8 Use of mechanically separated meat
(32318)
17547/10
COM(10) 704
| Commission Communication on the future necessity and use of mechanically separated meat in the European Union, including the information policy towards consumers
|
Legal base |
|
Document originated | 2 December 2010
|
Deposited in Parliament | 10 December 2010
|
Department | Food Standards Agency
|
Basis of consideration | Undated EM
|
Previous Committee Report | None
|
To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 Mechanically separated meat (MSM) is obtained by removing
remaining meat from bones or poultry carcases, and it is an important
raw material for the manufacturing of meat products and preparations.
However, because of public health concerns including a
potential risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
the use of bones from ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) as raw
material for producing MSM has been banned in the EU since 2001,
by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The Commission was asked
in 2006 to assess the future necessity and use of MSM, including
the information policy towards consumers, and it has now done
so in this Communication.
The current document
8.2 The Communication which the Commission says has
been prepared following extensive consultation with Member States
and the main stakeholder organisations seeks to:
- provide an overview of the current EU legal provisions related
to MSM;
- provide an overview and assessment on its production
and use in the EU;
- evaluate the implementation of EU provisions
for the production and labelling of MSM, and to identify whether
these need to be reviewed in the medium term.
EU LEGISLATION RELATING TO MSM
8.3 The Commission notes that the definition
of MSM contained in two pieces of EU legislation[48]
is a generic one, covering all methods of mechanical separation
in order to differentiate between MSM and cut or minced meat,
and is flexible because of rapid technological developments. In
essence, however, it requires MSM (i) to be derived from flesh-bearing
bones after boning or from poultry carcases, (ii) to involve the
use of mechanical means, and (iii) to result in the loss or modification
of muscle fibre structure. The use of bones or bone-in cuts from
cattle, sheep and goats for MSM production is prohibited in all
Member States, and from imports of products originating from them,
but the production and import of MSM from other species is allowed
under certain hygiene and labelling requirements. In addition,
Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 lays down specific requirements for
MSM production establishments and the raw materials from which
it can be obtained, and the specific hygiene requirements to be
complied with during and after its production, according to whether
the MSM is obtained by low or high pressure extraction.
8.4 The Commission adds that MSM differs significantly
from "meat" as perceived by consumers, and is therefore
excluded from the latter definition in Commission Directive 2001/101/EC
(which regulates the definition of meat for labelling purposes).
As a result, it says that MSM and the species from which it is
obtained must be specifically mentioned.
PRODUCTION AND USE OF MSM
8.5 The Commission says that high pressure MSM
(usually involving a pressure above 100 bar) results in a product
with a characteristic and particularly pasty texture resulting
from the loss or modification of muscle fibre, whereas low pressure
MSM may result in a product which cannot readily be differentiated
visually from minced meat. However, it adds that an evaluation
of loss or modification of muscle fibre is possible using microscopic
sections of meat.
8.6 The Commission says that four Member States
have no establishments approved for the production of MSM, whilst
others could not provide data differentiating between high and
low pressure MSM, or the species from which MSM is derived. However,
it estimates that just under 700,000 tonnes of MSM was produced
in 2006-07 from 20 Member States; that, where the method of production
was specified, 77% of MSM was high pressure; and that, where the
species was indicated, 88% was derived from poultry, and more
than 11% from pigs.[49]
It says that the value of high pressure MSM reported by Member
States varied from 0.3-0.6 per kg, with the corresponding
figures for low pressure MSM being 0.6-1.5 per kg, and the
total value of reported MSM production 400-900 million.
MSM production from poultry represents 2-4% of total annual turnover
of poultry meat, with equivalent figures of about 0.1-0.3% in
the case of pigmeat.
8.7 The Commission says that low and high pressure
MSM is mostly used for food for human consumption, though a limited
amount of the high pressure variety is used for pet food. It says
that 23 Member States have indicated that they wish to continue
the production of MSM, though two of these allow only the low
pressure method: and the majority of Member States consider that
no specific food safety risks are associated with the use of MSM
in food, given the requirements laid down in EU legislation, and
in particular the ban on the use of MSM derived from bones from
countries or regions with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk.
8.8 The Commission adds that the meat industry
has expressed an interest in producing both kinds of MSM, particularly
the higher quality low pressure variety, whereas it says consumers
are concerned about the content of meat products on the market,
and often associate MSM with cheap quality products. Thus, although
consumers associations favour the use of MSM, this is on condition
that it is properly labelled, and that clearer rules for its production
and use are laid down. In particular, the Commission observes
that it is unacceptable from a consumer point of view to include
MSM within the definition of meat for labelling purposes.
