Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the European Commission
Part I: Legal Framework
Traceability of food
Food and feed traceability is the ability to track any food, feed food producing animal or substance that may be destined for human consumption through all stages of production, processing and distribution of foods. The principle of food and feed traceability is established in Regulation (EU) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety,1 and originates primarily from the need to ensure food safety.
As stated in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the functioning of the internal market could be jeopardized where it is impossible to trace food and feed, and therefore, the establishment of a comprehensive system of traceability within food businesses throughout the food chain is necessary for the protection of public health and consumers’ interests.2
Traceability does not itself make food safe; it is a means to contain a food safety problem. In particular, traceability records:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The traceability requirements for food and feed are laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
The requirement to identify suppliers and other businesses to which products are supplied is known as the “one step back—one step forward” approach. This approach implies the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The products covered by the general traceability requirement are “any substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed”, as a part of a food or feed during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. As such, it covers all types of food and feed ingredients.
The general traceability requirement applies to food business operators at all stages of the food/feed chain, from primary production (food producing animals, harvests), food/feed processing to distribution and supply, including brokers, regardless of whether they take physical possession of the food/feed in question, as well as transporters and storage businesses and businesses involved in the distribution of food/feed.
In addition, Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 requires food and feed operators to have in place systems and procedures to ensure the traceability of their products. Although the latter provision does not provide any details about these systems, the use of terms “systems” and “procedures” implies a structured mechanism able to deliver the needed information upon request from the national competent authorities. Each business is responsible for its own activities within a chain, but there is a joint responsibility throughout the chain.
The type of information to be kept by the food and feed business operators is not specified in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. However, to ensure compliance with the objective of this provision, food business operators should keep at least the following information:
Name, address of supplier and identification of products supplied.
Name, address of customer and identification of products delivered.
Date and, where necessary, time of transaction/delivery.
Volume, where appropriate, or quantity.
Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 does not specify a minimum period of time for keeping records, and therefore it is for the food business operators to decide, bearing in mind that failure to produce adequate records would constitute an offence. The Commission Guidance on the application of this provision suggests that a five-year period following the date of manufacturing or delivery for traceability records would likely meet the objective of the provision at issue. However, this common rule would need to be adapted in some cases:
In some cases, for highly perishable products, which have a “use by” date less than three months or without a specified date, destined directly to final consumer, records could be kept for the period of six months.
For products with a “best before” date, records could be kept for the period of the “shelf-life” plus six months.
For products without a specified durability date, the general rule of five years could apply.
The general traceability requirement does not apply outside the EU; it only covers all stages of production, processing and distribution in the Union, ie from the EU importer to retail level.
If a food business operator considers or has reason to believe that a food which it has imported, produced, processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with the food safety requirements, it shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question from the market where the food has left the immediate control of that initial food business operator and inform the competent authorities or where necessary to recall where the product has reached the consumer.
1. Specific EU requirements on traceability for foods of animal origin
To ensure the correct application of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, additional traceability requirements for food of animal origin are laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011,4 which is applicable as of 1 July 2012. The adoption of such rules was considered appropriate as experience had shown that food business operators did not generally possess the information needed in relation to foods of animal origin to ensure that their systems identifying the handling or storage of foods of animal origin was adequate. This had resulted in this sector to unnecessarily high economic losses due to the lack of quick and full traceability of the food.5
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 applies to food of animal origin defined as “unprocessed and processed products” in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs.6 It does not apply to food which contains products of plant origin together with processed products of animal origin.7
According to Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011, food business operators must ensure that the following information concerning consignments of food of animal origin is made available to the food business operator to whom the food is supplied and, upon request, to the competent authority:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
The above mentioned information must be updated on a daily basis and as a minimum be kept at least until it can be reasonably assumed that the food has been consumed.
When requested by the national competent authority, the food business operator must provide the information without undue delay. The appropriate form in which the information must be made available is up to the choice of the supplier of the food, as long as the information requested is clearly and unequivocally available to and retrievable by the business operator to whom the food is supplied.
