Table of Contents

1..... Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties. 7

1.1. Introduction. 7

1.2. Organisation and timing. 8

1.2.1. Member States. 8

1.2.2. Stakeholders and third countries. 9

1.2.3. Responses to the public consultation “IPM consultation” & position papers 9

1.2.4. Results of Eurobarometer of 2008 and 2010. 10

1.2.5. Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) 10

1.2.6. External expertise. 10

1.3. Opinion of the IAB.. 11

2..... Problem definition.. 12

2.1. Animal welfare concerns linked to the use of the cloning technique. 12

2.2. Concerns of EU citizens. 13

2.3. Risk of diverging national laws on cloning. 13

2.4. The underlying drivers. 14

2.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?. 15

2.6. Baseline scenario. 16

2.6.1. EU legal framework. 16

2.6.2. Baseline scenario regarding the farming, breeding and food sectors. 19

2.6.3. International dimension. 20

2.7. Does the EU have the right to act (subsidiarity)?. 23

3..... Objectives. 24

3.1. General objective. 24

3.2. Specific objectives. 24

3.3. Consistency with other EU policies and horizontal objectives. 25

4..... Policy Options. 25

4.1. Policy options included in the analysis. 25

4.2. Options discarded at an early stage. 27

5..... Analysis of Impacts. 28

5.1. Option 1: No policy change. 28

5.1.1. Description of the option. 28

5.1.2. Economic Impacts. 29

5.1.3. Impacts on consumer protection. 31

5.1.4. Impacts on food prices and employment 31

5.1.5. Impact on Animal Welfare. 32

5.2. Option 2: Pre-market approval for food from clones, offspring and descendants. 32

5.2.1. Description of the option. 32

5.2.2. Economic Impacts. 33

5.2.3. Impacts on consumer protection. 34

5.2.4. Impact on prices and employment 34

5.2.5. Impact on Animal Welfare. 34

5.3. Option 3: labelling of food from clones, offspring and descendants. 34

5.3.1. Description of the option. 34

5.3.2. Economic impacts in EU - costs. 35

5.3.3. Economic impacts on trade with third countries. 40

5.3.4. Impacts on consumer protection. 42

5.3.5. Impacts on food prices and employment 43

5.3.6.. Impact on Animal Welfare. 43

5.4. Option 4: temporary suspension of the technique and of imports of live clones, their reproductive material and their food. 43

5.4.1. Description of the option. 43

5.4.2. Economic Impacts. 44

5.4.3. Impacts on consumer protection. 46

5.4.4. Impacts on prices and employment 46

5.4.5. Impact on Animal welfare. 46

5.5. Impacts on control (applicable to all options including non-policy change) 47

6..... Comparing the Options. 47

6.1. Comparing the options in terms of impacts. 48

6.1.1. Option 1 (no policy change) 48

6.1.2. Option 2: Pre-market approval of food from clones to food from offspring and descendants 48

6.1.3. Option 3: labelling of food (from clones, offspring and descendants) 48

6.1.4. Option 4: temporary suspension of the technique and the use of clones (food and reproductive material) 49

6.2. Comparing the options in terms of objectives for coherence and efficiency. 49

6.2.1. Option 1 (no policy change) 49

6.2.2. Option 2: Pre-market approval of food from clones to food from offspring and descendants. 49

6.2.3 Option 3: labelling of food (from clones, offspring and descendants) 50

6.2.4. Option 4: temporary suspension of the technique and the use of clones (food and reproductive material) 50

6.3. Table summarising the impacts. 51

7..... Monitoring and Evaluation.. 52

ANNEXES. 53

Executive Summary Sheet

Proposals for Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council on cloning of food producing animals

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

a) Welfare and health of animals linked to the use of the cloning technique EFSA[1] highlighted that surrogate dams (carrying the clones) and the clones themselves suffer in the application of the technique. b) The negative perception that EU citizens have cloning technique if used for food production In surveys the vast majority (above 80 %) of EU citizens expressed broadly negative perception of the use of cloning technique for food production. This perception appears to be at least partly the result of: - the unfounded assumption that cloning of food producing animals poses a risk to food safety and human health; - the false idea that this cloning involves genetic modification; - general scepticism towards new technologies in biosciences; - fear that negative effects of cloning manifest themselves only later. c) The request of the co-legislator to address the issue Inter-institutional discussions on cloning started in 2009 in the context of the negotiations on a proposal streamlining the approval process of the 1997 Novel Food Regulation. No agreement could be reached between Member States and the European Parliament on any of the issues linked to cloning. The conciliation failed and the Commission was requested to present a proposal on cloning based on an impact assessment.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

General objectives To address concerns on cloning for farming purposes, to ensure uniform conditions for farmers in the EU and to protect consumer interests as regard food from cloned animals. Specific objectives - Objective 1: To ensure uniform conditions of production of farmers in the EU while protecting health and welfare of farmed animals; - Objective 2: To protect consumer interests as regards food from cloned animals; - Objective 3: To safeguard the competitiveness of farmers, breeders and food businesses in the EU

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Council Directive 98/58/EC lays down general minimum welfare standards for animals bred or kept for farming purposes. It calls on Member States to avoid unnecessary pain, suffering or injury of farm animals. If cloning causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, Member States have to act at national level to avoid it. Yet different national approaches to animal cloning could lead to market distortion. Measures regulating the use of the cloning technique would address the associated animal health and welfare concerns. They would prevent the development of diverging national legislation and the consequent disruptions of the concerned agricultural markets. They would thus also ensure level playing field for breeders and farmers and uniform conditions of production for farmers. As breeding/cloning companies and food operators in third countries are also concerned it is necessary to ensure that the same conditions apply to them. The matter should thus be addressed at Union level.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Four legislative policy options have been assessed: (1) the status quo; (2) premarket-approval of food from clones, offspring and descendants; (3) labelling of food from clones, offspring and descendants; and (4) suspension of the cloning technique in the EU (with the suspension of use of clones, their reproductive material and their food). None of the options would on their own enable to attain the objectives. Therefore to define the most appropriate policy approach, elements of options may need to be put together. No preferred option is thus proposed at this stage.

Who supports which option?

All professional organisations representing the various farming, breeding and food industry sectors are in favour of the status quo and resist new measures on cloning as they may trigger additional costs and administrative burden. Conversely, the European consumer organisations and other NGOs are in favour of a mandatory labelling of food products derived from the progeny (offspring and descendants) of clones and the suspension of the cloning technique in the EU.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

This option has a positive impact on animal welfare and creates a level playing field for all farmers and breeders in the Union. It is restricted to the technique, to clones and food obtained thereof. Its impact on Union FBOs and trade is limited because trade, if any, is likely to be insignificant as FBOs have no interest to market food from clones. The suspension of the technique would not stifle innovation and research as it would be temporary and limited in scope. It thus signals that research outside this policy can be pursued. Traditional breeding techniques use clones to produce offspring. Hence the suspension of the use of reproductive material of clones could jeopardize the competitiveness of the Union's farming sector as it would deprive it of competitive genetic material. This option has a positive impact on consumers: their concerns about animal welfare will be addressed as no cloning would take place in the Union and no food from clones marketed in the Union.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

The impact of the preferred option on business is negligible as trade in animal clones and food derived thereof is quasi non-existent and food business operators have no commercial interest in marketing clones or food from clones.

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?

The freedom to conduct business might be restricted but this would be justified for the purpose of protecting animal health and welfare and the suspension would be stopped as soon as the technology has evolved. The Directives will not have an impact on SMEs and micro-enterprises

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

There would be no additional costs for Member States' control authorities as official controls are already in place on animals and their reproductive material, as well as on food labelling in general.

Will there be other significant impacts?

The preferred option could have indirect long term effects on the allocation of innovation investments. Organisations looking to invest in the development of cloning in general may be more inclined to place their investments elsewhere. Therefore we need to continue to encourage cloning for research.

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?

Both proposals trigger a review process By 5 years after the date of transposition of this Directive when Member States will have to report to the Commission on the experience gained by them on the application of the Directives.

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 1.1. Introduction

Cloning is a relatively new reproduction technique which allows the asexual reproduction of an individual farm animal that has shown good productivity. Cloning does not involve any genetic modification. In fact, the clone is a near exact genetic copy of the original animal (the donor) and should have the same high quality reproductive material (semen, ova or embryos) as that of the donor. Although cloning does not improve the animal's performance, breeders may consider cloning beneficial in order to increase the output of reproductive material of a particularly valuable animal.

Clones for food production are used to produce reproductive material. As shown in the schema below, the reproductive material of the clone enables the production of progeny (composed of offspring and then of descendants). This progeny is produced via traditional breeding techniques (not involving cloning). It is mostly destined for direct use in the food chain although elite animals may be retained for breeding purposes.

Clones are not produced to obtain meat or milk for the food chain. This may however happen for meat, at the end of the breeding life of the clone or when the clone obtained is less efficient than originally foreseen and therefore no longer kept for breeding purposes. The process of cloning is further detailed in Annex XIII (Paragraph 1).

As cloning is a novel reproduction technique and as food from clones is susceptible to enter the food chain, food from clones is presently subject to a pre-market approval under the existing Novel Food Regulation[2]. The inter-institutional discussions on a proposal streamlining this approval process reached a stalemate on issues related to cloning (such as the use of the technique in the EU, the use of reproductive material of clones, of their food, the traceability of progeny of clones and of their food). In spite of the Commission’s report of October 2010, which suggested adopting specific measures on cloning[3], no agreement could be reached and the Conciliation ended in March 2011. This led to the request to the Commission[4] to prepare a separate legislative proposal on all aspects of cloning for food production based on a detailed impact assessment.

