TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION AMENDMENT

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation Title

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation Recital 4

(4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain ensuring consumer protection and public health. (4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain. Those measures ensure consumer protection and public health and promote consumer confidence.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation Recital 6

(6) The use of electronic identification systems would potentially streamline traceability processes through automated and more accurate reading and recording into the holding register. It would enable also automated reporting of animal movements into the computerised data base and thus improve speed, reliability and accuracy of the system. (6) The use of electronic identification systems would potentially streamline traceability processes through automated and more accurate reading and recording into the holding register. It would enable also automated reporting of animal movements into the computerised data base and thus improve speed, reliability and accuracy of the system. It would improve the management of direct payments paid to farmers per animal head through better controls and reduced risk of payment errors.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation Recital 7

(7) Electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have considerably improved in the last ten years. That technology allows a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal identity codes directly into data processing systems resulting on a reduction of time needed to trace potential infected animals or infected food, saving labour costs but at the same time increasing equipment costs. (7) Electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have considerably improved in the last 10 years , even though International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards still need to be applied, and they need to be tested for bovines . That technology allows a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal identity codes directly into data processing systems resulting in a reduction of time needed to trace potential infected animals or infected food, leading to improved databases and an increased capacity to react promptly in the event of disease outbreaks, saving labour costs but at the same time increasing equipment costs. If the electronic identification is faulty, the failure of the technology must not result in penalty payments being imposed on farmers.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation Recital 9

(9) Given the technological advances in EID, several Member States have decided to start to implement bovine EID on a voluntary basis. Those initiatives are likely to lead to different systems to be developed in individual Member States or by stakeholders. Such a development would impede later harmonisation of technical standards within the Union. (9) Given the technological advances in EID, several Member States have decided to start to implement bovine EID on a voluntary basis. Those initiatives are likely to lead to different systems to be developed in individual Member States or by stakeholders. Such a development would impede later harmonisation of technical standards within the Union. It should be ensured that the systems introduced in the Member States are interoperable and consistent with ISO standards.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation Recital 16

(16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union may have economically adverse effects on certain operators. It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime for the introduction of EID is established. Under such a regime, EID would be chosen by keepers that are likely to have immediate economic benefits. (16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union may have economically adverse effects on certain operators. Furthermore, there are practical problems which continue to hinder the effective operation of EID, especially with regard to the accuracy of the technology . Experience of implementing mandatory electronic identification for small ruminants demonstrates that due to faulty technology and practical difficulties it is frequently impossible to achieve 100 % accuracy . It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime is established. Such a regime would enable EID to be chosen only by keepers that are likely to have rapid economic benefits.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation Recital 17

(17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, after considering all those factors. (17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, after considering all those factors , including any negative impact on small farmers, and following consultation with organisations representing the beef industry .

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation Recital 18

(18) Animals entering the Union from third countries should be subject to the same identification requirements that apply to animals born in the Union. (18) Animals and meat entering the Union from third countries should be subject to the same identification and traceability requirements that apply to animals born in the Union.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation Recital 19

(19) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides that the competent authority is to issue a passport for each animal which has to be identified in accordance with that Regulation. This causes a considerable administrative burden for the Member States. The computerised databases established by Member States sufficiently ensure traceability of domestic movements of bovine animals. Passports should therefore be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade. Once the data exchange between national computerised databases is operational, the requirement of issuing such passports should no longer apply for animals intended for intra-Union trade. (19) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides that the competent authority is to issue a passport for each animal which has to be identified in accordance with that Regulation. This causes a considerable administrative burden for the Member States. The computerised databases established by Member States should sufficiently ensure traceability of domestic movements of bovine animals. Passports should therefore be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade. Once the data exchange between national computerised databases is operational, the requirement of issuing such passports should no longer apply for animals intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation Recital 19 a (new)

(19a) So far, there is no specific legislation on cloning. However, opinion polls show that this issue is of great interest to the European public. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that beef derived from cloned animals or their descendants is labelled as such.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation Recital 20

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. The administrative burden and the costs incurred by Member States and economic operators in applying this system are not proportionate to the benefits of the system. That Section should therefore be deleted. (20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. In view of developments in the beef sector since the above Regulation was adopted, the beef labelling system needs to be revised. Since the system of voluntary beef labelling is neither effective nor useful, it should be deleted , without compromising the right of operators to inform consumers through voluntary labelling . Consequently, as for any other sort of meat, information which goes beyond mandatory labelling, this means in this particular case what is required by Articles 13 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, and is extremely important to consumers and farmers, for example breed, feed and husbandry, will have to respect the current horizontal legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (2). Beyond this, the deletion is also balanced by the formulation, in this Regulation, of general rules ensuring consumer protection.