2. Specific EU requirements on traceability for beef
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97.8 The basic objectives for Community rules on the identification of bovine animals are:
the localisation and tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial importance for the control of infectious diseases;
the traceability of beef for public health reasons; and
the management and supervision of livestock premiums as part of the common organisation of the market in beef and veal.
The system for the identification and registration of individual bovine animals includes the following elements:
double ear tags for each animal with an individual number;
maintaining a register on each holding (farm, market etc.);
cattle-passports; and
a computerised database at national level.
Operators and organisations marketing beef must indicate on the label information about the beef and the point of slaughter of the animal or animals from which that beef was derived. Currently mandatory rules on origin labelling exist for several sectors, (fruit and vegetables, bananas, olive oil, wine, eggs, imported poultry, honey and hops). In the case of beef, the labelling requirements must indicate where the animal or animals from which the beef was derived were born, raised and slaughtered.
Additional Information may be provided under the voluntary beef labelling system; however, there is a Commission’s legislative proposal (currently under Co-decision) which aims to delete the provisions for voluntary beef labelling. Voluntary beef labelling provisions does not provide information on traceability. Information on traceability is ensured by Mandatory beef labelling.
3. Labelling of food. EU requirements
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs9 sets out Union rules on food labelling applicable to all foods.
According to Directive 2000/13/EC, the labelling and methods used should not mislead the consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of the food, including its true nature and its identity.10 Furthermore, in the absence of specific Union or national rules, the name under which a food is sold should be the name customary in the Member State in which it is sold, or a description of the food, which is clear enough to let the purchaser know its true nature.11
Moreover, all ingredients must be mentioned on the label of pre-packaged foodstuffs intended for the final consumer or mass caterers. In particular, foods containing meat as an ingredient, when intended for the final consumer or mass caterers, must also indicate the animal species from which the meat originates directly on the package or on a label attached thereto.12If an ingredient is mentioned in the name of the food, its quantity expressed as a percentage must also be provided in the list of ingredients in order to avoid the consumer being misled as regards the identity and the composition of the food. 13
As of 13 December 2014, Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers will repeal and replace Directive 2000/13/EC.14 Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011 maintains all the above-mentioned food labelling requirements. In addition, in the case of meat products or meat preparations containing added proteins as such, including hydrolysed proteins, of a different animal origin, the latter Regulation requires the name of the food shall bear an indication of the presence of those proteins and of their origin. Accordingly, a beef burger containing horse protein would have to be designated under the name “beef burger with horse protein”. The new rules will apply as of 13 December 2014.
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin15 provides for additional labelling requirements applicable to specific foods of animal origin. In particular, it provides that packages intended for supply to the final consumer containing minced meat, amongst others, from solipeds are to bear a notice indicating that such products should be cooked before consumption, if, and to the extent that, national rules in the Member State in the territory of which the product is placed on the market so require.
The responsibility for enforcing the EU labelling requirements remains with the national competent authorities, which are to conduct official controls in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
4. General Hygiene rules regarding the production of horsemeat
(a)
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 requires that FBOs carrying out primary production shall also comply with some specific requirements provided for in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 including sending only properly identified animals to the slaughterhouse and to provide slaughterhouse operators with the FCI. FBOs operating slaughterhouses must ensure that the procedures that they have put in place in accordance with the general requirements of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 guarantee that each animal or, where appropriate, each lot of animals accepted onto the slaughterhouse premises is properly identified (Annex II, Section II of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004). Regulation (EC) No 504/2008 implementing Council Directives 90/426/EEC and 90/427/EEC as regards methods for the identification of equidae16 sets out specific requirements for identification of these animals.
(b)
The current EU rules for the identification of equidae are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/2008 of 6 June 2008. This Regulation is the key document in relation to two aspects of the current “horse meat scandal”:
(a)
(b)
The passport became obligatory for movements of all equidae after the date of 1 July 2000. Since 2000 the medication record is a compulsory tool:
(a)
(b)
The Regulation aims at preventing the issuance of more than one passport by the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The principle mechanism of that medication record is, that equidae which are by default food producing animals, can only be treated with medicaments authorised for food producing animals. In case treated with essential substances the passport must report an extended waiting period of six months or the horse must be excluded from the food chain.
