Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals', and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) regarding the labelling of beef and beef products'
Date: 1996-11-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: beef, cattle, labelling, meat product, product quality













EUR-Lex - 51996AC1404 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC1404

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals', and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) regarding the labelling of beef and beef products'  


Official Journal C 066 , 03/03/1997 P. 0084 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:- the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals`, and - the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) regarding the labelling of beef and beef products` (97/C 66/21) On 17 October 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned proposals.The Committee entrusted the preparation of the work on the subject to Mr Strasser as rapporteur-general.The Committee adopted the following opinion at its 340th plenary session on 27 and 28 November 1996 (meeting of 27 November 1996) with 95 votes for, 4 against, and 4 abstentions.1. Introduction1.1. Why existing arrangements require consolidation1.1.1. Fears over the safety of European beef and beef products have generated immense uncertainty, not only across the European Union but also in a range of non-member countries which have traditionally imported beef from Europe.1.1.1.1. This has led to a fall in demand - in some cases on a dramatic scale - in almost all Member States and a slump in prices which has caused severe economic damage to EU farms, and to the cattle and meat trade both inside and outside the Union.1.1.1.2. The frequent inadequacy, not to say absence, of information identifying the origin of meat and indicating other quality aspects has exacerbated people's insecurities and accentuated the drop in consumption. Meat is a highly sensitive product; new arrangements must therefore be made to improve identification, so as to provide a more comprehensive indication of 'quality`. After all, European consumers want to know what the product is that they are buying.1.1.2. It is essential to find a quick, and above all clear identification system for meat and meat products in order to head off the charge of failure levied at the European Union's common agricultural policy. Any action taken in the beef sector will be compromised, unless people's need for safe products is met.1.1.2.1. EU beef farmers have among the highest production standards in the world as far as natural methods and beef quality are concerned. This must be highlighted by a clear and understandable identification system.1.1.2.2. A number of product safety requirements, not all of them related to the case in hand, need to be considered in the development of a new identification system. Attention must also be paid to the very varied traditions and different arrangements for beef trading and selling in the individual Member States.1.1.3. A whole range of EU provisions already exists for identifying foodstuffs. Their application in meat marketing, however, has been both sporadic and inadequate. The improvements needed are clearly impossible without regulations prescribing obligatory minimum requirements for the identification of beef.1.1.4. The Committee notes the inconsistencies in the Commission's proposed approach. The proposed extensive and, in some cases, laborious changes to animal identification contrast with the voluntary nature of meat identification. The justification for this approach does not seem clear, and it may not achieve the - in itself undisputed - objective set.1.1.5. The Committee feels that other factors also call for a comprehensive identification system for bovine animals and for beef. For a number of years now, the European cattle market has hung in a delicate balance. Beef consumption, a crucial parameter for the long-term functioning of the market, has if anything been on a downward trend for years. The cattle cycle means that 1996 and the coming years should once again see a rise in production.1.1.6. The commitments under the Uruguay Round of the GATT entail lower refunds and export levels and increasingly limit the scope for market control. Bilateral and unilateral EU commitments on the import of live cattle (lightweight and heavyweight calves, mountain breed livestock) and beef (high-quality beef, beef for processing), which are an important element in the European Union's trade policy, also serve to compound the difficulties on the EU's cattle market. This problem has increased dramatically because of the BSE crisis, without any fault on the part of farmers or the meat industry.1.1.7. In contrast to other crises of confidence and slumps in sales in the meat sector, a number of forecasts also predict a medium-term drop of up to 15 % in normal beef consumption unless effective counter-measures are taken. This is due to the complex nature of the BSE crisis and to the fact that no adequate research has yet been carried out into whether the disease can be transmitted to humans; continued negative coverage from the media also exacerbates the problem.1.1.8. A package of measures is the only way to get beef consumption back to normal:  consistent eradication of the causes of BSE;  removal of all problem animals from the market;  continuation and expansion of the ongoing research programmes;  a speedy improvement in the identification of bovine animals and beef, coupled with consistent implementation:- animal identification at every stage;- traceability of animals in the trade cycle;- use of secure declaration systems for beef retailing.1.1.9. The Committee therefore endorses in principle the European Commission's efforts in submitting two Council Regulations designed to create, within a short space of time, an EU-wide basis for improving cattle identification and the labelling of beef and beef products.1.2. Undisputed objectives1.2.1. In both April and September 1996, the Council of Agriculture Ministers called for introduction of an improved identification system for bovine animals and beef.1.2.2. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) issued an opinion on 7 June 1996, which looked in detail at the impact of the BSE crisis and pressed for a whole range of measures. The ETUC is particularly eager to see consumer confidence restored.1.2.3. In its opinion on BSE entitled 'The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis and its wide-ranging consequences for the EU` (), the ESC called for the introduction of an 'animal passport` for cattle which should give clear and comprehensive information designed to benefit consumers. The Committee also felt that measures were needed on the part of producers' organizations to boost the sales of clearly identified and classified meat, giving consumers security as regards the quality, origin and market value of the products.2. Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals2.1. Introduction2.1.1. Broadly speaking, the further standardization of arrangements for identifying cattle is to be welcomed. Adequate certainty of livestock registration must be part of a comprehensive identification system. However, ease of implementation of systems in the individual Member States must be taken into account, as must existing identification systems. Moves must be made to avoid overburdening beef farmers and dealers so as to ensure acceptance of the system from the start.2.1.2. Given the scale of trade in live animals, both within the single market and with non-member countries, it is necessary to amplify the existing Directive 92/102 in order to further standardize and improve documents.2.1.3. However, a clear distinction must be made between:- the ESC-backed improvement of livestock registration and beef labelling which is needed to boost consumer confidence in the long term and to improve the control of contagious diseases and;- unnecessary increase in red tape which is of no relevance when it comes to identifying meat, and tightening of preventive measures in the integrated administration and control system.2.2. Comments on individual points2.2.1. The Committee welcomes the draft regulation. The ESC would point out, however, the major new departure which these arrangements constitute for the identification and registration of productive livestock in farms, in comparison with the provisions of Directive 92/102. Nonetheless, this approach would appear to be the best way of ensuring the speedy and uniform implementation of the proposed measures.2.2.2. Since the existing regulation is already a significant factor in the integrated administration and control system, the time frame for implementation of new provisions must be calculated to ensure Member States can transpose it properly. The planned system must basically also ensure that the provisions are easy for farms to implement and involve a low cost per animal, and that identification by tagging both ears or electronic implants should cause the least possible discomfort to animals.2.2.3. The Committee calls for the same terminology to be used in the draft directive as in Directive 92/102.2.2.4. A switch to tagging both ears is the right move to ensure safe and durable identification. There must, however, be a phased transition, where only animals born after the regulation's entry into force need be tagged in both ears.2.2.5. Article 3 gives no indication of who, other than the Commission and the competent authorities, are to have access to the information stored in the system. If consumer confidence is to be restored, the consumer organizations, which they trust, must be given the opportunity (without threatening data protection) to examine the information stored in the system. The definition of 'particular interest` would not be used to bar consumer organizations.2.2.6. The introduction of an obligatory animal passport for each animal and the establishment of computerized data bases, as provided for in Article 3, represents an important step in keeping track of an animal.2.2.6.1. Each animal must be traceable at every stage.However, the Committee regards as unnecessary the provisions of Article 5(3) whereby:- all the movements of each animal have to be logged immediately in the central data base and be available at any time, with the result that the data base has to contain a list of all the movements of each animal commencing from the holding of birth,- while the same information is always available in the animal passport.2.2.6.2. With a view to curbing red tape, consideration should therefore be given to whether the required objective could be achieved if each movement of an animal after birth were logged only in its 'passport`, with the next entry in the central data bank being made only when the animal is slaughtered or moved either to another Member State or to a country outside the Union.2.2.7. Identification of an animal within thirty days or before it is first placed on the market, as has been the rule up to now, should also be adequate for this system.2.2.8. The requirement that the competent authority issue a cattle passport within seven days following notification of an animal's birth, as provided for in Article 6, will entail practical difficulties since, in some cases, many calves are put on the market earlier.It should be possible for the keeper to activate the passport himself, under the control of the competent authority. The deadlines set for notifying the competent authority, as laid down in Article 7, must be practicable.3. Proposal for a Council Regulation regarding the labelling of beef and beef products3.1. Introduction3.1.1. The ESC broadly backs the draft Regulation regarding the labelling of beef and beef products. Consumers increasingly want information, not only on the origin of the beef they buy, but on holding practices, feeding and environmental factors. The Committee takes the view that the regulation can meet the information requirements of many consumers and go a long way to helping restore consumer confidence in European beef.3.1.2. During the present crisis, confidence was less undermined and the slump in sales less pronounced in markets with brand-based schemes which give consumers a clear indication of the region of origin of their meat, than in other markets. It was also possible to recoup any fall-off in consumption quickly in cases where the consumer had previously enjoyed a special relationship of trust with his or her butcher as a result of particularly attentive personal service and comprehensive information on beef.3.1.3. The Committee is surprised, and extremely disappointed, that the Commission proposal makes no provision for obligatory labelling of origin for beef. The proposals made up to now for overcoming the crisis, coupled with the technical options available, make it possible to introduce an across-the-board binding system of origin identification. The introduction of such a system is the only logical solution, given the efforts made to improve the identification and registration of live cattle.3.1.4. It would be an over-simplification to say that the consumer alone, by virtue of his purchasing power, is to determine the extent to which identification is in fact put into practice. There is a danger that, were participation in the identification scheme to remain voluntary, market players' willingness to take part in it would be blunted because of the requirements to be met. Only the obligatory introduction of a scheme of this nature can ensure that long-term confidence is restored.3.1.5. The absence of identification systems which prove the link between animal and carcass will, according to the text as it stands at the moment, tend to undermine the identification of qualitative characteristics such as origin and feeding.3.1.6. Given this point of departure, the Committee feels that the European Commission proposal should be geared to a new objective:- general obligation to identify carcasses;- in the case of fresh beef, obligatory identification at every stage, right up to the final consumer.3.1.6.1. It is extremely important to use straightforward systems which spell out how to implement the obligatory identification arrangements for fresh meat, do not involve additional expense for economic players and allow all market operators, particularly butchers, to take part in the system without excessive effort. The Committee therefore calls for a general obligation to identify carcasses. This would represent considerable progress even where identification rules for products remained voluntary.3.1.6.2. This could go a long way to making it possible, and indeed relatively easy, to subject fresh meat too to obligatory identification, even at the point of sale. Identification arrangements may differ for the sale of loose meat and unpacked cuts of meat, as opposed to packaged meat where labelling presents no great problem.3.1.6.3. The Committee believes that the identification of beef products could be voluntary. The obligation to identify carcasses would also be an important prerequisite for the voluntary identification of processed products.3.1.6.4. To secure consumer confidence in a system of this kind, it is essential that spot-checks, at least, be carried out by the authorities or other independent monitoring bodies.3.1.6.5. The Committee believes that, to gain acceptance, identification data of fresh meat should be confined to a few pieces of important information:- country of provenance and origin, and identity of the animal;- category (bullock, heifer, etc.)- abattoir.3.1.6.6. It should also be possible to introduce additional, voluntary identification factors (in particular programmes with regional guarantees of origin for local breeds or 'controlled area of origin`) and other information pursuant to Article 5 of the Commission proposal (e.g. feeding methods, grass feed).3.1.7. The chosen flexible approach to the scope of labelling is to be welcomed since it is appropriate to the needs of the Member States and enhances the objectivity of information on beef; specification, or rather licensing, by the national competent authority should be retained.3.1.8. The inclusion of imports from outside the EU is also a significant factor and is endorsed.3.2. Comments on individual points3.2.1. The exact definition of 'label` is of great importance. Article 1 refers to the labelling of 'beef or beef products in a detailed manner at the point of sale`, while Article 2 goes further, and speaks of 'information provided to the consumer at the point of sale.` The ESC calls for a clear definition of the term 'label`.3.2.1.1. The Committee takes the view that, in line with the basic directive on labelling (79/112 EEC), the more comprehensive definition is the definitive one. The Committee feels that 'labelling` encompasses the advertisement and advance notice of a product, pricing and/or identification at the point of sale, in line with Directive 84/450 concerning misleading advertising.3.2.2. It would be useful for the implementing provisions to clarify how far the measures to be taken to ensure the accuracy of the information, as set out in the second indent of Article 3(1), must be retained for specification by the competent authority. It is important that the labelling scheme should be stringently enforced without adding unnecessarily to costs. It is also very important that the resources available should be spent mainly on enforcement spot checks in order to ensure that traders live up to the claims they make on paper.3.2.3. Whatever the case, the ESC feels it essential that there be an additional control of the system of guaranteeing the origin of beef by a nationally authorized independent control body.3.2.4. Apart from the identification factors mentioned in this article, certain tags or quality certificates should be permitted for the purposes of collating the relevant information.3.2.5. Member States should have the option of expanding the sanctions listed under Article 7 (withdrawal of approval, imposition of supplementary conditions) by introducing effective instruments, particularly in cases where identification is obligatory, aimed at preventing misuse and misleading of consumers.Brussels, 27 November 1996.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ No C 295, 7. 10. 1996.