Amendments 14 and 45

Proposal for a regulation Recital 22

(22) In order to ensure that the necessary rules for the proper functioning of the identification, registration and traceability of bovine animals and beef are applied, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of requirements for alternative means of identification of bovine animals, special circumstances in which Member States may extend the maximum periods for the application of the means of identification, data to be exchanged between the computerised databases of the Member States, the maximum period for certain reporting obligations, the requirements for means of identification, the information to be included in the passports and in the individual registers to be kept on each holding, the minimum level of official controls, the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas , rules for labelling certain products which should be equivalent to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the definitions of minced beef, beef trimmings or cut beef, the specific indications that may be put on labels, the labelling provisions related to the simplification of the indication of origin, the maximum size and composition of certain groups of animals, the approval procedures related to labelling conditions on packaging of cut meat and the administrative sanctions to be applied by the Member States in cases of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up such delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. (22) In order to ensure that the necessary rules for the proper functioning of the identification, registration and traceability of bovine animals and beef are applied, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of requirements for alternative means of identification of bovine animals, special circumstances in which Member States may extend the maximum periods for the application of the means of identification, data to be exchanged between the computerised databases of the Member States, the maximum period for certain reporting obligations, the requirements for means of identification, the information to be included in the passports and in the individual registers to be kept on each holding, the minimum level of official controls, the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals during different types of seasonal transhumance , rules for labelling certain products which should be equivalent to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the definitions of minced beef, beef trimmings or cut beef, the maximum size and composition of certain groups of animals, the approval procedures related to labelling conditions on packaging of cut meat and the administrative sanctions to be applied by the Member States in cases of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up such delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation Recital 23

(23) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 with respect to the registration of holdings making use of alternative means of identification, technical characteristics and modalities for the exchange of data between the computerised databases of Member States, the format and design of the means of identification, technical procedures and standards for the implementation of EID, the format of the passports and of the register to be kept on each holding, rules concerning the modalities for the application of the sanctions imposed by the Member States on holders pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, corrective actions to be taken by the Member States to ensure proper compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, in cases where on-the-spot checks so justify, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers. (23) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 with respect to the registration of holdings making use of alternative means of identification, technical characteristics and modalities for the exchange of data between the computerised databases of Member States, the declaration that the data exchange system between Member States is fully operational, the format and design of the means of identification, technical procedures and standards for the implementation of EID, the format of the passports and of the register to be kept on each holding, rules concerning the modalities for the application of the sanctions imposed by the Member States on holders pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, corrective actions to be taken by the Member States to ensure proper compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, in cases where on-the-spot checks so justify, and the necessary rules to ensure proper compliance in particular as regards controls, administrative sanctions, and various maximum periods laid down in this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new)

(23a) The implementation of this Regulation should be monitored. Consequently, no later than five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report dealing both with the implementation of this Regulation and with the technical and economic feasibility of introducing mandatory electronic identification everywhere in the Union. If this report concludes that electronic identification should become mandatory, it should, if appropriate, be accompanied by an appropriate legislative proposal. That legislation would remove risks of distortion of competition within the internal market.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 2

(1a) In Article 2, the following definition is added: " "cloned animals" means animals produced by means of a method of asexual, artificial reproduction with the aim of producing a genetically identical or nearly identical copy of an individual animal,".

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 2

(1b) In Article 2, the following definition is added: " "descendants of cloned animals" means animals produced by means of sexual reproduction, in cases in which at least one of the progenitors is a cloned animal,".