(c)
Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 sets out that the FBO carrying out any stage of production, processing and distribution of food after the stage of primary production/associated operations shall comply with the general requirements of Annex II to this Regulation. These provisions relate to cleaning and maintenance, layout, design, construction, site and size of the food premises.
(d)
Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 sets out that the FBO shall comply with the specific requirements of Annexes II and III to this Regulation. Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 states that the FBO shall adopt specific hygiene measures regarding compliance with hygienic criteria for foodstuffs, compliance with temperature control requirements, sampling and analysis.
(e)
Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs are contained in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.
(f)
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 requires that the FBO shall put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the HACCP principles. The specific requirements for HACCP-based procedures in slaughterhouses are given in Section II of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
(g)
Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption17 requires that verification of compliance with traceability requirements takes place in all approved establishments.
(h)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing18 lays down requirements to protect animals at time of killing and applies from 1st January 2013. The main improvements are: appointment of an animal welfare officer, certificate of competence for all personnel, compulsory monitoring of loss of consciousness when the animal is stunned or slaughtered without stunning, obligation to implement Standard Operating Procedures, new technical and equipment requirements.
(i)
Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires that the OV shall carry out inspection tasks in slaughterhouses in accordance with the general requirements of Section I, Chapter II, of Annex I, and with the specific requirements of Section IV, in particular as regards the FCI, ante-mortem inspection, animal welfare, post-mortem inspection and laboratory testing.
Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires that the health marking of carcasses shall be carried out in slaughterhouses and game-handling establishments in accordance with Section I, Chapter III, of Annex I. Health marks shall be applied by, or under the responsibility of, the official veterinarian (OV) when official controls have not identified any deficiencies that would make the meat unfit for human consumption.
Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires that after carrying out the controls mentioned in points 1 and 2, the OV shall take appropriate measures as set out in Annex I, Section II, in particular as regards the communication of inspection results, decisions concerning the food chain information (FCI), decisions concerning live animals, decisions concerning animal welfare and decisions concerning meat.
(j)
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires that OV shall carry out audits of good hygiene practices and HACCP-based procedures and any particular auditing tasks specified in the Annexes.
Article 4(4) requires that audits of good hygiene practices shall verify that FBOs apply procedures continuously and properly concerning at least checks on the FCI, the design and maintenance of premises and equipment, pre-operational, operational and post-operational hygiene, personal hygiene, training in hygiene and in work procedures, pest control, water quality; temperature control and controls on food entering and leaving the establishment and any accompanying documentation.
Article 4(5) requires that audits of HACCP-based procedures shall verify that FBOs apply such procedures continuously and properly, having particular regard to ensuring that the procedures provide the guarantees specified in Section II of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
5. Official Controls on the Food chain
Member States are responsible for the enforcement of EU food chain legislation and are required to verify, through the organisation of official controls, that the requirements deriving thereof are complied with by operators at all stages of production, processing and distribution.
The organisation of official controls must conform to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Member States shall organise such controls (in the form of inspections, audits, sampling and testing, as appropriate according to the type of requirement to be enforced) and implement them regularly, on all operators along the food chain, without prior notice, and with appropriate frequency.
The competent authorities in the Member States are also under the obligation to take suitable measures to eliminate non-compliances and ensure enforcement of EU food chain legislation in relation to both domestic products and imports from outside the Union.
The Commission constantly monitors delivery by the Member States of their control duties, including through on-the-spot audits carried out by its Food and Veterinary Office.
Member States shall determine the intensity of their control efforts (and in particular the frequency of such controls in relation to the different categories operators) having regard to potential risks to human/animal health posed by the commodity or production method concerned; to the record of compliance of the operator; to measures taken by the operator to mitigate risk, and to the risk of non-compliance in certain segments or by certain operators of the food chain.
In some areas, however, the frequency and modalities of official controls are established by Union legislation because of the recognised, intrinsic risks presented by certain products. This is the case for instance of ante and post mortem inspections in slaughterhouses and meat plants and of the control plans required by Directive 96/23 for residues of veterinary medicines. Union provisions dictate the details and the frequency of such mandatory controls.