This impact assessment therefore covers the five species susceptible to be cloned (i.e. bovine, porcine, caprine, ovine and equine) and used for food production. Cloning of animals for research purposes, for producing medicinal products or medicinal devices, for preserving rare breeds or endangered species or for sport purposes is excluded from this policy initiative. A Glossary of technical terms is to be found in Annex I.

1.2. Organisation and timing

The public consultation and collection of expertise took place between end 2011 and end 2012.

1.2.1. Member States

Member States were consulted in the meetings of Standing Committee for the Food Chain and Animal Health between February and July 2012 to clarify whether cloning takes place and if so to what extent, and were subsequently invited to respond to a specific questionnaire on these issues in March 2012. All 27 Member States responded with Germany authorities clarifying their final position in May 2013.

In response to the questionnaire on the use of cloning on their territory, to know whether clones are produced for food production or imported and if so to what extent, all Member States confirmed that cloning for food production does not take place on their territory. Most of them specified that Directive 98/58/EC[5] (see section 2.6.1) is transposed into national animal welfare law. Only Denmark refers explicitly to cloning which is banned on their territory. Germany who reported in the past the existence of cloned bulls for selling their reproductive material outside the EU confirmed in writing in May 2013 the absence of any such clones on their territory. France reported cloning of horses but only for sport purposes. The positions of Member States are summarised in Annex III (paragraph 1).

1.2.2. Stakeholders and third countries[6]

Multi stakeholders meetings took place via the Advisory Group of the Food Chain (Annex II) with 22 organisations representing all concerned stakeholders (farmers and breeders, meat and milk industry, food industry, retail industry, consumers and animal welfare) on their position on possible action regarding the use of the cloning technique in the EU and the appropriateness to label food from clones and of their progeny so as to offer consumer choice.

Five technical bilateral meetings were held with specific industry organisations on technical issues linked to breeding for food production to understand the baseline scenario regarding traceability of animals and of meat and milk. The minutes of the meetings are to be found in (Annex II).

15 third countries with major trade (in meat, milk products and reproductive materials) with the EU were also consulted via a specific questionnaire sent in March 2012. 13 countries responded to the questionnaire and one (New Zealand) sent instead a letter expressing their position. China and Chile did not reply to the questionnaire.

Based on the responses received to the questionnaire on cloning activities to understand whether traceability systems are in place for clones, their progeny and food, the responses received can be summarised as follows: cloning for food production takes place in USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Australia. In Canada the situation on cloning is similar to that in the Union, i.e. food produced from food is considered novel and requires pre-market approval. In the other countries, clones, their progeny and reproductive material are subject to the same regulation as conventional animals regarding the food safety, animal health and welfare. Clones are registered by private companies (USA, Canada and Brazil)[7] but Argentina and Australia report that clones are not registered. The number and activities of cloning companies on their territory are not known by any of the authorities. The positions of third countries are summarised in Annex III (Paragraph 2).

1.2.3. Responses to the public consultation “IPM consultation” & position papers

The public consultation was launched in March 2012 via the Interactive Policy Making (the so called "IPM consultation") for 16 weeks with reminders sent during this period via the Enterprise Europe Network, on DG Health and Consumers website and via the e-news network reaching approximately 6000 subscribers: 360 replies were received among which 34 from professional organisations, 34 from non-governmental organisations, 10 from Member States, one third country and 230 from individuals.

Almost all[8] professional organisations representing farmers, breeders, food industry and retail, when asked about policy change on any of the issues of cloning indicated their favourable position towards the status quo (no legislation on cloning, maintaining food from clones under the Novel Food Regulation, no measures on food from progeny of clones, no labelling). The additional position papers received from industry (farmers, breeding sector and food industry) confirmed that the current situation represents for them the best scenario.

Conversely consumer organizations, animal welfare associations and individuals, expressed themselves against the use of cloning technique and the placing of the food from clones and their progeny on the EU market. Finally, EU citizens participating in the "IPM consultation" emphasised that if food products originating from clones and their progeny would be available on the EU market, they would want to be able to make informed choices.

The responses to the IPM consultations are summarised in Annex IV. The position papers of specific stakeholders are summarised in Annex III (Paragraph 3).

1.2.4. Results of Eurobarometer of 2008 and 2010

To understand the consumers’ position, a specific Eurobarometer of 2008 on cloning[9], which surveyed 25000 randomly selected citizens in EU 27 and the 2010 Eurobarometer on biotechnology of were used.

The Eurobarometer of 2008 on cloning showed that around 80% of the interviewees agreed that there could be ethical grounds for rejecting animal cloning and around 70% that animal cloning would risk treating animals as commodities rather than creatures with feelings. Concerning animal welfare issues linked to the use of cloning technique, 41% agreed that it would cause animal unnecessary pain, suffering and distress and 42% disagreed. In the Eurobarometer on biotechnology of 2010 EU citizens expressed strong reservations about the use of animal cloning in food production. More information on the responses is available in Section 2.2. (concerns of EU citizens).

1.2.5. Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG)

The Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was set up in November 2011 with 11 Directorate-Generals as well as EFSA: DG AGRI, ENV, TRADE, MARKT, RTD, JUST, ENTR, TAXUD, JRC, SG and LS. The Group was consulted frequently. It agreed on the Roadmap in February 2012[10] and dealt with the work carried out by the contractor, the IPM public consultation, the consultation process with Member States and third countries as well as the elaboration of this impact assessment report.

1.2.6. External expertise

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) delivered an opinion in 2008 on the food safety, animal health, animal welfare and environmental implications of clones, of their progeny and of the products obtained from those animals followed by three statements in 2009, 2010 and 2012[11]. Based on the available data EFSA confirmed the welfare problems related to the health of surrogate mothers (carrying the clones) and clones themselves. Regarding food safety, EFSA concluded that there is no indication of any difference for food safety for meat and milk of clones and their progeny compared with those of conventionally bred animals.

The specific report on cloning by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) of 2008[12] was also used as source of expertise. The EGE expressed doubts on the ethical justification on animal cloning for food production purposes, "considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones". EGE also concluded that it did "not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring".

In December 2012 a study[13] by ICF-GHK was finalised concerning mainly the feasibility and costs of the possible measures on animal cloning (summary in Annex V).

1.3. Opinion of the IAB

The IA report was submitted to the IA board on 19. June 2013 and was formally presented on 17 July 2013. Following this meeting the board issued a positive opinion on 19 July 2013. The opinion suggested clarifying a number of points, which have been addressed in the following manner:

1) Explain better the uncertainty in interpreting Directive 98/58/EC as regards the use of the cloning technique, its potential circumvention and the likelihood of unilateral national measures and explain better why the existing pre-market approval would still be considered fit for purpose for food from bovine and porcine clones.

These issues have all been addressed in section 2.3. "risk of diverging national laws on cloning" and section 2.6.1. (b) "Novel Food Regulation".

2) Explain why measures to improve consumer awareness or upgrade/revise existing voluntary (organic) label schemes have not been considered, give further insights into consumers views clarify whether there is any evidence of undermined consumer confidence because of absence of information on cloning, and to what extent consumers are ready to pay higher prices, and why food business operators have not developed voluntary labelling schemes.

This explanation has been added in section 2.2. on "concerns of EU citizens" and in section 2.4 "the underlying drivers".

3) Present and asses the provisions on "mandatory" and "voluntary" labelling versus "offspring" and "descendants" separately and clarify the proportionality of option 2 and explain difference between status quo and labelling food from clones/suspension of the cloning technique.

This has been done in section 5.2.1. "description of option 2" and in section 4.1. "Policy options". In addition, sections 5.3. , 6.1., 6.2. and 6.3. present and assess the options distinguishing between "offspring", "descendants", "voluntary", "mandatory".

4)Provide (as appropriate) a more conclusive assessment of competitiveness impacts, clearly differentiating between the impact on EU farmers, importers of food and the food chain industry operators, clarify readiness of third countries to put in place the traceability systems. These requests have been dealt with in section 5.3.3.(b) and (c) and overview tables (numbers 4 and 5) has been inserted in Annex IX.

5) Section 5.1 on the pre-market approval of food from clones and section 5.3.2. (a) on the labelling of food from clones explain why the related costs would be marginal. Regarding food from offspring and descendants, section 5.3.2. (b) explains the costs of traceability and labelling.

6) Identify which Member States will be impacted most and explain how the 2 % increase in the beef sector has been calculated. This has been integrated in Annex IX.

7) Clarify why national authorities / EU budged are not expected to bear additional costs: The clarification has been added to section 5.5. "Impacts on control".

8) Give the key results in a comprehensive overview table: Table 9 has been added in Section 6. In view of the many possible options, in particular on labelling, this table 9 is a summary of the more elaborate overview which is to be found in Annex XII.

9) Mention monitoring indicators corresponding to the data collection and respective objectives: this data has been added in section 7.

10) Complete Summary and Executive Summary sheet with most relevant information: this has been done.

2. Problem definition

As indicated under 1.2.6. above EFSA concluded that there is no indication of any difference for food safety for meat and milk of clones and their progeny compared with those of conventionally bred animals.

2.1. Animal welfare concerns linked to the use of the cloning technique

In the EFSA's opinion on animal cloning of 2008 and subsequent statements until 2012 it is highlighted that issues of welfare and health of animals for the surrogate dams (carrying the clones) and the clones themselves are arising. This evaluation is however based on limited data and related primarily to bovine and porcine species. In particular:

a) For bovine and porcine species EFSA noted that surrogate dams suffer in particular from placenta dysfunctions contributing to increased levels of miscarriages. This contributes, amongst others, to the low efficiency of the technique (6-15 % for bovine and about 6 % for porcine species) and the need implant embryo clones[14] into several dams to obtain but one clone. In addition, clone abnormalities and unusually large offspring result in difficult births and neonatal death. After weaning no significant differences from conventional animals are noted.

b) for other species (ovine, caprine and equine), EFSA stated that there was not enough data available to complete its assessment on animal welfare aspects.

c) As regards offspring and descendants of clones, EFSA concluded that no animal health or welfare problems affect offspring and descendants of clones, as compared to conventionally bred animals, for all species as they are produced, via traditional reproduction techniques.

2.2. Concerns of EU citizens

The vast majority (above 80 %) of EU citizens interviewed in the Eurobarometer survey had a broadly negative perception of the use of cloning technique for food production[15]. This was primarily due to welfare and ethical concerns. EU citizens also indicated that if food products originating from clones and their progeny would be available on the EU market, they would want to be able to make informed choices. Half of the interviewees also considered – incorrectly- that animal cloning involves genetic modification.

This is highlighted by both the 2008 and 2010 Eurobarometer and the IPM consultation launched for this impact assessment (see chapter 1.2.4. above).

This strong negative perception of cloning appears to be at least partly the result of:

- the unfounded assumption that cloning of food producing animals poses a risk to food safety and human health;

- the false idea that this cloning involves genetic modification;

- general scepticism towards new technologies in biosciences;

- fear that negative effects of cloning manifest themselves only later.

2.3. Risk of diverging national laws on cloning

The growing concern of public opinion in particular about the animal health and welfare issues associated with the use of cloning for food production could push Member States to take measures unilaterally on issues linked to the use of the cloning technique, the use of clones (reproductive material and/or food) and to the labelling of food to inform consumers.

Member States may ban explicitly the use of cloning technique on their territory in accordance with provisions of Directive 98/58/EC on animal welfare on all species or only on some of them. Directive 98/58/EC forbids the use of "breeding procedures which cause unnecessary pain" but does not explicitly forbid the cloning technique. Denmark adopted in 2005[16] a national legislation which forbids the use of the technique on the national territory but does not regulate the intra-Union trade and the imports of animals, their reproductive material or food. It therefore has no impact on the functioning of the internal market. However, it is not certain that other Member States, when taking national measures, in the absence of EU initiatives would take a similar line as Denmark. They may interpret the provision of the Directive in a way that the use of clones, whether produced nationally or imported, and their products (reproductive material and food) are also forbidden on their territory.

There is no information about the circumventing of the de-facto ban on the use of cloning technique as there is no legal requirement for EU operators to register any information related to the cloning status of their animals or informing the competent authorities when buying a clone or its reproductive material (same requirements as for conventionally bred animals).

During the Conciliation referred to in paragraph 1.1.above, Member States expressed their willingness to see measures on cloning at EU level but did not specify which type of national measures they would adopt in the absence of EU initiative. Taking into consideration the outcome of the inter institutional debate on food from clones, it appears that the absence of comprehensive EU measures on cloning could present some challenges to the good functioning of the concerned markets as divergent national legislations could be adopted by Member States. However, since the end of the conciliation (as referred to in paragraph 1.1. above), only Austria highlighted in writing the need to address cloning at EU level to avoid adoption of diverging national laws without specifying to which aspects such laws would refer to.

2.4. The underlying drivers

They are three-fold and can be summarised as follows:

- The animal health and welfare problems identified by EFSA are due to the use of the cloning technique and its current level of development. EFSA clearly indicates that the negative effects have been observed in other assisted reproductive techniques (not involving cloning) but at much lower frequencies[17]. In the latest update of 2012, EFSA concludes[18] that the scientific knowledge available has increased but that only limited progress has been achieved to diminish or solve of the problems identified as the efficiency of cloning is still low compared to other techniques; in particular, EFSA mentions that to overcome the relative low cloning efficiency, researchers continue to amend cloning procedures, with however limited improvements shown by some researchers.

- The consumer's attitude towards the cloning has been summarised as follows in the 2008 Eurobarometer study (page 11 of the summary):

It is thus a general negative perception of this reproduction technique generated by different motives.

This general negative perception give rise to a desire to recognize the food derived from clones and their progeny as clearly shown by the survey's results.

The results show that consumers are reluctant to buy products of cloning origin. There is, however, no evidence that buying behaviour for food of animal origin would in practice be influenced by the knowledge on the reproduction technique used.

It is not clear to what extent consumers are ready to pay a premium for information on the food from clones and their progeny. Respective questions were not asked in the context of the various consultations held[19] due to the known discrepancy between the consumers' replies to such questions and their actual purchasing behaviour. The situation is thus not comparable to that of the BSE crisis[20].

- The request to produce a dedicated policy on cloning is due to the outcome of the discussions on the Novel Food legislative proposal (see Section 1.1.), where it appeared necessary to clarify and address all different aspects related to cloning going beyond the food aspects. In this context, the Member States already requested the Commission to prepare a proposal on all aspects of cloning, based on an impact assessment. As the conciliation did not conclude, the final positions of Member States and Parliament remain unclear. More specifically Member States requested by unanimity a pre-market approval for food from offspring in first reading but in the subsequent discussions it appeared that some Member States were in favour of labelling and others were totally opposed. The European Parliament[21] requested a ban of the technique, of meat and dairy products of clones and of their offspring as well as of their reproductive material, and then, in second reading, a total ban of any food from clones and descendants[22]. More recently in the context of the discussions of electronic identification of bovine[23], the European Parliament requested mandatory labelling of fresh meat of offspring of clones pending the presentation by the Commission of the specific proposal on cloning.

2.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?

The range of actors that could be potentially affected by any measure taken covering the three aspects of cloning (technique of cloning, live animals, their reproductive material and their food) is very wide and include the following :

- The breeders, which produce and market the reproductive materials (semen, embryo and ova) to improve the genetic performances of farm animals for the meat and milk production or other relevant traits. The sector is composed of cooperative of farmers or specific companies specialised in livestock genetics. They may be affected in so far as they presently import reproductive material from third countries some of which could derive from clones. They import limited numbers of live animals but these could also be clones or offspring or descendants of clones, in which case they would also be impacted.

- The farmers (or livestock sector), which raise animals for food production, which accounts for a large part of the EU agricultural output (41% of in value terms, representing 1.2% of the European Union’s GDP); they may be impacted when they buy reproductive material of clones to raise offspring and subsequently descendants on the EU territory of food production.

-The EU food industry at the different stages of the food chain (from slaughterhouses to distribution and retail) when using food from clones, offspring or descendants of clones raised in the EU or importing such food from third countries. SME's play a key role in the EU food sector on every stage of the supply chain, representing nearly 452 billion € of turnover (Annex X).

-Third country operators who trade live animals, reproductive material, or food with the EU would also be affected. This would be in particular the case of cloning companies and breeders who may produce reproductive materials from clones (or from offspring or descendants of clones) and export it to the EU; it may also affect food operators in third countries who export meat, milk or the derived products to the EU and which could derive from clones or progeny of clones

- EU consumers as purchasers of the food products available on EU the market.

2.6. Baseline scenario 2.6.1. EU legal framework a) Legislation on animal welfare

The EU Directive 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes[24] does not refer explicitly to cloning but requires Member States to act at national level to avoid unnecessary pain, suffering or injury in the context of raising farm animals and mentions that such obligation also applies in the use of reproduction techniques. In so far as cloning causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, as highlighted by EFSA it cannot be used for food production on the EU territory pursuant to this Directive. The feasibility and the appropriateness of introducing specific welfare indicators to ensure uniform application of EU legislation is being studied under the Welfare Strategy[25].

b) Novel Food Regulation

The Novel Food Regulation[26] covers, to date, the food derived from cloned animals, which are subject to a pre-market approval and a risk assessment by a national competent authority. If an authorisation would be granted mandatory labelling could be requested on a case by case basis. The cloned animals and their food would need to be identified as "clones" or "derived from clones". To date this identification system dedicated to cloned animals is not in place. Moreover no request for authorisation has ever been made up to now (see further details in Annex V).

c) Legislation on identification of animals

The EU legislation on identification of animals is a prerequisite for the traceability of animals in case of disease outbreaks.

Animal identification systems are established with Regulation (EC) 1760/2000[27], Council Directive 2008/71/EC[28], Council Regulation (EC) 21/2004[29] and Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/2008. These measures provide for mandatory identification devices or marks, passports and registers. All equine animals are identified individually[30] for their life time and registered in databases. Bovine, caprine, and ovine species[31] are in principle identified individually but are subject to some exceptions granted to Member States. Porcine animals are not identified individually; they are identified in "batches" (i.e. same registration number for each pig belonging to the batch).

In addition, all holdings have to record the individual animals (or the batches, in the case of pigs) as well as their movements in their own registers.