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. All animals on a holding shall be identified by at least two individual means of identification authorised in accordance with Articles 10 and 10a and approved by the competent authority. 1. All animals on a holding shall be identified by at least two individual means of identification authorised in accordance with Articles 10 and 10a and approved by the competent authority. The Commission shall ensure that identifiers used in the Union are interoperable and consistent with ISO standards.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority. The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority. This shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born. All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born. By way of derogation, in cases where it is not possible for the two individual means of identification to bear the same unique identification code, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

The Member States that make use of this option shall provide the Commission with the text of such national provisions. The Member States that make use of this option shall provide the Commission with the text of such national provisions. The Commission shall then supply the other Member States, in a language which is readily understandable by those Member States, with a summary of the national rules governing the movement of animals to Member States that have opted for compulsory EID and shall make them publicly available.

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) 60 days for the second means of identification. (b) 60 days for the second means of identification, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals .

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied. No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied except in case of force majeure.

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

The first subparagraph shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination. That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination. The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination . By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Notwithstanding the third subparagraph of Article 4(1), in cases where it is not possible to apply an electronic identifier with the same unique identification code to the animal, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and that individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 4d

No means of identification may be removed or replaced without the permission and without the control of the competent authority. Such permission may only be granted where the removal or replacement do not compromise the traceability of the animal. No means of identification shall be modified, removed or replaced without the permission and without the control of the competent authority. Such permission may only be granted where the modification, the removal or replacement do not compromise the traceability of the animal.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 5 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Member States may exchange electronic data between their computerised databases from the date when the Commission recognises the full operability of the data exchange system. Member States may exchange electronic data between their computerised databases from the date when the Commission recognises the full operability of the data exchange system. This must be done in such a way that data protection is guaranteed and any abuse prevented in order to protect the interests of the holding.

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 6 – point c a (new)

(ca) in the case of animals exported to third countries, the passport shall be surrendered by the last keeper to the competent authority at the place where the animal is exported.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 7 – point b Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point b

(b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the event. (b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within 72 hours of the occurrence of the event.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 8 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 9a

Member States shall ensure that any person responsible for the identification and registration of animals receives instructions and guidance on the relevant provisions of this Regulation and of any delegated and implementing acts adopted by the Commission on the basis of Articles 10 and 10a, and that appropriate training courses are available. Member States shall ensure that any person responsible for the identification and registration of animals receives instructions and guidance on the relevant provisions of this Regulation and of any delegated and implementing acts adopted by the Commission on the basis of Articles 10 and 10a, and that appropriate training courses are available. This information shall be supplied, at no cost to the recipient, every time a change is made to the relevant provisions and as often as necessary. Member States shall share best practices in order to ensure good quality of training and information sharing across the Union.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas . (e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals during different types of seasonal transhumance.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 11 – point b a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 13 – paragraph 5 a (new)

(ba) The following paragraph is added: "5a. As from (3), operators and organisations shall also indicate on their labels where the beef is derived from cloned animals or descendants of cloned animals."

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 14 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Title II – section II

14) Articles 16, 17 and 18 are deleted. 14) Starting from 1 January 2014, the heading of section II of title II shall be replaced by the words ‘Voluntary labelling’, Articles 16, 17 and 18 are deleted , and Article 15a shall be inserted into section II of title II: ‘Article 15a General rules Information other than that specified in part I of this Title which is added to labels by operators or organisations marketing beef must be objective, verifiable by the relevant authorities and comprehensible to consumers. Moreover, voluntary beef labelling has to respect the current horizontal legislation on labelling and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. The competent authority shall verify the truthfulness of the voluntary information. In the event of a failure on the part of operators or organisations marketing beef to comply with these obligations, the sanctions laid down in accordance with Article 22(4a) will be applied.’

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 15 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 19 – point b

(b) the specific indications that may be put on labels; (b) definition of and requirements for the specific indications that may be put on labels;

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 17 – point a Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 23(2). The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 22b, laying down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 18 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 22 b

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), and in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from (4). 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 , in Article 22(1) third subparagraph and in Article 22(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from (5).

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), and in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 , in Article 22(1) third subparagraph and in Article 22(4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), and Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council." 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 , Article 22(1) third subparagraph and in Article 22(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council."

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – point 19 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 Article 23 a (new)