As to meat inspection, for instance, competent authorities are to ensure that at least one official veterinarian is present in the slaughterhouse throughout ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections, and in game handling establishments during the post-mortem.
In meat cutting plants, an official veterinarian or official auxiliary must be present when meat is being worked on.
Harmonised modalities and frequencies are also established for import controls on certain commodities arriving from outside the EU (including animals and meat).
As said above, official controls must be carried out at all stages of production, processing and distribution along the agri-food chain, and with the same care irrespective of whether the products are destined to the local or national market, to another Member State within the Union’s market or to a third country. This is to ensure that the same level of protection is achieved across the Single Market, where products circulate freely. Where the chain of events necessary to bring food to the market takes place over more than one Member State, this ensures that each Member State competent authority plays its part by performing the relevant official controls, from the first stages of production to the placing of the final product on the market.
To this end, and in line with single market principles, the results of official controls performed in one Member State are to be respected by other Member States in which a product might be further produced, processed or distributed. If, during such controls however, a serious risk to human or animal health is identified, the Commission shall immediately take emergency (safeguard) measures.
Because official controls play such important role in ensuring the safety of the agri-food chain in the Union, and thus in protecting consumers and citizens, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 obliges Member States to adequately resource official control activities, so as to ensure that whichever the level of controls required by the different situations competent authorities can sustain the corresponding effort.
In certain sectors (and notably, in the meat sector) the Regulation requires that fees reflecting the actual cost of official control activities are to be collected from operators on a mandatory basis, to finance controls on slaughter and cutting operations (this also applies to cold storage of meat, production and placing on the market of fishery products, and milk production). In other areas, Member States are free as to whether or not to collect fees from operators.
Mandatory fees are also collected in the dairy sector, for the initial controls on feed establishments and for import controls on animals and meat from third countries.
6. Other enforcement mechanisms, the role of EUROPOL
Many actors are involved in surveillance and control mechanisms along the food chain in the Member States, depending on the nature and the stage of the investigation, on the nature of the findings and the applicable law and procedures (sanitary authorities, customs, law enforcement agencies, administrative and criminal prosecutors and jurisdictions). Similarly, different mechanisms are available at EU level mirroring the different activities carried out in the Member States (from information sharing and administrative cooperation mechanisms to police and judicial cooperation tools).
In the case at hand, as available information indicates the possibility that intentional violations of food chain rules might be taking place, other enforcement authorities are also concerned with investigation and enforcement activities. In several Member States criminal investigations are on-going.
Existing tools and mechanisms, including the European Police Office (EUROPOL), were activated (no new intelligence sharing information system was created or will be created).
As regards EUROPOL, Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009, states that the latter’s objective is to support and strengthen action by the competent authorities of Member States and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating organised crime, terrorism and other forms of serious crime affecting two or more Member States.
In accordance with existing rules, some Member States with on-going criminal investigation into the horsemeat scandal (including the United Kingdom) have contacted, shared information and actively involved EUROPOL in their investigations. In such cases, EUROPOL is assisting in the said investigations and has been making its resources available to national law enforcement authorities in conformity with Article 5 of Council Decision 2009/371/JHA, whilst also fully respecting national mandates. Where the situation so warrants, EUROPOL may suggest setting up a joint investigation team. A JIT or a dedicated Target Group are only one of the tools that can be used in this case. Nevertheless for the moment Europol does not have enough intelligence (based on contributions regarding criminal cases) to start a JIT or open a dedicated Target Group.
Part II: Factual Background
1. Initial incident
A UK company (Findus UK) admitted it had been selling beef lasagne supplied by a French company which tests show is 80—100 % horsemeat.
On Friday 8 February 2013 UK informed the Commission about the specific findings and the origin of the consignments. The meat was supplied to Findus by a French company Comigel and the product was manufactured in the company Comigel—Tavola in Luxembourg, This information was circulated through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in order for the competent authorities in France/Luxembourg to launch the necessary investigations.
On the same day France informed the Commission that the supplier of Comigel is a French company called Spanghero, which transforms and trades meat. The frozen meat involved in this case, which was presumed to come from Romania, was bought through middlemen based in Cyprus and the Netherlands. Samples of the remaining meat analysed by Spanghero confirmed the presence of horse meat. The Luxembourg-based Comigel’s factory appears to be the only client of Spanghero for these batches of meat, apart from a very small part used for the local production of sausages by Spanghero. Comigel has withdrawn the involved products from the market.
Based on a precautionary approach, the information has been circulated through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in order to allow concerned Member States to investigate the incident rapidly and take the necessary immediate actions.
On Saturday 9 February 2013, the Luxembourgish competent authorities informed through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) that, following the internal traceability of the producer (Comigel—Tavola), the contaminated batches distributed to UK can be traced back to a batch of bovine meat delivered by Spanghero in Castelnaudary. The French authorities were informed and investigations are on-going.
On Monday 11 February 2013 UK informed the Commission through Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) that Aldi tested beef lasagne (Today’s Special Beef Lasagne) and Spaghetti Bolognese (Today’s Special Spaghetti Bolognese) both produced by the company Comigel (Luxembourg). They contained between 30–100 % of horse meat. The products have only been distributed to Aldi Stores in Ireland. Affected products have been withdrawn from sale. Ireland has been informed.
The investigations conducted by the French inspection authorities have established the distribution channel. French operator Spanghero bought questioned product from trader from Cyprus who itself bought it from Dutch trader located in the Netherlands. Dutch trader bought pieces of beef from a slaughterhouse in Romania. The meat was then sent and stored in a cooling facility in the Netherlands. From the storage it was sent to French operator Spanghero from where it was sent to Luxembourg.
Samples were performed on the sample library of Spanghero, ongoing analyses will determine the presence or absence of horse meat. Analyses are underway to identify the possible presence of residues of veterinary drugs. Additional information will be sent as soon as the traceability of the consignment has been collected from the company Comigel and the analytical results obtained.
Part III: Action Taken at EU Level:
1. EU reaction
On Wednesday 13 February 2013, there was an informal Ministerial meeting organised by the Irish Presidency where Member States that are most affected by the horsemeat scandal were invited (FR, UK, LU, SE, RO, PL and IE). In that context, Commissioner Borg announced Commission’s intention to recommend a coordinated control plan.
On Friday 15 February 2013, at an extraordinary Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) conveyed by the Commission, the Member States endorsed a draft Recommendation for a coordinated control plan announced by Commissioner Borg on Wednesday 13th February.
On Tuesday 19 February 2013, the Commission adopted Recommendation 2013/99/EU on a coordinated control plan with a view to establish the prevalence of fraudulent practices in the marketing of certain foods.19
The recommended coordinated control plan consists of two actions:
Official controls on foods destined for the final consumer or mass caterers, which are marketed and/or labelled as containing beef.
Official controls on horse meat destined for human consumption, as classified under the Combined Nomenclature Code 0205, to detect phenylbutazone residues, a veterinary drug whose use in food producing animals is illegal.
The plan is being carried out for an initial period of 1 month, which may be extended by an additional period of two months.
Competent authorities should report to the Commission a summary of the results of the controls, including information on sampling, type of analysis and follow-up controls by 15 April 2013 and will be published immediately. Any positive results should be reported immediately to the Commission. In addition, positive findings related to horse meat, the country where the animals concerned were certified for slaughter should also be reported. Competent authorities should also report to the Commission the results of own checks carried out at their request by food business operators.
The Union is co-financing the recommended coordinated control plan at the rate of 75% for the initial period of one month.
On Monday 25 February 2013, during the AGRI Council meeting, AGRI Ministers supported and welcomed the rapid response of the Commission with the coordinated control plan and asked the Commission to accelerate the publication of the report on the labelling of the origin of any meat used as an ingredient.
On Thursday 28 February 2013, the EP debated the horse meat scandal at the COMENVI meeting.