No system requires information on the reproduction methods the animals were produced with. It is thus nowhere specified whether the animal is or not a clone or a progeny of clone.

All five species can only be moved between Member States or imported into the EU when accompanied by a "health certificate" delivered by an official veterinarian of the Member State or the third country of dispatch.

Further details are given in Annex VI.

d) Legislation on identification of reproductive material and traceability of the reproductive material to an individual animal

The EU legislation requires - for both imported and EU produced reproductive material- the individual identification of the donor animal. The precise identification of the animal needs to be indicated on the straws, or ampoules, or packaging, or the accompanying "health certificate".

There is no requirement to specify that the donor is or not a clone or a progeny of clone.

Further details are given in Annex VI.

e) Legislation on traceability of animals

Traceability of animals is the ability to track an animal or a group of animals from one point in the supply chain to another, either backwards or forwards.EU legislation imposes traceability systems for the purposes of animal health to provide the information required to implement control measures against disease. They allow that animals can be traced from holding of birth to death/slaughter.

Further details are given in Annex VI.

f) Legislation on traceability of food from animals

Traceability of food is imposed on all food business operators (FBOs) established in the EU by the General Food law[32]. FBOs must be able for any food and through all stages of production, processing, and distribution, to identify the immediate supplier of the product in question as well as the subsequent recipient. FBOs organise their production by batches (groups of products with homogeneous characteristics) so as to be able to identify the batches which contain the food to be withdrawn in case of fraud or food safety issue.

This system does not ensure that food (such as a piece of meat) can be traced to an individual animal.

The compulsory labelling system established with Regulation 1760/2000 obliges food business operators to label the beef at all stages of the marketing process and thus to establish the underlying identification and traceability system to allow them to provide the information required, i.e. country where the animal was slaughtered, the license number of the slaughterhouse, the country where cutting was performed, the license number of the cutting plant, the country where the animals were born, the country where the animals were fattened/bred. Imported meat for which not all compulsory information is available is labelled "Origin: non-EC", followed by the name of the third country in which it was slaughtered.

Further details are given in Annex VI.

g) Legislation on zootechnics and voluntary guidelines

To be entered in a herd-book of the same breed, purebred animals of all five species and their genetic material must comply with EU requirements (e.g. parents and grant parents of that breed must be registered in the same herd book and mentioned on the certificate)[33]. Compliance is attested in specific "zootechnical certificates".

There is no EU requirement to register clones specifically in herd books. However, for a particular dairy cattle breed, guidelines have been established on a voluntary basis by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF)[34] on how to register clones, the donor animal and the required ancestors. It is not known how far this is implemented by breeders, whether it exists for other breeds and how much attention EU breeders and farmers give to this information.

Further details are given in Annex XIII (Paragraph 5).

2.6.2. Baseline scenario regarding the farming, breeding and food sectors

The EU livestock production accounts for 41% of agricultural output in value terms, representing 1.2% of the European Union’s GDP. In value terms, beef and milk represent over 50% of total output, with sheep meat representing over 20%[35].

Regarding number of actors across the meat and dairy supply chain, there are almost 8 million farmers/producers, around 80.000 processors and the same amount of wholesalers and close to 700.000 food and specialist meat and dairy retailers across Europe[36].

The EU food sector represents[37] a total turn-over of 1,017 Billion € and approximately 287,000 companies employing 4.25 million people in the EU. Around 98 % companies are SMEs which represent around 49 % of total turn-over and 63% of employment in the sector. It is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of turnover, value added and employment. It contributes for around 15 % of EU gross value added of manufacturing sector.

SMEs play a key role in the EU food sector, at every stage of the supply chain. They represent nearly EUR 452 billion of turn-over, with EUR 93 billion of value added and employ about 2.7 million people in 271,000 enterprises which are 99.1% of total Food & Drink companies, and 48.7% of total turnover[38].

The meat consumption is expected to remain high. On a per capita basis, EU meat consumption in 2022, at 82.6 kg, would be at approximately the same level as it was in 2009. Pork is expected to remain the preferred meat in the EU with 40.8 kg/capita consumption in 2022, compared to 24.1 kg for poultry, 15.7 kg for beef/veal and less than 2.0 kg for sheep and goat meat. Meat demand in Northern America and Europe would remain globally stable by 2050[39] but still remain highest in the world by 2050 at around 89 kg per inhabitant (against an estimated 83 kg in 2010).

Regarding the economic performance, gross profit margins are generally not high in the livestock sector but they are positive. However, measured by economic profit and thus also taking into account estimates of the unpaid family factors is negative in most cases, which suggests that resources are not being optimally allocated[40]. Thus, across the food chain, efficiency gains through technological or process innovation are being pursued, which is also a factor leading to concentration in the sector.

The structure of livestock breeding in Europe is primarily composed of elite breeders at the top (mostly organised in cooperatives owned by farmers, which are often SMEs) who supply commercial herds in charge of meat and milk production.

Cloning for food production is not taking place in the EU as reported by Member States (see Section 1.2.1. above) and there is little prospect of commercial cloning activity in the period to 2020, or at least to any significant scale..

The actual impact of cloning on farm-level economics can be estimated as providing an annual increase in milk yields of 300kg (estimate for a period of ten years)[41]. For comparison, it is necessary to know that current high end producers are at an EU average of 7000 kg per annum which would mean cloning could provide for an additional increase of 4%. This has to be put into comparison to the current EU dairy market: over the last 3 years, milk deliveries remained relatively stable, with only small variations while forecast for 2020 predict EU-27 total milk production to exceed the 2009 level by about 3%[42].

Further details are given in Annexes VII and VIII.

2.6.3. International dimension a) Legal framework

For live animals, animal products (including reproductive materials and food), the following multilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are relevant: the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The precise determination which of the WTO provisions are relevant would depend on the objective and the drafting of the envisaged legislation.

Any measure adopted would have to honour the principle of "National Treatment", which prohibits less favourable treatment of like products imported (Article III: 4 GATT). Departures from this general rule could be justified under Article XX of GATT (General Exceptions) which allows for measures taken on grounds of "public morals", which could be interpreted as including animal welfare or for measures taken on grounds of the protection of life and health of human or animal health. The WTO exemptions are subject to strict requirements, amongst others, proof of the necessity of the measure to obtain the objective in question, which implies that it has to be investigated whether there is not a less trade restrictive way to obtain the same objective, as well as proof of application in a non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary manner. In addition to the GATT, the envisaged legislation would be subject to either the SPS Agreement or the TBT Agreement, depending on its objective and design.

The SPS Agreement applies to measures taken with the objective to protect human, animal or plant health from diseases carried through food, feed, animals, plants or pests. A measure that conforms to international standards is presumed to be in compliance of the SPS Agreement, but there are no international standards on cloning. The SPS Agreement requires measures within its scope to be based on science, proportionate and non-discriminatory.

To the extent the legislation lays down product characteristics or related processing methods, labelling, packaging or other requirements, and these requirements do not relate to SPS objectives, the TBT Agreement would apply. The TBT Agreement requires measures to be non-discriminatory and not more trade-restrictive than required to achieve a legitimate objective. Measures should not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

b) Cloning activity in third countries

As commercial cloning for food production is presently taking place in third countries and as the EU imports animals, reproductive material and food, which could potentially be clones or derive from clones, the third country trade aspect of this policy must be taken into account. Based on the replies to the questionnaire (see Section 1.2. above), third countries' authorities do not have any information about the number of clones and the specific activities carried out by cloning companies on their territory, or about the amount of food products of clones or progeny of clones. Based on the consultant's study and information received from US companies and stakeholders (Annex II), cloning takes place primarily for bovine (for food production) and equine (for elite sports horses). It is also carried out for porcine (for food production) but to a much lesser extent. It is presently not known whether it is used commercially for ovine species and should have just started for caprine in the US. The possible reasons for this relatively limited development could be due to the low efficiency of the technique as highlighted by EFSA and the related high costs, placing prices of clones above the prices of high quality animals. This could also explain why cloning could represent a higher commercial interest in the case of more expensive animals such as bovine for breeding purposes or horses for sport purposes.

The overview of commercial cloning is summarised below:

Overview of commercial cloning in third countries

Bovine animals: the most developed. Applied to cattle in the US, Canada, Argentina and Australia[43] It may also be undertaken in Brazil, New Zealand, Chile, China and Uruguay based on the presence of cattle cloning companies in these countries.

Milk and meat from the offspring or descendants of cloned bovine animals have entered the food chain in the US and may have done so in Argentina; these are the products most likely to continue to enter human food chains in the near future. The Swiss government says that ‘several hundred’ second or third generation descendants of clones are in Switzerland (of a total 1.5 million head of cattle);[44]

Porcine animals: consultations with the US cloning industry suggests that there is some commercial cloning for pigs in that country and that it is becoming more common. It may also be undertaken in New Zealand and China based on the presence of pig cloning companies in these countries.

Ovine and caprine animals: consultations with industry stakeholders in the EU of third country Competent Authorities indicate that commercial cloning of ovine or caprine animals outside the EU is uncommon. Some commercial cloning of these animals has started in the US, but at very small scale. Equine animals: consultations of third country Competent Authorities indicate that there is no livestock cloning activity currently being conducted for equine animals. Sport cloning is undertaken in North and South America and Brazil and South Korea..[45]

Source GHK study page 26

c) EU imports of live animals, reproductive material and food of animal origin

The EU imports live animals (LA), reproductive material (RM) and animal products, in many cases from one or more of the five countries (USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia) where commercial cloning is taking place. The extent to which these imports are related to clones, to the reproductive material of clones or their progeny is presently unknown as there is no requirement (neither under EU law; nor in third countries) to identify them as such.

