to
allow beef from more than one cutting plant to be combined at
the secondary processing stage, and simplified measures for the
labelling of trimmings and beef products sold unwrapped. It also
suggests that consideration should be given to replacing the current
requirement for the name of the originating Member State or third
country to be shown on the label and for this to be replaced in
certain instances by an indication of Community origin, which
it suggests could eliminate some of the barriers to free circulation
and provide a satisfactory solution for meat from cattle of mixed
origin,[7] whilst enabling
traceability to be maintained at all stages of processing.
The Government's view
2.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 May 2004,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Farming, Foods and
Sustainable Energy) at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) notes that the Commission limits its
proposals for change to "some technical simplifications"
of the existing system, which he says are likely to be generally
welcomed as they will simplify the system for applicants without
diminishing the system's effectiveness. However, he suggests that
there is likely to be some concern over the Commission's position
regarding minced beef from more than one country being combined
in the same batch, and that the suggestion that Community, rather
than national, origin should be indicated may not be welcomed
by some sectors of the industry. The Minister also suggests that,
although there are no financial or regulatory implications flowing
directly from the report, any subsequent proposals will be examined
in the usual way. In the meantime, he says his Department will
be writing to stakeholders seeking any comments they may have.
Conclusion
2.7 Although we recognise that this document is
a Commission report, and does not of itself constitute a legislative
proposal, we nevertheless note that it contains a number of suggestions,
which the Commission proposes to adopt using the Management Committee
procedure. Were that to be the case, these would be subject to
parliamentary scrutiny only if the proposals failed to secure
the necessary majority in the Management Committee, and hence
had to be referred to the Council under the relevant comitology
procedures. Consequently, we do not feel able to clear the current
document without at least some clearer indication from the Minister
as to how the UK would view these changes, and what their implications
might be. It would also be helpful if he could at the same time
let us know how stakeholders react to the consultation exercise
which he says his Department is carrying out. In the meantime,
we will hold the document under scrutiny.
3 OJ No. L 117, 7.5.97, p.1. Back
4
(20627) 12030/99; see HC 23-viii (1999-2000), para 1 (9 February
2000), HC 23-xv (1999-2000), para 6 (19 April 2000) and HC 23-xvi
(1999-2000), para 4 (10 May 2000). Back
5
OJ No L.204, 11.8.00, p.1. Back
6
The system does not extend to processed beef products, products
containing beef and other ingredients, or prepared meals produced
by the restaurant, institutional catering or fast-food sectors. Back
7
Where the country of birth, rearing and slaughter is not the same. Back
|