On Wednesday 6 March 2013, at a meeting of the EU Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) the Commission informed on the latest state of play. The CVOs updated the Commission on the situation in each MS and insisted on the need to take appropriate actions on different aspects (equine passports, traceability, etc.) and to enhance cooperation between MS.
2. Action plan
A five-point action plan (Appendix III) is proposed to address the shortcomings identified in the wake of the horsemeat scandal.
The plan aims to strengthen the enforcement of food chain rules (from horse passport legislation to hygiene and labelling requirements) so as restore consumer confidence in Europe’s food supply chain.
The plan consists of a series of measures to be taken in the short, medium and long term in five key areas: 1) Food fraud; 2) Phenylbutazone; 3) Horse passports; 4) Official controls and penalties and 5) Origin labelling.
3. FVO
There is already a scheduled audit in the UK in April on residues of veterinary drugs which will include the establishment at the origin of one of the Rapid Alerts notified by the UK in recent days for phenylbutazone in horsemeat. The audit will focus closely on the residue controls in horses, including passports and food chain information, ie records of administration of veterinary drugs. Anyone looking to highlight problems, actual or potential, in relation to misuse of veterinary drugs in horsemeat will find relevant material in most FVO reports on veterinary residues, including in third countries (Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil etc.) from which horsemeat is imported. The common problem is the food chain information in relation to the administration of veterinary drugs including the passport required to accompany horses intended for slaughter and the traceability of horses in general.
There will be an overview report on hygiene conditions in the horsemeat sector shortly. It is based on a series of individual audit reports in several Member States (Italy, France, Poland, Belgium, and Spain) which are available on the Commission website. All of these reports identified shortcomings of varying seriousness including traceability of horses, records of veterinary drug use, passports and food chain information and hygiene conditions. The recommendations for corrective action addressed to the Member States concerned are currently being pursued.
4. Phenylbutazone
Horses are the only animal species that can be considered “food producing” or “non-food producing”. The “food status” of the horse is registered in the horse passport (see point 7). Changing a horse from “non-food” to “food” (falsifying horse passport) is illegal.
Scarcity of registered veterinary drugs for horses is at the basis of an exception scheme for horses: the “essential substances list”. This scheme is aimed at a sustainable broadening of therapies in order to meet the health-care and welfare needs of the food-producing horses, without compromising the high level of consumer protection.
Treatment for “food producing horses” with “essential substances” must be recorded in the horse passport and withdrawal period of six months is applicable. Phenylbutazone is not an “essential substance” therefore horses treated with this drug at whatever moment in their life cannot enter the food chain.
Additional information:
Phenylbutazone is included in the national residue monitoring plans of the Member States. The results of the national control plans are published every year.
2011 Member States’ national residue control plans results: 4 non-compliant results in bovines (DE 1, UK 2, BE 1), 3 non-compliant results in horses (CZ 1, UK 1, BE 1)
Data on 2012 must be submitted to the Commission by 31 of March 2013; however preliminary results communicated so far (9 Member States) demonstrate no positive results.
In the period 2006—2013 (until onset of the incident), there are 17 RASFF notifications on “phenylbutazone in horse meat (origin of the meat: 1 Canada, 1 Poland and 15 United Kingdom).
APPENDIX I
Statistics
(a)
Please find enclosed summary table on the circulation of horses based on TRACES data. A more detailed table regarding the movement of horses for slaughter in 2012 is enclosed as well. 75% of the horses are destined to Italy.
|
Horses for Slaughter |
Registered horses* |
Horses for breeding |
Horses for any other purpose |
|
|
2011 |
40 000 |
36 000 |
14 000 |
20 000 |
|
2012 |
37 000 |
40 500 |
13 000 |
17 000 |
(b)
|
Production in the EU (Source: Eurostat 2011) |
55 000 tonnes |
|
Imported to EU (Source: TRACES 2012) |
36 000 tonnes |
The total production linked to intra-community trade of horses sent for slaughter would be around 8.800 tonnes horse meat per year.20 This means that 85 % of the horses are slaughtered within the Member State.
(c) Data on frauds
The extent of food-related crime is difficult to assess due to the lack of reliable global data on the subject but European customs seized nearly 2.5 million counterfeit food and drink items in 2008.