As shown in the table 1 below, the share of imports of live animals and of reproductive material compared to EU production or livestock is very low (respectively <0.01% of EU livestock and 2.5 % of EU use of reproductive material). The share of EU imports of meat and milk products is also low except for ovine /caprine and equine meat, where it ranges between 20 % and 50 % of EU production respectively.

For these species, however cloning is not taking place for food production or may have started to a very limited extent.

Table 1 Summary of EU imports from main exporting countries

|| Species || Main exporting country || Amount || % of EU imports of livestock, use or production

Live animals || Bovine || Canada and New Zealand || Very low || <0,01 % of livestock

Pigs || Russian federation, Canada and USA || Very low || <0,01 % of livestock

Others || USA, Argentina, New Zealand and Chile || Very low || <0,1 % of livestock

Reproductive material (semen) || Bovine || USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia || Low at EU level but medium to high in some MS || 2.5 % of use of semen in EU in average and up to 20 % or more in certain MS *

Others || Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand || Not available || Not available

Reproductive material (embryo) || Bovine || Canada and USA || Not available || Not available

Meat || Bovine || Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (70 % of all imports), Australia, USA, New Zealand || Low || EU net importer (5 % of EU production)

Ovine || New Zealand (80 % of all imports) || High || EU net importer (23 % of EU production)

Caprine

Porcine || Chile, USA and Australia || Very low || EU self-sufficient (<0.1% of EU production)

Equine || Canada, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay || High || EU net importer (50 % of EU production)

Fresh milk || Bovine Caprine Ovine || Croatia, Switzerland and Norway (99 % of all imports) || Very low || 0.01% of EU production

Cheese & butter || Bovine Caprine Ovine || Switzerland, New Zealand, USA, Australia and Norway || Low || 2 % of EU production

Very low: <1%; low: 1% - 5%; medium: 6% -20% high: 21% -50%;

Sources: Eurostat External Trade Statistics (COMEXT), Traces; * Source: Commission report on animal cloning for food production–COM (2010) 585 and stakeholders in Advisory group meetings (minutes in Annex II).

However, in terms of value, as shown in table 2 below, out of a total value of 3.6 billion € of imports of food per year, imports of meat accounts for 80 %, of which the highest share is composed of bovine meat (60 %) imported from countries where cloning takes (notably USA, Argentina, Brazil). The share of ovine and caprine meat in value of all meat imports is also relatively high (35 %) but as stated above, cloning for these species is not developed for the time being.

EU trade on reproductive material takes primarily place with the USA and Canada.

- Imports of reproductive material account for a small percentage of total use in the EU (2.5% on average[46]) but the breeding sector considers access to this genetic material as essential to the continued viability of the industry[47]. The majority of imported reproductive material is from bovine (in value): for example in 2011, the value of all imported reproductive material (all species) was of €48 million in 2011, originating at 93% from bovine. The US and Canada are very dominant in EU supply of reproductive material for all species (bovine at 98%, porcine at 100%, ovine and caprine at 80 %, equine at 98%).

-The EU exports bovine semen worth €25 million each year[48] of which almost half to the US, Canada and Latin America.

Table 2 Import value in million € from 2010 to 2012

|| Species || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

Live animals || TOTAL Live animals || 193 || 120 || 185

Bovine || 0.91 || 1 || 0.62

Swine || 1 || 0.53 || 0.77

Sheep and goats || 0.28 || 0.85 || 0.12

Equidae || 191 || 118 || 184

Meat || TOTAL Meat || 2731 || 3046 || 2847

Bovine || 1576 || 1702 || 1693

Porcine || 58 || 55 || 52

Ovine/caprine || 999 || 1195 || 1003

Equine || 98 || 94 || 99

RM* || TOTAL || 45 || 48 || 49

Milk &Milk products** || TOTAL || 644 || 688 || 722

TOTAL || 3612 || 3901 || 3802

* Reproductive Material from bovine ** from bovine, caprine, ovine

Source: Eurostat. Comext -Extracted 7/06/2013

2.7. Does the EU have the right to act (subsidiarity)? Right to act (EU competence)

Article 13 TFEU specifies that welfare requirements of animals shall be taken into account by the Union and the Member States when formulating and implementing Union policies. However, this Article in itself does not grant the EU a competence to legislate on animal welfare.

Existing Union legislation on both animal welfare and identification of farm animals and their reproductive materials is based on Article 43 TFEU (Agriculture). Measures regulating the use of the cloning technique would address the associated animal health and welfare concerns, and would prevent the development of diverging national legislation on this technique adopted to implement the general principles laid down in Directive 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes and the consequent disruptions of the concerned agricultural markets. They would therefore ensure legal certainty and a level playing field for breeders and farmers and to ensure uniform conditions of production for farmers. Therefore, it may be possible to base certain measures on Article 43 TFEU.

As regards the EU competence under Article 114 TFEU (Internal Market), this requires a risk of divergence between national legislations as explained in paragraph 2.3 above.

Finally, EU competence for certain measures could be drawn from Article 352 TFEU (Flexibility Clause) under the conditions set out therein.

Necessity of the EU to act (Subsidiarity)

Issues linked to animal cloning relate to the identification and traceability of life animals and of their reproductive material. As live animals, their reproductive materials and derived food can be freely traded in the Internal Market the issue needs to be addressed at Union level. Isolated national approaches could lead to market distortion.

Proportionality

The options identified as feasible as a result of this impact assessment should be suitable and necessary to achieve the objectives set out below and they should present the best cost benefit ratio to resolve the issues at stake, as explained in the comparison of options in chapter 6.2.

3. Objectives 3.1. General objective

To address concerns raised as regards cloning for farm purposes and ensure uniform conditions for farmers in the EU and to protect consumer interests as regard food from cloned animals.

3.2. Specific objectives

Objective 1:

To ensure uniform conditions of production of farmers in the EU while protecting health and welfare of farmed animals;

Objective 2:

To protect consumer interests as regards food from cloned animals

Objective 3:

To safeguard the competitiveness of farmers, breeders and food businesses in the EU.

3.3. Consistency with other EU policies and horizontal objectives

The objectives identified are in particular in line with:

- the Europe 2020 Strategy in favour of a sustainable development based on innovation and competitiveness of EU economy and agriculture;

- the Common Agricultural Policy objectives including in relation to the rearing of animals for food production;

- the EU Food Law defines the requirements applicable to all foods as regards food safety and consumer information.

It also improves coherence with other EU policies notably on:

- the Novel Food Regulation, which as mentioned in 2.6.1.a. above, addresses only food from clones;

- the Animal welfare strategy for the protection and welfare of animals for 2012-2015[49], which in addition to the Directive 98/58/EC (see 2.6.1 above), aims to further improve the welfare of animals in the European Union;

- the EU legislation on Food Information to Consumers[50] which lays down labelling requirements applicable to all foods.

Finally, it takes into consideration the impacts of this initiative on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union especially as regards the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16) and consumer protection (Article 38) as further analysed in section 6.2.

4. Policy Options 4.1. Policy options included in the analysis

In light of the problems and objectives outlined above, 4 options were retained. They are described below and are also summarised in Table 3 (below).

Option 1: no policy change. The pre-market approval for food from clones under the current Novel Food Regulation would be maintained. Regarding cloning, Member States would continue to be entitled to act at national level, in line with Directive 98/58/EC on animal welfare.

Option 2: Pre-market approval of food from clones, from offspring and descendants.

As regards food from clones, this option differs from the status quo from a procedural point of view only[51].

The main difference to option 1 is that it would enlarge the scope of the pre-market approval from food of clones to food of offspring and descendants of clones. Accordingly this food would become subject to a scientific risk assessment by EFSA followed by a decision of the Commission to authorise or not the food[52].

It has to be stressed that EFSA has already confirmed the absence of a risk to food safety.

However, it is important to assess this policy option since this option had been put forward by the co-legislators during the discussions between 2008 and 2011 on a reform of the Novel Food Regulation. Moreover, EFSA could not establish the absence of food safety concerns for the other species than porcine and bovine (ovine, caprine, equine) in the absence of specific data. Therefore the pre-market approval would be useful (i) to confirm the safety for the bovine and porcine species; and (ii) to encourage the establishment of data for the other species so as to be able confirm in a second stage their safety.

Option 3: labelling of food from clones, offspring and descendants

Sub-option 1: labelling of food from clones

Sub-option 2: labelling of food from offspring

Sub-option 3: labelling of food from descendants

Under this option food from clones, offspring and descendants would be labelled. The labelling would apply incrementally to the various generations analysed in the two sub-options or only to one of them according to the results of the analysis.

In order to be able to label this food, traceability systems would need to be in place for the live animals (as regards previous generations of animals), reproductive material and the food from the animal (as regards the individual animal which was the source of the food).

Sub-option 4: voluntary labelling

Sub-option 5: mandatory labelling

Under this option the possibility to introduce voluntary labelling (sub-option 4) or mandatory labelling (sub-option 5) will be investigated as well as the different type of food covered: direct fresh food (fresh meat or fresh milk or both) or all types of food (fresh food and processed food such as sausages, cheese, etc.).

