Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 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'
26. 4. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/47 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 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 117/09) On 12 November 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 February 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Evans. At its 370th plenary session on 1 and 2 March 2000 (meeting of 2 March), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 64 votes to three, with three abstentions. 1. Introduction (1) The new system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products is based on two proposals. The first (2) (99/0205 (COD), which was considered by the Council and the Parlia- ment in December 1999, simply extends the current voluntary arrangements in the light of the difficulties most Member States have encountered in fully implementing the required cattle identification system. The Council did not accept changes proposed by the Parliament but agreed that the effective date should be brought forward, and the Commission took action under Article 19 to extend the status quo until 1 September 2000. Therefore, on 21 December 1999, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 providing for general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system (3). 1. 1. The second proposal (99/0204 COD) is for the staged introduction of a compulsory system of identification, regis- tration and labelling, together with provision for a parallel voluntary labelling system. Following the December 1999 decisions it must now come into effect before 1 September 2000. 1. 2. The first stage of this would require all operators and organisations marketing fresh or frozen beef or veal to label it, from 1 September 2000 onwards, with: (1) Reference has been made to the following documents: COM(1999) 486 final — Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the situation regarding the implementation of beef labelling systems in the different Member States; COM(1999) 487 final — proposals 99/0204 (COD) and 99/0205 (COD); and COM(1999) 487 final/2 — correcting Article 22A of 99/0204 (COD). (2) On the agenda at the plenary session of 8/9 December 1999. (3) OJ L 334, 28. 12. 1999, p. 1. — individual traceability codes which may be the identifi- cation number of the animal from which meat is derived or an identification number relating to a group of animals; — region or Member State or third country of the slaughter- house and de-boning plant; — approval number of the slaughterhouse and de-boning plant; — date of slaughter; — category of animal (not defined in the proposal); — ideal minimum maturation period. 1. 3. The proposed second stage, to take effect from 1 Janua- ry 2003, would introduce compulsory indication on the label of: — 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. 1. 4. The proposal would also allow some wider geographi- cal 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’. C 117/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 4. 2000 1. 5. The proposal also includes general rules under which voluntary labelling systems, supervised by a competent auth- ority and requiring verifiable controls over identification, may be operated alongside the compulsory arrangements. Such voluntary systems can apply both to EU and third country beef. 2. General comments 2. 1. Legal issues 2. 1. 1. The legal basis for the proposed regulation is in dispute. Although a judgement is still pending in the case taken by the Commission and the European Parliament against the Council on the use of the former Article 43 of the Treaty as a basis for the existing Regulation (EC) No 820/97, the the Amsterdam Commission believes that Article 152 of Treaty is the correct basis. 2. 1. 2. The detailed rules for the application of Article 22, which enables the Commission to monitor and ensure enforce- ment of the Regulation, require the Commission in certain circumstances to seek the decision or the assistance of the Standing Veterinary Committee (1). 2. 2. Policy objectives The Committee notes that the policy objectives of 2. 2. 1. the proposed regulation are complex; there are no fewer than thirty-three considerata in the recital. The Committee believes the following to be the main themes: — to strengthen consumer confidence in beef; — to enable veterinary authorities to operate appropriate controls on both EU and imported animals for the purposes of combating animal diseases; — to ensure that all beef offered for retail sale can be traced back to the processor, the abattoir, and ultimately the farm of origin; — to facilitate rapid and accurate exchange of information between Member States, and co-operation with the Com- mission in monitoring and tracing bovine movements; — to reinforce the administration of certain Community aid schemes; — to avoid imposing excessive administrative burdens on producers; — to give the maximum transparency in the market for beef. (1) Corrigendum COM(1999) 487 final/2 refers. 2. 2. 