Although this figure only covers 80 confirmed cases of fraud in Europe (that is 0,16 % of all cases of counterfeiting and 1,36% of all counterfeit products seized), it nevertheless shows an increase of 26% from 2007.
A joint INTERPOL-Europol operation (Operation Opson II 3–9 December 2012), which involved 29 countries from all regions of the world, targeting fake and substandard food and drink, as well as the organized crime networks behind this illicit trade, has resulted in the seizure of more than:
135 tonnes of potentially harmful goods ranging from everyday products of coffee, soup cubes and olive oil, to luxury goods such as truffles and caviar.
A further 100 tonnes of misdeclared and/or potentially hazardous food was confiscated together with more than 385.000 litres of counterfeit liquids including vodka, wine, soy sauce and orange juice in addition to fish, seafood and meat declared unfit for human consumption, as well as fake candy bars and condiments.
This amount represents a very small part of the overall production (less than 0.01% rough estimate)
(d)
The following table gives an overview of RASFF notifications related to “adulteration/fraud” Data from the RASFF annual reports 2010, 2011 and RASFF database (2012):
RASFF: FOOD FRAUD DETECTION IN RELATION TO OTHER FOOD INCIDENTS
|
Total number of RASFF notifications (Total food incidents) |
RASFF notifications related to fraud (Food fraud incidents) |
|||
|
Total |
Internal market |
imports |
||
|
2010 |
3 287 |
87 (3%) |
15 (0.5%) |
72 (2.5%) |
|
2011 |
3 710 |
96 (3%) |
29 (1%) |
67 (2%) |
|
2012 |
3 424 |
85 (2%) |
11 (0.3%) |
74 (2.7%) |
As can be seen from the table above, the (potential) fraud or adulteration cases reported to RASFF are only a fraction of the information circulated in RASFF.
(e)
The biggest case is 2013.0166 (meat traded via Spanghero): 550 tonnes of raw meat could represent up to 2600 tonnes of prepared foods.
The other reported cases amount to:
177 tonnes of raw material reported, if all processed would be 885 tonnes of food.
Another 106 tonnes of processed products reported.
So the cases reported up to now would represent already around 3600 tonnes of processed foods but likely considerably more because of investigations ongoing and reporting not yet complete.
APPENDIX II
Detailed data on horse meat production in the EU and imports from third countries
Production
EU PRODUCTION 2011—SOURCE EUROSTAT*—TONNES
|
Member State |
Source: Eurostat 2011 |
|
Austria |
Not available |
|
Belgium |
Not available |
|
Croatia |
Not available |
|
Czech Republic |
20 |
|
Denmark |
Not available |
|
Estonia |
Not available |
|
Finland |
70 |
|
France |
2 000 |
|
Germany |
Not available |
|
Greece |
Not available |
|
Hungary |
Not available |
|
Ireland |
Not available |
|
Italy |
25 000 |
|
Latvia |
Not available |
|
Lithuania |
180 |
|
Luxembourg |
Not available |
|
Malta |
Not available |
|
Netherlands |
Not available |
|
Poland |
7 000 |
|
Portugal |
100 |
|
Romania |
1 000 |
|
Slovakia |
Not available |
|
Slovenia |
Not available |
|
Spain |
7 000 |
|
Sweden |
300 |
|
United Kingdom |
Not available |
|
EU27 |
55 000 |
Only Data Available for 10 MS and for EU27 Aggregate.