Overall, this option differs from the status quo as it does not require a pre-market approval and extends the labelling to food from offspring and descendants.

Option 4: temporary suspension of the technique and of imports of live clones, their reproductive material and their food.

Under this option the use of the cloning technique would be suspended in the EU until this reproduction technique has been developed further so that the welfare issues are alleviated. As a consequence, no clones, reproductive material and food from clones would be produced on the EU territory.

To avoid circumvention of the suspension of the technique in the EU and create uniform conditions of production for breeders and farmers, imports of the "results" of the use of the technique in third countries (live clones, their reproductive material and their food) would be suspended as long as the technique is suspended in the EU. As a result, no offspring of clones would be produced in the EU.

This option differs from the status quo as it forbids explicitly cloning on a temporary basis throughout the EU whereas the rules in place (i.e. Directive 98/58/EC) require Member States to act at national level in a more general manner (i.e. "to avoid unnecessary pain, suffering or injury" (…) including in the "context of the breeding technique").

In addition this option includes explicitly the suspension of the use of the clones (i.e. suspension of the import of reproductive material and food of clones).

Table 3. Summary of the description of options:

Option || Description || Generation covered || Traceability to implement the option

No Policy change || - PMA (+ labelling of the food on a case by case basis) - Directive 98/58/EC (animal welfare) || Clones || - For PMA live clones + their food (in EU and third countries exporting to EU) ; - For animal welfare, none

Pre-market approval || PMA || Clones, Offspring and Descendants || Traceability of live clones, offspring and descendants, + reproductive material & food of clones (in EU and third countries exporting to EU)

Labelling of food || Labelling of food – voluntary or mandatory (fresh meat or fresh milk or all type of food) || Clones, Offspring, Descendants

Suspension || Suspension of : cloning technique in EU + imports of clones + reproductive material & food of clones || Clones || Traceability of clones + their food + their reproductive material (in third countries)

4.2. Options discarded at an early stage

The preliminary options below have been discarded after discussion in the IASG based on the following criteria: i) the legal feasibility of the proposed options (in light of TFEU, EU secondary legislation and WTO); ii) the technical limitations.

(i) A permanent ban of the cloning technique, clones and their use (reproductive material and food) was discarded as the underlying animal health and welfare concerns identified by EFSA are linked to the present scientific and technological development of the cloning technique. The latter may, however, mature and thereby alleviate partially or fully the concerns: the prohibition linked to the use of the technique and of the clones needs therefore to be temporary with a review clause. A permanent ban would be unjustified and disproportionate.

(ii) A permanent ban or temporary suspension of food from offspring and descendants was discarded as in the light of the EFSA opinion there is no scientific concern or food safety reason to forbid - whether temporarily or permanently - market access for such food. There is therefore no legal basis to act for this option.

(iii) The option of setting up harmonised conditions of use of the cloning technique for food production was discarded based on the EFSA opinion: under current scientific knowledge, it is not possible to define any conditions of use of the technique which would alleviate animal health and welfare concerns identified by EFSA. It is therefore not possible to define technical parameters to this end.

(iv) Measures to improve consumer awareness that would potentially alleviate the consumer concerns or to upgrade voluntary labelling schemes have also been discarded for the following reasons:

a) consumers who reject the technique for ethical reasons, would not accept it more if the technique is explained better and in further detail;

b) as long as the technique, even explained better, implies the suffering of clones and surrogate mothers, the reticence of consumers would remain unchanged;

c) informing consumers that offspring and descendants are produced with traditional breeding techniques and that no particular welfare concerns can be associated with this, could clarify the difference between clones and offspring. It would however not alleviate the reticence of consumers towards cloning in the absence of measures on clones and the cloning technique;

d) it is difficult to establish a link between cloning and benefits to consumers. Clones are of interest in high productivity farms where "elite" animals are already used. Links between cloning and positive effects on consumers (such as lower prices or contribution to agricultural landscape) may therefore be difficult to establish;

e) information campaigns on such issues could be carried out by the food sector and not necessarily by public authorities whether at national or EU level;

(v) Upgrade of labelling schemes: existing specific labelling schemes (whether organic or other similar quality labelling schemes) do not exclude the production of food from offspring of animal clones. This is because offspring is produced with traditional breeding techniques and does not therefore deserve or require special treatment. Based on the information available, no FBO has so far set up any voluntary labelling scheme on the non-cloning origin of animals. In cases where FBO could guarantee non-cloning origin of animals the food is obtained from specific breeds produced exclusively locally (not cloned or obtained from reproductive material of clones). This is presumably because the other positive messages have a better impact on consumer behaviour. If there would be an interest to bring out products of non-cloning origin, it would have to be in combination with other positive messages - such as organic, GM free, special consideration of welfare of animals concerns etc.

5. Analysis of Impacts

The analysis has been performed using data provided by the external contractor ICF-GHK and gathered through other data sources available[53]. However, limited quantitative data have not allowed for a detailed quantitative analysis.

5.1. Option 1: No policy change

5.1.1. Description of the option

Food from clones would remain within the scope of the Novel Food Regulation and subject to a pre-market approval (PMA) based on a food safety assessment. As described in section 2.6.1. paragraph b), the FBO's need to submit an authorisation application to the Member State's authority to perform a scientific risk assessment and pay fees for this. In case of objections by other Member States to the risk assessment, the file is sent to the Commission who consults EFSA who performs a new risk assessment on the basis of which the Commission adopts a Decision for authorisation or not. If an authorisation were requested and then granted, clones would need to be traced. At present this traceability system does not exist. In addition, labelling (as “derived from clones”) could be requested on a case by case basis.

Food from offspring and from descendants would continue to be marketed without any distinction as to the animals it is obtained from. This food is not covered by this option, consumers would not be able to know if the product they are purchasing is deriving from offspring and/or descendants

The use of the cloning technique would continue to be regulated by Directive 98/58/EC. Where Member States fail to implement the Directive in relation to cloning, the Commission could start infringement procedures. If Member States would take measures specific to cloning to comply with the relevant requirements of that Directive, such measures would not necessarily be uniform and could apply, for example, to different species or types of breeds, to the technique as such or also to the imports of lives clones and their products. Different national approaches might disturb the functioning of the concerned agricultural markets.

As EFSA has already identified animal health and welfare issues linked to the use of the cloning technique, the future use of welfare indicators, which could be developed in the context of the Animal Welfare Strategy (see section 2.6.1., paragraph a) above) would not affect the status of this issue.

5.1.2. Economic Impacts

Regarding the pre-market of food from clones, the potential economic impact relates to food business operators (FBOs) which would like to market food from clones in the EU. The FBO will have to file an authorisation application to be submitted to the national competent authority who would charge fees to FBOs[54]. Where a fee is in place, it ranges from EUR 830 to EUR 25 000 and from EUR 900 to EUR 2 000 for a simplified procedure.

FBOs bear a series of additional costs related to the preparation of the file and the application procedure. In detail, the cost of filing an application under the Novel Food Regulation has been estimated to be up to 400.000 €[55] when toxicological tests are required (see details in table 4 below). Where the file is referred to EFSA for an opinion, there is additional EU budget needed to finance the costs borne by EFSA in processing applications, evaluated around 83 000 € per application for Novel Food[56]. Under the current Novel Food Regulation, authorisations are individual: each FBO who intends to put food from clones on the EU market would require a pre-market approval for the products; subsequent operators who wish to put similar products to those already authorised on the market would need to get approval from their national authorities for "substantial equivalence", which, if granted, would not imply a new application dossier and risk assessment.

Table 4: Costs linked to applications dossiers for pre-market approval

Cost || Action

from 20.000 € to 45.000 € || to set up an application file for risk assessment

around 300 000 € || only if toxicological tests are required

administrative fees from 800 to 25 000 € || for the risk assessment by Member State

In addition to above application costs, FBOs would be obliged to adapt their traceability system to trace food from clones and could also be requested to label their food. Farmers and breeders would need to trace the clones. The additional costs are not significant:

· in view of the rather limited number of animals concerned and the likelihood that they would be processed apart and labelled through a segregated food supply chain* (see Section 5.3.2. paragraph b) below), the traceability cost of food from clones for all EU operators along the food chain would be negligible[57] and the amount of food produced in this way limited;

· costs for tracing clones by farmers and breeders are also considered marginal (see Section 5.3.2.b paragraph b) below);

· the average cost at company level for a small label change has been estimated at €2,000-4,000; a full label redesign has been estimated at €7,000-9,000 (or €9,000-13,000 in total). It should be noted that most companies (~80%) redesign their label every three years as a normal part of their business operation[58] (see section 5.3.2 paragraph c).

European associations[59] representing the food industry, the milk and meat sectors are in favour of this option, i.e. maintain the principle of a pre-market approval for food of clones only (see Annex III.3).

As regards the "no policy change" on cloning and taking into consideration the very limited cloning activity in the EU, the economic impact on production costs for EU breeders, farmers and on third country trade is considered non-significant. This is mainly linked to the low economic profitability of the cloning technique which has an efficiency rate[60] according to EFSA (calculated as the number of live offspring as a proportion of the number of transferred embryos) still in the range of 6-15% for cattle and of 6% for pigs, albeit occasionally higher success rates were reported. Farmers and breeders would be able to continue to import live clones or their reproductive material from third countries where commercial cloning takes place.