2. The Committee’s discussions have revealed serious doubts as to whether it is sensible to combine in a single Regulation legal and administrative measures which are intend- ed to ensure sound veterinary and public health controls together with labelling provisions which are intended to help consumers. Thus, Title I consists of provisions which are aimed solely at ensuring traceability (eartagging, record keeping, passports, computer database); whereas Title II deals with labelling provisions (abattoir and de-boning hall approval numbers, category of animal, date of slaughter, ideal matu- ration period) which are in part intended as an aid to enforcement, but are also supposed to provide reassuring or useful information to consumers. 2. 2. 3. The Committee strongly takes the view that public health must be the priority concern and that the aim should be to implement the new arrangements as quickly as possible. In this connection the Committee notes that the Parliament was unwilling to extend the voluntary arrangements operating under Regulation 820/97 beyond September 2000. Given the practical problems which have arisen in some countries in the establishment of the database, it will require very determined efforts by the relevant authorities if the accelerated timetable is to be met. 2. 2. 4. The Committee is also concerned that the supply chain for beef from the farm to the consumer is long and is marked by differences of organisation and practice in different Member States. The Committee believes it to be of the highest importance that the controls specified in the proposals are implemented effectively at all points in the supply chain in all Member States. The Commission has acknowledged that particular 2. 2. 5. considerations arise over the treatment of beef or beef products imported from third countries where not all of the information required for EU beef may be available. The Commission proposes to deal with this situation by way of a derogation under which the description ‘Non-EC’ or ‘Slaughtered in [name of third country]’ may be used, in accordance with WTO rules. The administrative arrangements to ensure that such imported beef meets the necessary public health standards are not part of the proposed regulation. Finally, the Committee is concerned about the pleth- 2. 2. 6. ora of differing provisions which apply in the labelling of food, and which are further complicated by this proposed legislation. The Committee calls on the Commission to take urgent action under its food safety programme in the interest of consumer safety to secure greater simplicity and higher standards of relevance in the labelling of food. 26. 4. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/49 3. Specific comments inform customers of the origin of beef by way of notices displayed in the shop. The main purpose of the Regulation is to serve the 3. 1. public good and public health. The Committee therefore calls for a re-examination of the current practice of passing on the costs to producers alone. 3. 2. Labelling issues 3. 2. 1. The Committee thinks that from the very start the origin of animals must be visible on the label for all consumers to see. However, the Commission is proposing that this should not be made compulsory until the start of stage two on 1 January 2003. 3. 2. 2. The Committee has looked very carefully into the question of indicating the approval number of the slaughter- house or the de-boning plant on the label. Any accurate information is useful for the consumer, and consumer confi- dence will be improved by being able to see from the label that the product has been subject to a rigorous system of tracea- bility. The Committee therefore supports this provision. 3. 2. 3. The Committee has also discussed very fully the proposal that the label should include an indication of the ‘ideal minimum maturation period of the beef’. This provision, which concerns the cooking quality and taste of beef is a surprising inclusion on labels which are supposed to be concerned with safety and traceability. Maturation is a complex matter, not solely related to the age of the beef since slaughter. It is a matter of the circumstances at slaughter, the temperature and consistency of storage, and other factors relating to the handling of the product on its way from the slaughterhouse to the consumer. The indication of quality parameters (e. g. maturity of the beef) should in principle be purely on a voluntary basis. Notwithstanding the content of Point 2. 2. 2, 3. 2. 4. the Committee takes the view that consumer confidence will be enhanced by mentioning the category of origin of the meat. 3. 3. Coverage of the regulations 3. 3. 1. The Commission has acknowledged that practical problems arise over the application of the regulations to small retail butchers and agricultural producers marketing their products themselves. Although in practice many such busi- nesses take their supplies from a single producer or wholesaler, many also buy in from a variety of sources and may sell retail cuts from different animals according to the customer’s choice. Provided the identification and registration procedures are being properly implemented and policed, this practice involves no additional risk to the consumer, and it can be argued that smaller butchers, cutting in the shop to the requirements of the customer, should be exempted from the burden of labelling. But we do not in principle favour such exemption and we believe it should be possible for small butchers to 3. 