IMPORT FROM THIRD COUNTRIES 2012—SOURCE TRACES—TONNES
|
Country |
Source: TRACES 2012 |
|
Argentina |
8 000 |
|
Australia |
300 |
|
Brazil |
2 000 |
|
Canada |
12 000 |
|
Iceland |
100 |
|
Mexico |
11 000 |
|
New Zealand |
100 |
|
Uruguay |
2 500 |
|
Total |
36 000 |
APPENDIX III
Action Plan following horse meat fraud
|
Issues identified |
Envisaged actions |
Timing |
|
1. Food fraud |
To map existing tools and mechanisms to fight food fraud, with a view of developing synergies and contacts amongst competent authorities. |
March—June 2013 |
|
To promote the involvement of Europol in food fraud investigations where and as appropriate. |
March—June 2013 |
|
|
To ensure a procedure for the rapid exchange of information and alerts in cases of violations which may constitute a fraud (similar to what the RASFF does for serious risks). |
Second half 2013 |
|
|
2. Testing programme |
To assess and present the results of the ongoing DNA monitoring and, if necessary, undertake appropriate follow-up measures. |
As of 15 April 2013 |
|
To assess and present the results of the ongoing monitoring of horsemeat for residues of phenylbutazone and, if necessary, undertake appropriate follow-up measures. |
As of 15 April 2013 |
|
|
Following the delivery by EFSA and EMA by 15 April 2013 of a joint statement on the risks related to the presence of phenylbutazone in meat, to consider appropriate follow-up measures |
April 2013 |
|
|
3. Horse passport |
Member States to report on the measures through which they enforce Union rules on horse passports (Commission Regulation 504/2008) in relation to: |
end April 2013 |
|
To present a draft to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) to amend Commission Regulation 504/2008 in order to make mandatory the recording of horse passports in a central national database, based on Animal health and Zootechnical legislation. |
March—June 2013 |
|
|
To transfer the issuing of horse passports entirely to the competent authorities and thereby reduce the number of passport issuing bodies in the forthcoming proposal on Zootechnics. |
Second half 2013 |
|
|
4. Official Controls, implementation and penalties |
To propose in the forthcoming review of the Official controls Regulation (Regulation 882/2004) requirements so that: (a) where financial penalties are used in relation to intentional violations of food chain law, they are at a level which is sufficiently dissuasive and higher than the economic gain expected from the fraud; (b) Member States include in their control plans and perform regularly mandatory unannounced official controls (including inspections and testing) directed at combating food fraud; (c) the Commission can impose (not only recommend) coordinated testing programmes in specific cases, in particular in case of fraud. |
March—June 2013 |
|
To prepare an overview report on horse meat hygiene by the Commission Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). |
March 2013 |
|
|
|
To adopt a Commission report on the possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling of all types of meat used as ingredient in foods. To proceed, based on this report, to any necessary follow up action. |
Autumn 2013 |
|
To adopt implementing rules on the mandatory origin labelling of unprocessed meat of sheep, goat, pig and poultry, based on the Regulation on food information to consumers. |
December 2013 |
|
|
To adopt implementing rules to prevent misleading use of voluntary origin labelling in foods, based on the Regulation on Food information to consumers. |
December 2013 |
|
|
To adopt Commission reports, based on the Regulation on Food information to consumers, on the possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling to: |
December 2014 |
March 2013
1 OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.
2 Recital (28) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
3 Section III of Commission Guidance on the implementation of Articles 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on General Food Law – Conclusions of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, dated 26 January 2010, to be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/foodlaw/guidance/docs/guidance_rev_8_en.pdf, at pp. 15-22.
4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 of 19 September 2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 242, 20.9.2011, p. 2.
5 Recitals (4) and (5) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011.
6 O.J. L139,30.4.2004, p.1
7 Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011.
8 OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1
9 OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
10 Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC.
11 Article 5 of Directive 2000/13/EC.
12 Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC read in conjunction with Annex I thereto.
13 Article 7 of Directive 2000/13/EC.
14 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.
15 O.J. L139, 30.4.2004, p.55
16 O.J. L149, 7.6.2008, p.3
17 O.J. L139, 30.4.2004, p.206
18 O.J. L 303, 18.11.2009, p.1
19 Commission Recommendation of 19 February 2013 on a coordinated control plan with a view to establish the prevalence of fraudulent practices in the marketing of certain foods (2013/99/EU), O L 48, 21.2.2013, p. 28.
20 According TRACES (2011), 40 000 horses are traded between Member States for slaughter. With an average weight of 220 kg/carcass, horse meat produced following this trade amounts up to 8 800 tonnes of horse meat i.e. 15% of the total horse meat production in 2011.