Regarding SMEs, the specific impact mainly arises from the costs for having to recruit specialists not permanently available in FBOs themselves to prepare the applications. Another issue, which could present particular challenges for micro and small enterprises -including direct on-farm sales of food of animal origin to the final consumer- stems from the rules on traceability and labelling, where the lack of economies of scale (lowering the cost per unit) may lead to higher relative costs for SMEs.

As far as third countries are concerned, in case their food industry would intend to put food from clones on the EU market, exporters would need to file an application for authorisation to EFSA. They would have to incur the same application costs of the EU business operator as well as additional labelling and traceability costs. If no authorisation is granted[61], food industry in third countries where cloning technique is used, would have to either remove food of clones from their food chain or remove it from the food exported to the EU. The clones would need to be identified and registered as such if their food is to be authorised by the EU before being exported.

Apart from food from clones which needs to be identified, no other impact under this option is expected on third countries: they would continue to be able to export live animals (clones and progeny), their reproductive material and their food.

5.1.3. Impacts on consumer protection

The impact of the pre-market approval of food from clones on consumer protection is considered positive: in case labelling is requested upon authorisation, consumers would be able to identify the food derived from clones and to make informed choices as to whether a food product contains or not products derived from clones. More than 70% of the total respondents to the IPM public consultations are in favour of a mandatory labelling of food not only from clones, but also from offspring and descendants of clones.

This approach is also supported by the European consumer association (BEUC)[62]. In its comments BEUC urges the Commission to set up: “a full compulsory traceability system (which includes clones and their offspring)”.

The retail sector (Euro Commerce) confirms that they would sell the products according to acceptance by consumers but "practical solutions" would need to be found to ensure traceability (Annex III paragraph 3).

However, this option does not entirely respond to consumer expectations as information of food from offspring and descendants would not be provided.

5.1.4. Impacts on food prices and employment

In case the authorisation of food from clones would impose labelling, some price-effects could be expected due to the additional costs for ensuring traceability of clones and food obtained thereof. However, as explained in Section 5.3.2. paragraph c) below, the impact is expected to be low although it is not possible to quantify it.. Moreover it is not possible to quantify the effect on employment for lack of data.

Regarding the prices for food from offspring and descendants, they would remain unchanged, as no system is set up to ensure the expected information is available to consumers and therefore no impact on employment resulting from labelling and traceability requirements is expected.

5.1.5. Impact on Animal Welfare

Under this option animal welfare problems are addressed by the Member States under the Directive 98/58/EC.

5.2. Option 2: Pre-market approval for food from clones, offspring and descendants

5.2.1. Description of the option

Under this option FBOs would have to file an application for authorisation to market food derived from clones, offspring and descendants. Contrary to option 1, the authorisation would be submitted directly to the Commission who consults EFSA for an opinion, avoiding thereby that FBOs have first to go to Member States' authorities for a first assessment. This streamlined centralised procedure was already foreseen in the 2008 Novel Food proposal as described in Annex VI paragraph 5. In addition, under this option, the scientific assessment would cover food from offspring and descendants, although not considered as being "novel" (as derived from conventionally bred animals) and presenting no safety issue as indicated by EFSA.

This option would be more efficient than option 1, by imposing a centralised authorisation system based on a risk assessment.. Yet this option does not address directly the specific objectives set out in Section 3.2. However, it has been considered worthwhile analysing it as it was supported - for food from clones and offspring(1st generation) - by unanimity by the Council in first reading during the inter-institutional discussions on the Novel Food proposal (referred to in paragraph 1.1. above). As the offspring and the following generations present exactly the same characteristics[63], it is appropriate for sake of coherence and completeness that this option also includes food from descendants of clones. This option could be considered appropriate for food from clones because of their novelty aspect and because this option provides a more efficient approval system than under option 1. However, as regards food from offspring and descendants this option is inappropriate in the absence of any specific food safety issue as highlighted by EFSA.

Under this option, an application for authorisation would need to be submitted by EU or third country FBOs, and authorisations would be granted based on a risk assessment. In order to do so an underlying traceability system would need to be in place. At present this traceability system does not exist. The implementation of this option implies that in the absence of authorisation, the food could no longer be put on the EU market.

This approach is also supported by the European consumer association (BEUC)[64]. In its comments BEUC urges the Commission to set up: “a suitable risk assessment and authorisation procedure complemented by a compulsory labelling system for food derived from clones and their offspring, should the temporary suspension be lifted in the future”.

Conversely, industry representatives[65] are against taking measures beyond food of clones, as there is no food safety concern with food from offspring and descendants. They base themselves mostly on the EFSA opinion of 2008 and subsequent statements.

5.2.2. Economic Impacts

As regards the EU, the expected economic impact of this option touches overall the same aspects of the assessment performed for food from clones under option 1. However the magnitude of the impact is considered more important as this option covers a longer chain and entails additional impacts: the offspring and descendants of one single animal increases exponentially by thousands of animals per generation (see Annex XIII paragraph 2).

The costs for filing an application for pre-market authorisation are the same than those detailed in section 5.1.2 except for the fees paid at national level which will no longer exist. In the case of an individual authorisation as under current Novel Food Regulation (option 1), agreement on substantial equivalence for each FBO is required. In the case of a generic authorisation, a single FBO would bear the costs of application for a given food while all other operators would benefit from this authorisation.

All FBOs –whatever the type of authorisation foreseen- would have to be able to identify this food as stemming from offspring or descendants of clones to be able to prove that it has been approved beforehand. The impact for traceability would be high for the EU food industry as the number of animals concerned (offspring and descendants) would be much extended (as compared to clones).

FBOs would need to adapt their traceability system to trace food from the respective animals. There would therefore be costs for (i) the traceability of food for all EU operators along the food chain, which would be important in view of the very high number of animals concerned; and for (ii) the identification and registration of clones, of offspring and descendants (and of their reproductive material). The cost of traceability of animals and of food are described in further detail in Section 5.3.2. below.

Under this option, EFSA would have to perform a risk assessment on food from offspring and descendants of clones not considered at risk for public health. There would in addition be cost to be borne by the EU budget to cover the costs involved in processing applications (estimated at 83000 € per application) for Novel Food[66].

Such assessment is only appropriate when possible risks are identified. In the case of food from clones, offspring and descendants of clones, EFSA did not consider them different from other food. The only justification for an authorisation could be applied to food from clones, as here the animal is produced with a "novel" reproduction technique; for other food such pre-market approval would be even less justified from a scientific point of view.

SME's cannot be excluded from any of the PMA mentioned above. This option has therefore potential to impact SME profit margins and thus growth in particular as they do not benefit from efficient production systems and/or economies of scale enjoyed by larger firms. Traceability of food could present particular challenges for micro and small enterprises but there may be some differences among Member States (see Annex X)

As regards third countries, the PMA requirement for food from offspring or descendants would create major difficulties for EU importers and their third country suppliers. EU importers need to have the guarantee that either (i) imported food does not derive from offspring or descendants, or (ii) imported food has been approved. Otherwise, they would no longer be able to maintain these imports. As explained in Section 5.3.3. below, third country operators would need to identify the food and therefore the animals concerned (clones, offspring and descendants of clones) which is not the case at present. Imports could be reduced or halted because third countries would be unwilling or unable to meet the requirements of the EU legislation. This would have an impact on EU imports of meat, milk and other food products accounting[67] today for around 1.7 billion € for beef, 1 billion € for sheep and goat meat and 722 million € for milk products[68] and could lead to major trade disruptions.

5.2.3. Impacts on consumer protection

Under this option, consumers would be reassured that the food is safe but still, it would not allow consumers to identify food from clones, offspring or descendants and make informed choices. For this to happen, mandatory labelling, as described in Option 3 below, would need to be provided for.

5.2.4. Impact on prices and employment

There would be a negative impact on food prices as the price of meat and milk and derived products could increase to compensate for additional compliance costs due to extended requirements. The negative impact on consumer markets (prices and choice) would be even higher if the major import, such in beef, would cease. It is however not possible to quantify the envisaged impact as no data is available, nor is it possible to quantify the effect on employment.

5.2.5. Impact on Animal Welfare

Under this option animal welfare problems are not addressed.

5.3. Option 3: labelling of food from clones, offspring and descendants

5.3.1. Description of the option

As set out above (section 4.1), this option has two elements: the scope of the labelling, and its modalities (obligatory or voluntary)

(i) In terms of scope, this option covers the labelling of food of clones, offspring and descendants. The following two sub-options have been identified:

- Sub-option 1: labelling of food from clones

- Sub-option 2: labelling of food from offspring

- Sub-option 3: labelling of food from descendants

Labelling of food as stemming from these animals is not a self-standing option. Whether such labelling is voluntary or compulsory, it is subject to two main conditions: (i) the identification and traceability of animals and their reproductive material (RM), and (ii) the traceability of the food. These two requirements imply costs in addition to the cost of labelling as such as described in paragraphs 5.3.2. to 5.3.3. below.

(ii) In terms of modality of labelling, the following two options have been identified:

- sub-option 4: voluntary labelling

- sub-option 5: compulsory labelling.