3. 2. Article 14 exempts minced beef, beef trimmings or cut beef from the full force of the labelling provisions, and after 1 January 2003, it will be required to carry an indication of region, country, EU, or Non-EU origin. The Committee considers in principle that this derogation is inconsistent with the public health objectives which are central to the proposed regulation. Traceability is clearly an important issue in the case of mixed-origin products. We have, however, been convinced that it is impractical at this stage to apply more stringent labelling requirements. We have to recognise that many of the animals used in this sector of the beef industry (which include dairy cows) may have been born before effective and verifiable identification systems had been put in place. We also have to recognise that the trade in these products is complex, and that they are of considerable importance to consumers and to the catering business. We therefore ask that the Commission give particular priority to solving these problems and come forward with further proposals well before January 2003. 3. 4. Screening for BSE The Committee recommends that the regulation include an obligation to use an EU officially approved test to screen all slaughtered bovine animals for BSE once one becomes avail- able. Research towards such a test should be accelerated. 4. Conclusion 4. 1. The Committee strongly supports the objective of introducing more stringent public health controls in the production, processing and sale of beef for human consump- tion. We agree that the ability reliably to trace all beef back to the farm of origin from the point of purchase by the consumer is crucial to the achievement of this objective. We believe that the proposed regulation will achieve this aim. We also support the objective of strengthening the consumer’s confidence in beef by making these controls transparent through a compul- sory labelling system. We therefore approve these proposals subject to the detailed comments made above. 4. 2. We also believe that both in the area of beef labelling, and the matter of food labelling more generally, there is much more to be done before we would regard the arrangements as providing the consumer with consistently useful and reliable information. We have indicated above some specific matters on which we think further urgent work must be done with regard to beef. On the wider question of food labelling we would welcome advice from the Commission about the state of work on the codification of the directive referred to in the Consumer Policy Action Plan 1999-2001 of December 1998. C 117/50 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 4. 2000 4. 3. We ask the Commission to undertake all necessary measures to avoid further prolongation of this new transitional regime. Such a prolongation would result in losing consumer confidence in beef meat and in the EU mechanisms. This means that both the European Parliament and the Council should follow the existing rapid consultation procedures to enable them to complete their work well in time. In parallel, we would like to invite the Commission to 4. 4. set up, immediately, an appropriate monitoring network regarding the implementation of the current provisions of Title I of Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 (identification and registration of bovine animals), so to assure that by 31 August 2000 the data needed for the introduction of the ‘first stage’ of thelabelling system are available for all bovine animals. The same measures should be taken for the introduction of the ‘second stage’, too. To this end, the appropriate Commission services (i. e. FVO in Dublin) could establish an inspection programme all over the EU to make sure that all Member States have put in place the current provisions on identification and registration of bovine animals. 4. 4. 1. Additionally, we would like to suggest to the Com- mission that, prior to 31 August 2000, it should produce an interim report reflecting its findings regarding compliance with the current legislation (I & R) in all Member States. Brussels, 2 March 2000. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee The following amendment, which received more than a quarter of the votes cast, was defeated in the course of the debate. Point 3. 2. 2 last sentence Reword as follows: ‘However, the Committee takes the view that only the approval number for the last stage in the production chain should be indicated. ’ Reason The problem is that two approval numbers would otherwise normally have to be indicated: for both the slaughterhouse and the cutting plant. Usually cutting plants buy carcasses from several slaughterhouses in order to obtain sufficient quantities of the desired quality. Should the slaughterhouse’s approval number need to be indicated, the cutting plant would have to keep meat from each slaughterhouse separate, which would result in a large number of small batches. Small slaughterhouses will then be pushed out of the market because their batches will be too small whereas cutting plants prefer a few, large batches. Result of the vote For: 15, against: 37, abstentions: 6