8.9 The Commission observes that, whilst Member
States have reported intra-EU trade in MSM, exact data had not
been provided, but it estimates that about 150,000 tonnes of mainly
high pressure MSM, or about 20% of EU production, was exported
in 2008, principally to Russia and Ukraine. It also notes that
imports of MSM were prohibited before the adoption of Regulation
(EC) No 853/2004, and that four establishments in New Zealand
are allowed to export it to the EU.
IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE AND LABELLING REQUIREMENT
8.10 The Commission says that evaluation of the
system of official controls is part of the mission of its Food
and Veterinary Office in Member States and third countries, and
that, although certain shortcomings have been identified, conditions
for the production, handling and use of MSM generally comply with
EU requirements. It adds that visual or microscopic indicators
can be used in relation to the production of MSM or its use as
a raw material, but that the focus at the retail level is on the
proper labelling of final products containing MSM. It points out
that in general MSM can only be used in heat-treated meat products
produced in approved establishments, but that low pressure MSM
may, under certain conditions, also be used in meat preparations
which are not intended to be consumed following heat treatment.
It suggests that the public health risks from consuming meat preparations
and products containing MSM produced in accordance with current
hygiene provisions is negligible, and that there is thus no need
for any change in the relevant legal provisions.
8.11 The Commission also considers implementation
of the definition of MSM, and says that, if a technology for mechanical
separation has been used in certain Member States, the product
is considered as MSM, irrespective of whether "flesh-bearing
bones after boning or poultry carcases" are used, or there
is a clear loss or modification of muscle fibre structure, whereas
other Member States require all elements in the definition of
MSM to be observed an approach which it says is supported
by the meat industry. The Commission notes that the rapid technological
developments in this area have resulted in some products with
characteristics close or similar to those of minced meat, and
should labelled accordingly, and it says that some businesses
produce MSM from bones after heat treatment, whereas only fresh
meat is considered to be a raw material for MSM production, leading
to uncertainty as to whether the resulting product should be considered
as MSM.
8.12 Finally, the Commission looks at the labelling
requirements for low and high pressure MSM, observing that both
are covered by the definition of MSM, and that the industry is
content for high pressure MSM to be labelled as such. However,
the industry believes that, if a product containing low pressure
MSM cannot be visually differentiated from minced meat, it could
be labelled as meat, regardless of the method of production. On
the other hand, consumers believe that no differentiation should
be made between the two types of MSM for labelling purposes, as
few of them would understand the difference between high and low
pressure MSM, and that the use of MSM must be indicated on labels.
COMMISSION POSITION
8.13 The Commission summarises its position in
the following terms:
- due in part to its economic
benefits, Member States and stakeholder meat organisations support
the continued use of MSM, with only a few Member States preferring
to use only low pressure MSM;
- the risks to public health associated with the
consumption of meat preparations and meat products when MSM is
used as a raw material can be considered negligible, and therefore
there is no need for any change to the relevant legal provisions;
- there are no objections to the continued use
of MSM from pigs and poultry, but there should be no reintroduction
of MSM from cattle, sheep or goats;
- there is a need to better define MSM products,
and the Commission will produce a guidance document to better
identify products which need to be considered as MSM (and, if
appropriate, propose legislative amendments);
- the obligation to label any use of MSM should
be maintained to ensure that consumers are informed about the
use of MSM in general, and there should continue to be no differentiation
in the labelling provisions for low and high pressure MSM.
The Government's view
8.14 In her (undated) Explanatory Memorandum,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health (Anne
Milton) says that this Communication has potential cost implications
for UK industry if it were to be the basis for the Commission
to bring forward proposals for new guidance and/or legislation.
8.15 In particular, she points out that the UK
distinguishes between low pressure and high pressure MSM, the
former being referred to a de-sinewed meat (DSM) and regarded
as a meat preparation rather than MSM (as defined). She explains
this on the basis that DSM can be distinguished from 'high pressure'
MSM as it can be shown to retain muscle fibre structure, adding
that examination by light microscopy can be used to assess whether
there has been a loss or modification of internal muscle fibre
structure. She says that the Government has funded the development
of a simple microscopy method (which is available to UK public
analyst laboratories) to assess the level of integrity of muscle
fibre structure and the presence of other structural aspects in
mechanically separated pork, chicken and turkey meat, and that
it is in the process of evaluating whether the same method is
suitable for the analysis of muscle fibre structure in beef and
lamb MSM, DSM, de-boned and minced meat. She observes that the
indications are that it is possible to use the existing light
microscopy method to also assess the loss or modification of muscle
fibre structure in the beef and lamb meat samples recovered mechanically
and by hand, and that a high level of intact muscle structure
was found in beef and lamb DSM in contrast to the low level seen
in MSM.
8.16 The Minister goes on to point out that currently
significant amounts of DSM are produced in the UK, and that, if
the current Commission interpretation that DSM is MSM is confirmed
in the guidance document, production from cattle and sheep bones
or bone in cuts would be prohibited under Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathy (TSE) Regulations: in addition, DSM from pork and
poultry would have to be re-classified as MSM, decreasing its
value. She adds that the UK allows production of DSM as the product
is a coarse, mince- like material that retains muscle fibre structure
and is not therefore covered by the definition of MSM as set out
in Hygiene and TSE legislation, and she suggests that the impact
on the producers of de-sinewed lamb and beef meat is likely to
be significant as a currently lucrative trade may have to cease.
8.17 The Minister notes that the Food Standards
Agency advice is that DSM from beef and lamb does not present
any risk to human health because:
- no specified risk material
(SRM) (the tissues most likely to contain TSE infectivity) or
cuts of meat containing SRM can be used in the production of DSM;
- the process of DSM production leaves the bones
intact and no bone marrow enters the product.
- the product is easily distinguishable from 'high
pressure MSM', which produces a paste- like product, and which
may represent a slightly higher (but still very low TSE risk)
as the bones are broken and bone marrow enters the product (though
experts have advised that the available evidence does not exclude
the possibility that infectivity may occur occasionally at a low
level in the bone marrow of animals showing clinical signs of
BSE).
8.18 In particular, the Minister says that the
Government does not agree with the conclusions reached by the
Commission, specifically on the status of DSM, and will work with
it and other Member States to find a sensible solution to the
issues identified, arguing that the Commission's interpretation
of the current legislation would have the effect of reducing the
value that can be derived from the carcases of slaughtered animals
without any food safety benefit. She says that the Government
intends to write to the Commission to put forward these views,
and that in the meantime the FSA has assured the British Meat
Processor's Association (BMPA) which has already expressed
its concern about the Commission Communication that production
of DSM can continue for the time being.
8.19 She says that the Food Standards Agency
(FSA) is aware that at least six other Member States produce DSM,
and that recent correspondence with the French authorities has
confirmed that they too wish for a distinction to be made between
mechanical separation at high and low pressure. The FSA will also
prepare an impact assessment in consultation with the industry,
and will firm up any figures on the basis of discussions with
the Commission and Member States in advance of any formal proposal
emerging. In the meantime, as there are no proposals for change
at present, no formal consultation is envisaged, but one is likely
to follow once the Commission publishes its guidance or proposals
for legislative change.
Conclusion
8.20 Whilst there appears to be general agreement
on the treatment of high pressure MSM, there are clearly significant
differences of opinion over the product referred to by the Commission
as low pressure MSM, but which the UK prefers to call de-sinewed
meat (DSM), and the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum raises a
number of questions.
8.21 First, it is not clear to us the extent
to which the UK's decision to refer to that product as DSM is
because this is a term with which the industry feels more comfortable,
or because it reflects a view that the nature of the product does
not correspond with the definition of MSM in the relevant EU legislation.
If the latter is the case, we assume it is related to the extent
to which there is a loss or modification of muscle fibre structure,
but it would be interesting to have a fuller explanation of why
the UK makes this distinction, and in particular what impact the
UK interpretation has on the application of the EU legislation
in question. For example, if DSM is not regarded as MSM is it
subject to the labelling provisions on MSM and is there any restriction
on the use of ruminant bones for its production?
8.22 Secondly, we would be interested to know
whether the Commission's view reflects advice from the European
Food Safety Authority, and, if not, what view the Authority has
taken on this issue.
8.23 Thirdly, we are struck by the extent
to which the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum concentrates on
the possible implications of the Commission's Communication for
the food industry: and, whilst this may be a legitimate concern,
she makes little or no reference to the views of UK consumers.
We would, therefore, like to know whether they share the concerns
attributed by the Commission to consumers generally.
8.24 We would be grateful for clarification
on these various points, and in the meantime we will continue
to hold the document under scrutiny.
48 Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (the TSE Regulation)
and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (laying down specific rules for
food of animal origin). Back
49
No details of the species of origin were available for about one-third
of overall production, but the Commission describes the production
of MSM from species other than poultry or pigs as "negligible". Back
|