The modality of labelling is particularly relevant for consumer protection and is assessed in further detail under paragraph 5.3.4. The voluntary labelling could be of interest to FBOs when it represents an added value for selling their products, which would enable them to cover extra costs. It would be put in place by some FBOs depending on market demand. The mandatory labelling implies that costs are borne by all FBOs, who have to check whether the food derives from clones, offspring and/or descendants.

The requirements increase exponentially with the generations as shown in table 5 below:

Table 5 Conditions of identification/ traceability to be fulfilled

to label food from clones, offspring and descendants of clones

Food from : || CONDITIONS OF IDENTIFICATION/TRACEABILITY

CLONES || OFFSPRING 1st generation || DESCENDANTS

2nd generation || 3rd generation || etc.

Food || LA || RM || Food || LA || RM || Food || LA || RM || Food || LA || RM ||

Clones || X || X || || || || || || || || || || ||

Offspring || || X || X || X || X || || || || || || || ||

Descendants || 2nd generation || || X || X || || X || X || X || X || || || || ||

3rd generation || || X || X || || X || X || || X || X || X || X || ||

4th etc. || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LA : live animals ; RM reproductive material

5.3.2. Economic impacts in EU - costs

Labelling requires confidence that its content is correct. To provide the information as to whether food was obtained from clones, their offspring or their descendants on the label, it is necessary to create a documented link between a food and the animal/animal clone.

This requires that parentage information for every food producing animal is conveyed through the food production chain. This becomes more costly with every generation between the clone and the animal, reproductive material and the food.

As explained above (section 2.6.1.) current legislation on traceability does not conserve the require link between an individual animal and the food obtain thereof throughout the food production chain. It does not ensure the link between the animal and its parents throughout all stages of livestock production. As a result to label food derived from clones, their offspring or their descendants, production processes would have to be profoundly amended to ensure such link.

It is obvious that, depending on the sub-option chosen, costs can vary substantially. This was also highlighted in the consultations, where industry representatives expressed themselves against labelling of food from offspring and descendants (as highlighted in Annex II and Annex III paragraph 3) and underlined the risk of trade disruption. Representatives of European farmers/cooperative associations[69] consider that traceability extended to offspring puts an administrative burden on operators at all levels of the supply chain.

a) Sub-option 1: food from clones

While no precise numbers exist, it can be presumed that few animals will be cloned as the conventional breeding techniques will remain mainstream and the cloning one ancillary. Evidence indicates that productivity increases resulting from use of cloning technique as currently performed are marginal.

There is thus little economic incentive to use it. As a result the technique would not be used for food production in the EU up to 2020. Moreover, as set out above, the clone itself does usually not serve as source for food.

The consultant[70] thus presumed that if these assumptions are correct the clones in circulation would be so few and that they could be closely traced with limited efforts. The consultant could, however, not demonstrate that this is really the case.

b) Sub-options 2 and 3 - Cost of traceability of food of offspring and descendants

To the contrary of clones, the traceability of food from offspring and descendants implies a higher number of conditions (see Table 5), which increase exponentially per generation and which need to be fulfilled.

In particular, both farmers and breeding companies have to adapt their registration and traceability systems and to introduce the information related to the status of their offspring or descendants and their reproductive material (see (i) below).

Moreover, a traceability system would have to be set up which links every piece of meat, and every litre of milk to a specific animal. Due to the complexity of such system, the multitude of actors involved and the uncertainties surrounding the functioning of existing systems costs could not be calculated. However, surely, they come at a cost (see ii below).

(i) Traceability at the level of farmers and breeders

The costs for adapting traceability systems of animals and their reproductive material have been calculated by the consultant[71] on the basis of costs per operator (working time[72] and investments).

They were divided into: i) one-off learning costs to familiarise with new requirements; ii) one-off investments in equipment; iii) annual operating costs for recording information on status and parentage ; and iv) annual reporting and inspection costs to respond to information requests from customers and control authorities.

As shown in Table 6 below, the costs for farmers have been qualitatively assessed and considered marginal. The costs for breeding companies (importers and established in the EU) as well as importers of live animals would be low: the one off costs per operator range between 3 000 € and 3 600 € and the annual costs per operator around 100 €.

These costs should be, in principle, relatively limited as EU operators have already the obligation to introduce information on all animals in systems in place in the EU (see Section 2.6.1. above). In practice, the cost is most likely to be higher because of the number of animals concerned.

Table 6: Cost of traceability for offspring and descendants and their reproductive material (RM)

in € || EU farmers || Live animals || Breeding companies

EU Importers || EU Importers || EU Producers

Number of operators || Over 7 million || 22 || 69 || 215

Learning || Learning all operators || Marginal || 71 000 || 251 000 || 783 000

Per operator || Marginal || 3 227 || 3 637 || 3 641

Compliance || Investments in equipment || Minor modifications to existing systems || Not available

Operating costs || Marginal || Marginal

Reporting & inspection || all operators || Marginal || 2000 || 8 000 || 22 000

per operator || Marginal || 90 || 116 || 102

* Source ICF GHK study tables 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8.

ii) traceability of food and link with the individual animal

Operators would need - throughout their operations - to be able to recognise whether every food is derived or not from progeny of clones. This would require a detailed and sophisticated (probably electronic) traceability system. Without such a system, linking the food of progeny (over generations) to the animal clone is unworkable[73]. The setting up and implementation of such a system would produce require major investments and maintenance costs that the consultant was unable to estimate as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: cost of traceability of food of offspring and descendants in non-segregated food supply chains

In € || Slaughterhouse / markets/ assembly centres || Importers food || Food processors/ manufacturers || Wholesalers || Retailers

Number of operators || 15 491 (bovine only) || 715 || 81 993 (all species) || 82 801 (all species) || 623 812 (all species)

Learning || All operators || 713 000 || 30 000 || 3 772 000 || No data || No data

Per operator || 46 || 43 || 46 || No data || No data

Compliance (invest-ments and operating costs) || Unfeasible – no quantitative data

Reporting and inspection || All operators || 1 426 000 || 6 000 || 7 544 000 || Marginal || Marginal

Per operator || 92 || 8 || 92 || Marginal || Marginal

Source ICF GHK study tables 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8.

The consultant argued that these costs would be avoided in food supply chains if all actors involved (farmers, slaughterhouses, cutting plants, traders, etc.) “segregate” between “clone/progeny” or “non-clone/progeny” .

While this may limit implementation costs in terms of traceability, segregation would still bring about considerable market disruption, since a large part of the market of food would be not accessible for certain FBOs. It is not possible to quantify these impacts.

However, considering that the number of animals concerned increases exponentially per generation (for example, for one single bull the number of offspring can be as high as 5,000 to 10,000; for the 2nd generation up to 140,500 descendants and up 662,000 of the following 3rd generation, etc. (see details in Annex XIII paragraph 2). The repercussions on the market place for food could be very substantial[74].

While quantitative figures are not available, any additional costs are particularly relevant for meat, which is already very price-sensitive and where margins are generally low.

The traceability of milk is even more difficult and costly than meat as it is systematically mixed from different animals at farm level and would need, separate collecting tanks[75] at farm level and all following stages of the supply chain (transport, dairy, retail, etc.). The dairy industry[76] explained that separate milk collection is strictly speaking feasible as it happens already for animals under medical treatment[77] but the likely consequence of having to label milk from progeny of clones is that farmers would avoid having those animals on their farms (see Annex III paragraph 3).

At the following stages of food processing (such as meat products, dairy products and milk ingredients such as casein, etc.) the link with the animals concerned becomes more difficult and costly to establish as it imposes detailed segmentation of the different food products (or raw materials) before the processing can take place[78].

As regards SME's, they cannot be excluded from any of the traceability requirements mentioned above. This option has therefore a potential to impact SME profit margins and growth in particular as they do not benefit from efficient production systems and/or economies of scale enjoyed by larger firms. Labelling could present particular challenges for micro and small enterprises but there may be some differences among Member States (see Annex X).

Thus, the traceability requirements for food poses risks of triggering significant impacts on the EU supply chain due to changes in third country trade patterns, mainly in meat (see Section 5.3.3. below). In case third countries' operators would be unable to label the food from offspring or from descendants, EU buyers would seek alternative supplies, which would result in changes in the distribution of demand across the supply chain.

The impacts on the different Member States would depend on several factors, in particular the importance of animal production and their dependence on imports. As 60 % of EU total production of dairy and beef originate in four Member States (France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom), it could be assumed that in principle the farmers, breeders and FBOs in those Member States would be relatively more affected than those in the other Member States.

During the consultations, industry representatives expressed themselves against labelling of food from offspring and descendants (as highlighted in Annex II and Annex III paragraph 3). They also underlined the risk of trade disruption. In particular, representatives of European farmers /cooperative associations[79] consider that traceability extended to offspring represent a real administrative burden for the whole supply chain without benefit to consumers and would be faced with legal uncertainty as they would depend entirely on accuracy of information provided by third countries. They would rather be in favour of using voluntary information schemes. Professional organisations who responded to the "IPM consultation" also expressed themselves against (around 65%) labelling of food from offspring and descendants of clones (including the association representing the European food industry[80]).

Conversely consumer organisations, animal welfare associations and individuals, expressed themselves by a very high majority (between 75% and 90%) in favour of traceability system of reproductive material from clones and of labelling of food from offspring and descendants; results also showed that the absence of information was - wrongly[81]- perceived by consumers as an issue of food safety. Some industry representatives[82] suggested during the consultations (Annex II) to inform genera