8.8.2000 EN C 226/9 Official Journal of the European Communities
22. Agrees that an effective EU food safety policy must apply hensive and effective controls must be applied to all food
and feedingstuffs entering the EU. to all food consumed within the EU, not simply that
produced within the EU, and therefore equivalent compre-
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 1.2. The Commission responded with the Beef Labelling
Scheme, which was introduced in 1998, under CouncilRegulation (EC) No. 820/972 (
2). The prior approval which
forms part of this scheme is designed to respond to any claims 1.1. The BSE crisis and other concerns surrounding food
made by a retail purchaser about the origin, characteristics and safety have produced increasing political and consumer press-
production conditions of fresh or frozen beef or veal. A ure for systems of labelling which allow a product to be traced
condition of this is that an verification system must be in back down the food chain to its farm of origin and which
place. Approval is not necessary where the label only gives provide verifiable assurance of the safe provenance of beef in
customers basic information on price and cut. particular.
(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). (
1) OJ C 376 E, 28.12.1999, p. 42.
C 226/10 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
1.3. The existing scheme was always seen as an interim — exchange of information between Member States;
measure, pending the introduction of a compulsory scheme,and was due to expire on 31 December, 1999. In the event, it
— supplementary control measures established by the Euro- was not possible to reach agreement on the proposed compul-
pean Commission. 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
compulsory measures at that time. In the meantime, the The proposal would also allow some wider geographical
standard EU Regulations governing food labelling will apply definitions to be used e.g. where all the above take place in:
to beef, so as to avoid a legal vacuum.
— one or more Member State(s) an indication of ‘origin: EC’;
2.The Commission proposals— a third country and the EC an indication of ‘origin: EC and
non-EC’;
2.1. The plan is to introduce compulsory beef labelling in
two stages.— one or more third countries an indication of ‘origin: non-
EC’.
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:
3.Need for a system for the identification and regis-— individual traceability codes, which may be the identifi-tration of bovine animals and for the labelling of beefcation (ear-tag) number of the animal from which the meat
is derived or a number relating to a batch of animals;
3.1. The COR welcomes and proposes to actively monitor— region, or member state or third country of the slaughter-the proposal for the European Parliament and the Councilhouse and de-boning plant;to adopt a regulation establishing a system both for the
identification and registration of bovine animals and for thelabelling of beef. — approval numbers of the slaughterhouse and de-boning
plant;
3.2. The system will serve two purposes: — date of slaughter;
— category of animal (i.e. steer, bull, heifer etc.);— 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 — ideal minimum maturation period.
EU level;
2.1.2. Stage 2: As from January 1, 2003, labels would be
required to indicate: — 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— Member State or region or holding or third country ofreduce the instability caused by the BSE crisis.birth;
— Member State or region or holding or third country of3.3. All over Europe, consumers are making the same callsfattening;for transparency about the foods they eat, and particularly
about beef. The COR therefore believes that EU action is
— Member State or region or holding or third country of needed in this sphere, and that no Member State has the right
slaughter; to sidestep measures for guaranteeing food safety for its
nationals.
— Member State or region or holding or third country of de-
boning.
3.4. In order to keep the procedure and the labelling
transparent for the consumer, the obligatory details should be2.2. The European Commission’s proposal includes: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, — an obligation for Member States to establish control
measures; as this will not increase transparency for the consumer.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/11 Official Journal of the European Communities
3.5. The second stage of compulsory labelling should, if 5. Conclusions
possible, be implemented at the same time as the first stage.As a minimum requirement, the transitional period should be 5.1. The Committee of the Regions approves the principle
reduced by one year so that the proposed measures would of establishing a system for the identification and registration
come into effect on 1 January 2002. 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 3.6. In view of the positive experience gained in connection
with optional labelling schemes, system control should in should not be necessary to indicate the animal’s category and
the minimum maturation period in Stage 1 of compulsory future also be placed in the hands of certified system control
enterprises. This would mean that the monitoring role of labelling (1.9.2000). It is necessary in all cases that information
be provided on the animal’s region of birth, rearing, fattening public bodies, in the Member States concerned, could be
confined to that of inspecting the system control enterprises and slaughter.
and carrying out checks on food placed on the market.
5.2. Enforcement of compulsory labelling should however
continue to be carried out under approved systems. Super- 4.Information for reassuring consumers and dealing
vision by private checking agencies should also be maintained. with cases of contamination
5.3. The Committee stresses the need to restore the confi- 4.1. In order to fully restore European consumers’ confi-
dence of consumers and beef producers by establishing a dence in the safety of beef, they must be provided with the
transparent general framework at EU level which meets most extensive and precise information possible. We cannot,
consumers’ general need to have the precisest possible infor- therefore, agree with the Parliament and Council proposal to
mation about the origin and guaranteed safety of the food they allow identification of animals by herd or batch and allow the
eat. 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 The Committee therefore takes the view that the Commission’s
proposal with regard to ‘geographical definitions’ (see the that contaminated products can be recalled if there is a food-
safety crisis. 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, 4.2. It is therefore important that:
Member State or region concerned be indicated.
— the system established by the draft regulation is applied as
widely as possible, without exemptions or exceptions. A 5.4. The Committee also advocates that in future infor-
guaranteed quality and safety standard should be reached mation about the origin of beef which, in addition to indicating
for all beef produced throughout the European Union; the Member State of origin, also refers to the region of origin,
should be permitted, if it does not involve a regional indication— the indications provided for consumers should tell themunder Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (protection of geographi-exactly what they are buying and where the meat orig-cal information and description of origin) (
1).inated. This is achieved by mentioning the place of birth
of the animal, and the place of rearing, fattening or feeding,5.5. The Committee recommends that the system be put inand slaughter.place as soon as possible in order to ease current tensions
between certain Member States; these tensions are jeopardising4.3. As a body which is close to the grassroots, the CORthe restoration of confidence which both beef producers andwishes to reiterate — as it has done on other issues not relatedbeef eaters are calling for. It would be helpful to avoid as far asto beef, and most recently in its Opinion of 18 Novemberpossible introducing the system in different stages.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. (1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
Brussels, 12 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT