Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation 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. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/9 22. Agrees that an effective EU food safety policy must apply to all food consumed within the EU, not simply that produced within the EU, and therefore equivalent compre- hensive and effective controls must be applied to all food and feedingstuffs entering the EU. Brussels, 12 April 2000. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation 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’ (2000/C 226/04) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation 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 (COM (1999) 487 final — COD 99/0204) (1); having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 12 November 1999, under Article 152 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter; having regard to the COR Bureau decision of 17 November 1999 to direct Commission 2 for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the decision taken by its president on 6 January 2000, under rule 39 of the Committee of the Regions’ Rules of Procedure, to appoint Sir Simon Day (member of Devon County Council, UK/PPE) as rapporteur-general for the opinion; having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 525/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 2 on 24 February 2000 (rapporteur-general: Sir Simon Day), adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session on 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April). 1. Background The BSE crisis and other concerns surrounding food 1. 1. safety have produced increasing political and consumer press- ure for systems of labelling which allow a product to be traced back down the food chain to its farm of origin and which provide verifiable assurance of the safe provenance of beef in particular. (1) OJ C 376 E, 28. 12. 1999, p. 42. 1. 2. The Commission responded with the Beef Labelling Scheme, which was introduced in 1998, under Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/972 (2). The prior approval which forms part of this scheme is designed to respond to any claims made by a retail purchaser about the origin, characteristics and production conditions of fresh or frozen beef or veal. A condition of this is that an verification system must be in place. Approval is not necessary where the label only gives customers basic information on price and cut. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97, 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 1). C 226/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 2000 1. 3. The existing scheme was always seen as an interim measure, pending the introduction of a compulsory scheme, and was due to expire on 31 December, 1999. In the event, it was not possible to reach agreement on the proposed compul- sory measures and the Council has therefore extended the voluntary scheme until 31 August, 2000, in the expectation of an agreement which would allow its replacement by In the meantime, the compulsory measures at that time. standard EU Regulations governing food labelling will apply to beef, so as to avoid a legal vacuum. 2. The Commission proposals The plan is to introduce compulsory beef labelling in 2. 1. two stages. 2. 1. 1. Stage 1: As from September 1, 2000, operators and organisations marketing fresh or frozen beef or veal must include the following information on the label: — individual traceability codes, which may be the identifi- cation (ear-tag) number of the animal from which the meat is derived or a number relating to a batch of animals; — exchange of information between Member States; — supplementary control measures established by the Euro- pean Commission. The proposal would also allow some wider geographical definitions to be used e. g. where all the above take place in: — one or more Member State(s) an indication of ‘origin: EC’; — a third country and the EC an indication of ‘origin: EC and non-EC’; — one or more third countries an indication of ‘origin: non- EC’. 3. Need for a system for the identification and regis- tration of bovine animals and for the labelling of beef — region, or member state or third country of the slaughter- house and de-boning plant; — approval numbers of the slaughterhouse and de-boning 3. 1. The COR welcomes and proposes to actively monitor the proposal for the European Parliament and the Council to adopt a regulation establishing a system both for the identification and registration of bovine animals and for the labelling of beef. plant; — date of slaughter; — category of animal (i. e. steer, bull, heifer etc. ); — ideal minimum maturation period. 2. 1. 2. required to indicate: Stage 2: As from January 1, 2003, labels would be — Member State or region or holding or third country of birth; — Member State or region or holding or third country of fattening; — Member State or region or holding or third country of slaughter; — Member State or region or holding or third country of de- boning. 2. 2. The European Commission’s proposal includes: — an obligation for Member States to establish control measures; 3. 2. The system will serve two purposes: — firstly, to meet consumers’ concerns about the safety of the food they eat. Their demands for transparency on this subject at local and national level must be followed up at EU level; — secondly, to provide a clear framework for beef farmers and marketing and processing companies hit by the instability of the beef and beef products market. This will reduce the instability caused by the BSE crisis. 3. 3. All over Europe, consumers are making the same calls for transparency about the foods they eat, and particularly about beef. The COR therefore believes that EU action is needed in this sphere, and that no Member State has the right to sidestep measures for guaranteeing food safety for its nationals. 3. 4. In order to keep the procedure and the labelling transparent for the consumer, the obligatory details should be kept to the necessary minimum. There should be no require- ment that the ‘approval number of the slaughterhouse’ or the ‘ideal minimum maturation period’ of the meat be indicated, as this will not increase transparency for the consumer. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/11 3. 5. The second stage of compulsory labelling should, if possible, be implemented at the same time as the first stage. As a minimum requirement, the transitional period should be reduced by one year so that the proposed measures would come into effect on 1 January 2002. 3. 6. In view of the positive experience gained in connection labelling schemes, system control should in with optional future also be placed in the hands of certified system control enterprises. This would mean that the monitoring role of public bodies, in the Member States concerned, could be confined to that of inspecting the system control enterprises and carrying out checks on food placed on the market. 4. Information for reassuring consumers and dealing with cases of contamination 4. 1. In order to fully restore European consumers’ confi- dence in the safety of beef, they must be provided with the most extensive and precise information possible. We cannot, therefore, agree with the Parliament and Council proposal to allow identification of animals by herd or batch and allow the use of such generic terms as ‘origin: EC’ or ‘origin: non-EC’. Information on the individual animal and the specific origin is useful not only to the consumer: it is also vital for ensuring that contaminated products can be recalled if there is a food- safety crisis. 4. 2. It is therefore important that: — the system established by the draft regulation is applied as widely as possible, without exemptions or exceptions. A guaranteed quality and safety standard should be reached for all beef produced throughout the European Union; — the indications provided for consumers should tell them exactly what they are buying and where the meat orig- inated. This is achieved by mentioning the place of birth of the animal, and the place of rearing, fattening or feeding, and slaughter. 4. 3. As a body which is close to the grassroots, the COR wishes to reiterate — as it has done on other issues not related to beef, and most recently in its Opinion of 18 November 1999 on the Commission’s communication on a consumer policy action plan 1999-2001 (CdR 181/99 fin) — that consumer safety remains its overriding concern. Brussels, 12 April 2000. 5. Conclusions The Committee of the Regions approves the principle 5. 1. of establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and for the labelling of beef and beef products. The information on the label should be confined to what is necessary, feasible and of relevance to consumers. It should not be necessary to indicate the animal’s category and the minimum maturation period in Stage 1 of compulsory labelling (1. 9. 2000). It is necessary in all cases that information be provided on the animal’s region of birth, rearing, fattening and slaughter. 5. 2. Enforcement of compulsory labelling should however continue to be carried out under approved systems. Super- vision by private checking agencies should also be maintained. 5. 3. The Committee stresses the need to restore the confi- dence of consumers and beef producers by establishing a framework at EU level which meets transparent general consumers’ general need to have the precisest possible infor- mation about the origin and guaranteed safety of the food they eat. The Committee therefore takes the view that the Commission’s proposal with regard to ‘geographical definitions’ (see the second paragraph of point 2. 2 above) fails to satisfy the demand for precise indications and precise information. The Committee proposes that the name of the third country, Member State or region concerned be indicated. 5. 4. The Committee also advocates that in future infor- mation about the origin of beef which, in addition to indicating the Member State of origin, also refers to the region of origin, should be permitted, if it does not involve a regional indication under Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (protection of geographi- cal information and description of origin) (1). 5. 5. The Committee recommends that the system be put in place as soon as possible in order to ease current tensions between certain Member States; these tensions are jeopardising the restoration of confidence which both beef producers and beef eaters are calling for. It would be helpful to avoid as far as possible introducing the system in different stages. (1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT