Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the situation regarding the implementation of beef labelling systems in the different Member States as laid down in Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
Date: 1999-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, cattle, health control, labelling, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 13.10.1999
COM (1999) 486 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

On the situation regarding the implementation of beef labelling systems
in the different Member States

As laid down in Article 19 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97

(presented by the Commission)

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

On the situation regarding the implementation of beef labelling systems
in the different Member States

As laid down in Article 19 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97

1.

Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3

2. Operation of the labelling Schemes ................................................................................ 3

3. Administration of the National Labelling Schemes ......................................................... 4

3.1. Management structure........................................................................................... 4

3.2.

Submission and approval procedure for specifications .......................................... 4

3.3.

Control procedures and their consequences ........................................................... 5

4. Administration of labelling on beef from other Member States and Third Countries ....... 6

4.1. Mutual recognition between Member States.......................................................... 6

4.2.

Labels on beef from Third Countries..................................................................... 6

5.

Impact of the Beef Labelling Legislation ........................................................................ 6

6.

Evaluation of the future direction for Beef Labelling Policy ........................................... 8

6.1.

Legal aspects ........................................................................................................ 8

6.2.

Status of the Bovine Identification Dossier............................................................ 8

6.3.

The Commission's proposals................................................................................. 9

6.3.1. Proposal 1: Laying down general rules for a compulsory system but introducing

compulsory indications in two separate steps........................................................ 9

6.3.2. Proposal 2: Temporary prolongation of the current labelling provisions .............. 10

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

In accordance with Article 19 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97, Member States
were required to submit individual reports to the Commission on the implementation of beef
labelling in their territory by 1 May 1999. Subsequently, since the Commission is in turn
required to report back and make proposals to Council on the same subject, before the
Council's self-imposed deadline of 1 January 2000 for taking a decision on the general rules
for a compulsory beef labelling system, the aim of this report is three-fold:

– to review the implementation of beef labelling across the EU,

– to assess the impact that the legislation has had on the EU beef industry and its operators,

– to describe how the Commission sees the policy moving forwards, through new proposals,
based on the experience gained so far and an appreciation of the technical and economic
constraints in the beef industry in the near and mid-term future.

However, the technical and political components of this report would not be complete without
reference to the proceedings that have taken place concerning the legal base of the regulation
since its adoption on 21 April 1997.

In summary, following the adoption by the Council of Regulation (EC) No 820/97, which
used Article 43 of the Treaty of Maastricht as its legal base, the Commission took the Council
to the European Court of Justice, pleading that the whole regulation should have been based
on Article 100A (i.e. co-decision procedure) because when the Treaty of Amsterdam came
into force, Article 152 would be the appropriate legal basis as the measure primarily
concerned public health.

However, it should be noted that, at the time of writing, the Court's judgement in Case
C-269/97 is still pending.

2.

OPERATION OF THE LABELLING SCHEMES

The present labelling system is based on the principle that, if operators or organisations wish
to provide information on a label concerning "the origin or certain characteristics or
production conditions of the labelled meat or of the animal from which it derives", they must
do so according to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 820/97. Thus, since 1 July
1997, the date of entry into force of the regulation, this voluntary system of labelling has been
applicable in all Member States.

However, by virtue of Article 19(4) of the same regulation, Member States "where there is a
sufficiently developed identification and registration system for bovine animals" could
"impose a compulsory labelling system for beef from animals born, fattened and slaughtered
on their territory". They could also determine which items of information were compulsory.

Three Member States have so far taken advantage of this clause and submitted their
specifications to the Commission for approval. On 13 October 1998, the compulsory systems
submitted by France and Belgium were approved by Commission Decision C(1998) 3050,

3

while the Finnish system was approved on 14 December 1998 [Commission Decision
C(1998) 4040].

In essence, the three systems are focussed on origin. The French system also includes a
compulsory indication of the category of the animal (e.g. young bull, steer, cow, heifer, bull)
and the production orientation of the breed (e.g. beef or dairy breed type). The Belgian system
specifies the type of information required at each step in the marketing chain (e.g. abattoir,
wholesaler and retailer) and includes compulsory indications of identification of individual or
lot, identity of the responsible body and date of slaughter. The Finnish system rests solely on
the indication of "Finnish beef",
though other indications covered by Regulation (EC)
No 820/97 are permitted.

3.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABELLING SCHEMES

3.1.

Management structure

The Competent Authorities and control authorities assigned by each Member State for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 can be found in Table 1.

3.2.

Submission and approval procedure for specifications

The reports received from Member States show that the appointed Competent Authorities
have gained valuable experience over the last two years in the management and assessment of
the specifications submitted to them by operators wishing to apply for prior approval of their
beef
in their
administration to beef
labelling matters or have specifically appointed inter-service
committees in the framework of their national legislation.

label. The Competent Authorities have either dedicated departments

All Member States have successfully developed thorough administrative procedures to handle
such applications and the number of dossiers received reflects the different ways in which the
Member State administration has presented the labelling regulation to their beef industry and
how they have responded to it. In relation to dealing with submissions that contain
unacceptable deficiencies or errors,
the commonly adopted approach has been to
communicate those deficiencies to the operator specifying the improvement required, leaving
the operator to decide whether to withdraw the application or incorporate the necessary
changes. Consequently, relatively few applications were rejected outright.

In Member States like Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Austria a handful of global
submissions, each covering a large number of individual operators, have been processed. On
the other hand, Member States like Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom have received
many submissions (> 200) which reflects a greater diversity of interest in the beef sector and a
more individualised treatment of each dossier. Most Member States have received fewer than
100 submissions. The number of applications handled by each Member State to date is found
in Table 1.

With regard to the type of indications that operators have voluntarily submitted for approval,
the most popular terms refer to various aspects of quality, breed and feeding system, including
organic produce. A list of the most popular terms used by Member States can be found in
Table 2.

It is to be noted that the interpretation of which indications are acceptable falls under the
responsibility of Member States. Each Competent Authority has had to determine whether an

4

indication is admissible under Regulation (EC) No 820/97, whether it is already covered by
the regulations and directives quoted in Article 12 or whether it is misleading or insufficiently
clear. This has not always been a straightforward task and some Member States have
commented that the establishment of definitions at a European level would greatly help their
interpretation of these terms.

In terms of the scope of labelling, most Member States report a high degree of integration of
the producer-final consumer chain in their labelling systems and are satisfied with the amount
of information reaching the point of sale.

Finally, the problems befalling small commercial outlets are given special emphasis by
Member States who are aware of the administrative load and high costs, especially with
respect to controls, that arise for such operators. Most Member States ask for a simplification
of procedures in this domain.

3.3.

Control procedures and their consequences

The majority of Member States, where voluntary labelling operates, only approve self-
regulating labelling specifications that depend on controls being made by independent bodies.
In this respect, the procedures set up for recognising the independent control bodies have not
raised problems. While few are approved as of yet, most of the organisations so far involved
in controlling beef labelling are in line for complying with standard EN/45011 by the end of
this year.

Of the Member States operating voluntary labelling, only the Competent Authority in
Denmark, and one autonomous community in Spain, have taken responsibility for controls.

On the other hand, the three Member States operating compulsory systems rely on controls
made or co-ordinated by their Competent Authority, since they are considered as part of the
statutory requirements for marketing of beef in those countries.

In terms of the global enforcement of beef labelling standards, three levels of control can be
identified which, across the Member States, resulting in varying penalties, ranging from fines,
withdrawal of labels or withdrawal of merchandise. At the first level, Competent Authorities
check on the work of the independent bodies and, in some cases heavy fines can be imposed
where incorrect operation of a specification is detected. Secondly, errors in labelling can be
identified in the reports of the independent bodies, but, under the principle of "self-
regulation", such infractions attract lower penalties. Finally, all Competent Authorities, where
either voluntary or compulsory labelling operates, have empowered the food or health
standard authorities in their territory to verify by "spot-checks" that labelling is correctly
carried out at the point of sale, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 820/97.

In economic terms, Member States report that, while implementation of Regulation 820/97
has taken place at a time when standards for ensuring traceability in the beef sector have been
constantly improving, in particular through the increasing application of informatics, control
requirements (and hence costs) are seen as excessively high. Indeed, in the case of small
operators and butchers, control requirements are considered to actively discourage their
participation in beef labelling and has been identified as a particularly serious obstacle to the
policy's future.

5

Finally, owing to the short period in which the majority of labelling specifications currently
approved has been operational, most Member States report only a handful of infractions, with
the exception of France where the compulsory system has been policed on a wide scale.

4.

ADMINISTRATION OF LABELLING ON BEEF FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES AND
THIRD COUNTRIES

4.1.

Mutual recognition between Member States

Across the EU, Member States report
relatively few specifications have been
that
interchanged with a view the procedure of mutual recognition, as laid down in Article 14 of
the regulation. This is largely for two reasons. Firstly, few voluntary specifications have
included the production and/or sale of beef in two or more Member States. Secondly, where
across border labelling has taken place, Competent Authorities have administered the
specifications directly on the basis of the operator proving through an official certificate his
permission to label in a certain way in his home country.

The only problem to come to light is that, occasionally, the degree of precision of the
indications approved by each Member State could be improved. Any difference, however
small, in the wording on labels, compared to the approved specification, create difficulties for
the Competent Authority of the importing country to accept that label.

Therefore, the limited number of dossiers that required approval through mutual recognition
means that the simplified procedure laid down in Article 14(3) has not been problematic.
However, Member States are aware that any move to a compulsory system would increase the
workload of mutual recognition enormously and that simplified procedures would have to be
adopted.

4.2.

Labels on beef from Third Countries

By virtue of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97, the Commission has received and
approved the labelling notification from 12 Third Countries, namely: Argentina, Australia,
Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Namibia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Swaziland, Uruguay, USA and
Zimbabwe. A summary of the Third Country notifications can be found in Table 3.

In their reports, Member States indicate few problems relating to Third Country labels.
However, some Member States comment that the indications given in the notifications could
be more precise since problems do occasionally rise at a practical level when the imported
beef is not labelled in exactly the same way as that approved by the Commission. In case of
doubt, Competent Authorities have to refuse the labelling which can cause difficulties at the
trade level until such time as the operator in the exporting country either corrects his labels or
requests from his national authorities a modification to that Third Country's notification.

5.

IMPACT OF THE BEEF LABELLING LEGISLATION

Member States were requested to indicate their views on that Regulation (EC) No 820/97 has
had on their beef industries since its introduction in mid-1997. The main impressions that can
be gained from the reports are summarised below.

On whether the policy has fully met its objectives:

6

• Only Denmark, France and Italy state unconditionally that the legislation has effectively
helped restore consumer confidence and/or improve beef consumption while Spain and
Austria qualify their positive evaluation of the policy. Spain considers that the policy still
needs time to show its effect while Austria notes that, in an unexpected and undesirable
way, Regulation 820/97 has deterred certain Austrian operators who previously labelled
under national laws because of the extra cost and administrative burden laid down in the
European system.

• The remainder of Member States consider that the impact of the legislation has been
insignificant or, more explicitly, that there is no evidence to indicate any positive outcome
from its introduction (e.g. the view of Ireland, Netherlands and United Kingdom).

Consequently, comments made by Member States on the reaction of consumers are also
mixed:

• Member States like Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland feel that their
consumers are well informed and take a positive view of beef labelling, though in the case
of Germany this enthusiasm has waned to some degree since late 1998.

• Other Member States report that their consumers, even when well informed, have not
notably changed their patterns of consumption for beef. For example, Italy recognises that
the European initiative on beef labelling needs greater diffusion amongst consumers if it is
to have a real impact.

In response to the Commission's request that Member States should specify whether the beef
labelling policy has created any unexpected side-effects, several notable comments were
made:

• Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom pointed to the fact that labelling for
origin has had, in their opinion, the undesirable tendency of promoting a re-nationalisation
of the EU beef market.

• Denmark, France, Austria and the United Kingdom indicate that

the increased
administrative and control procedures arising from beef labelling have reduced the ease
with which operators can trade freely between themselves and has made management of
meat supplies more problematical and bureaucratised.

• Finland mentioned that their consumers have felt confused by the fact that, while beef
originating in Finland is compulsorily labelled, beef coming into Finland is not necessarily
labelled under the rules currently operating under Regulation (EC) No 820/97.

• The United Kingdom, while accepting that Regulation (EC) No 820/97 has improved the
general level of labelling of beef, is concerned that the investment made by operators and
controllers involved in this commercial activity has created a number of legitimate
expectations which could condition future development of the policy.

Finally, Member States reserved their strongest comments for their assessment of the high
costs associated with the current labelling legislation and the heavy administrative burden
placed on both the public and the private sector. They do admit, however, to having few
criteria or independent market studies for judging if the policy has been cost-effective.

7

6.

EVALUATION OF THE FUTURE DIRECTION FOR BEEF LABELLING POLICY

While taking note of the opinions expressed by Member States, the Commission has also had
to base its view of the way forward for beef labelling on an appreciation of the legal
background of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and the status in technical terms of Bovine
Identification in the EU. Indeed, these two elements show themselves to be so important to
future policy that they have heavily conditioned the options available to the Commission for
making proposals.

6.1.

Legal aspects

As it currently stands, Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 states that:

– The voluntary labelling system currently operating in most Member States will

automatically lapse at the end of 1999.

– The regulation provides for the adoption of the general rules of a compulsory system by

qualified majority of the Council.

the Commission took the Council

However,
to the European Court of Justice when
Regulation (EC) No 820/97 was adopted under the former Article 43 of the Treaty. The
judgement on Case C-269/97 is still pending. Thus, in the Commission's proposals, in line
with the official Commission position before the Court on this matter, Article 152 of the new
Treaty is taken as the legal basis because it covers all measures where the primary aim is
protection of public health and closely involves the European Parliament by way of the co-
decision procedure provided by Article 251 of the Treaty.

The Commission therefore proposes that Regulation (EC) No 820/97 should be repealed and
replaced by a Regulation, based on Article 152 of the Treaty, and which shall include the
general rules for the compulsory beef labelling system.

6.2.

Status of the Bovine Identification Dossier

Any evaluation of the present and future of beef labelling, particularly with regard to
traceability, requires an assessment of the implementation of Title I of Regulation (EC)
No 820/97 (Bovine Identification and Registration) across the EU.

From the information supplied by Member States, and the Commission's own enquiries,
evident progress has been made by Member States1 since those parts of Directive 92/102
concerning bovines were replaced by Regulation (EC) No 820/97 in 1997. However, some
shortcomings from the point-of-view of its application for beef labelling purposes, have been
identified, that can be summarised as follows:

– Passports including all information pertinent to origin, used for animals within a Member
State or for those subject to intra-Community trade, are operational in most Member States
only for animals born after 1 January 1998.

1 As Member States are still in the process of implementing this legislation, the state-of-play described in this

report may have evolved since the date the text was drafted in June 1999.

8

– However, Member States do not necessarily retain all the information they receive about
such animals when they re-issue a new passport. At best, but certainly not in all cases, the
number of the holding from which the animal last came is retained on the new passport.

– Furthermore, the lack of a uniform format of passport and of an EU-wide code for
identifying holdings can give rise to practical difficulties regarding the complete transfer of
all information about an animal to the receiving Member State.

– Databases are fully or close to being operational in about 8 Member States but only
Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have a means of interchanging information
electronically.

– The remaining Member States are to a greater or lesser extent ready to be operational by
the end of 1999 but full data on origin will definitely not be available on the databases for
all Member States before then.

The Commission therefore concludes that most Member States:

– either due to lack of information or lack of access to it, as from 1.1.2000, do not know for
each animal slaughtered, its place of birth and all the places it has been held in during it
life

– cannot meet the commitment laid down in Article 19 of Regulation 820/97 that introduces

automatically a compulsory beef labelling system, based on origin, on 31/12/99.

– by not being in a position to implement reliably compulsory labelling would provoke an
unsatisfactory situation of confusion, unfairness and uncertainty for the entire EU beef
sector, from producer to consumer.

6.3.

The Commission's proposals

Therefore, the Commission, taking into account these important legal and technical aspects,
considers that the most appropriate way forward at this stage is to make two proposals, both
through co-decision between Council and Parliament, as follows:

6.3.1.

Proposal 1: Laying down general rules for a compulsory system but introducing
compulsory indications in two separate steps

The proposed way of doing this is to:

–

Retain the usable parts of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (i.e. Bovine
Identification and Registration and parts of Beef Labelling) in a new text. Only
one minor change from the current text of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 is
proposed in Title I (Bovine Identification and registration). It is proposed to
postpone in Article 4 (7), by one year (i.e. until 31.12.2001), the date of
submission to Council of a report on electronic identification. This is because
delays have been incurred in the start up of the Commission's IDEA Project, a
pilot study currently testing the technology on one l million animals in
6 Member States and from which results are expected in late 2001.

–

Propose that text as a new regulation (adopting Article 152 as the legal bases).

9

–

Add realistic general rules for the compulsory labelling system such that
Bovine Identification and Beef Labelling remain in the same regulation. The
reason for this is that labelling is so dependent on traceability through a reliable
system of identification that the two are virtually inseparable.

This approach has the advantage that it maintains the momentum set up by the present beef
labelling policy and the legitimate expectations of consumers and of operators who have
invested in labelling in the beef sector would remain intact because there is a move to a
compulsory system.

The Commission considers that, in a first step, the compulsory indications should focus on
information that is reliably available for all animals at the point of slaughter (e.g. date of
slaughter, place of slaughter, type of animal).

The other compulsory indications related to origin, which cannot for technical reasons be
introduced from the start, are then foreseen in the proposal with entry into force on 1.1.2003.

The voluntary arrangements, for all indications other than origin (e.g. breed, feeding system
etc) should be retained, as at present, but with a simplified administrative system for approval.

However, due deadline of 31.12.99 established in Regulation (EC) No 820/97 for taking a
decision on such a compulsory system and the lack of time available for Council and
Parliament to discuss this proposal, the Commission proposes that a second proposal be
adopted before the end of the year.

6.3.2.

Proposal 2: Temporary prolongation of the current labelling provisions

This proposal consists of an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 820/97 prolonging
the existing provisions for labelling until the first proposal on the rules for a
compulsory system has been adopted.

Rapid adoption of the proposal is necessary to avoid a collapse in the current
voluntary labelling system and its automatic substitution with a compulsory system
with no general rules to guide it.

However, if Council and Parliament fail to come to a decision before 31.12.99, the
Commission has to reserve the possibility to present to Council an urgent proposal,
for adoption before the end of the 1999, based on the existing Article 19 of
Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (i.e. a decision reached by qualified majority of the
Council on a proposal from the Commission). Such a proposal would be made in
order to avoid a legal void through the automatic lapse in the voluntary system.

10

Table 1

BEEF LABELLING REPORT

Competent Authorities, Control Bodies and Numbers of Applications

Member
State

Competent authority

Control body

Number of
applications

Belgique/B
elgië

InterprofesioneleVereniging
vorrhetBelgischvlees(IVB)

Officialcontrolservices
ofvariousministries

Danmark DanishVeterinaryandFood

Administration(VFD)

Bundesansaltfür
Landwirtschaftund
Ernährung(BLE)

Localauthorities
(MunicipalFoodUnits)

Competentauthorities
oftheLänder

61

83

239

Deutschlan
d

Ellas

España

France

Ireland

Italia

DirectorateGeneralof
AnimalProduction(DGAP)of
theMinistryofAgriculture

PrefectureDirectorates
ofAgriculture

None

Competentauthorities
oftheComunidades
Autónomas
(Autonomous
Communities)

Pouvoirspublics
(DGAL,DCCCRF)

43

4(plus25
voluntary
specificatio
ns)

MinisteriodeAgricultura,
PescayAlimentación
(MAPA)(Ministryof
Agriculture)

Ministèredel'Agricultureet
delaPêche,Direction
Généraledel'Alimentation
Ministèredel'Economie,des
Financesetdel'Industrie,
DirectionGénéraledela
Concurrence,dela
Consommationetdela
RépressiondesFraudes

MeatTradeDivision,Ministry
ofAgricultureandFood

OfficeoftheDirectorof
ConsumerAffairs

MinisteroperlePolitiche
agricole,Direzionegenerale
dellePoliticheAgricoleed
Agroindustriali(Ministryof
Agriculture)

Luxembour
g

Ministèredel'Agriculture,de
laViticultureetdu
Développementrural

72

10

2

ServizioSanitario
Nazionale(National
HealthService,in
collaborationwiththe
regionaland
autonomousprovince
administrations)

l'Administrationdes
ServicesVétérinaires
etl'Administrationdes
ServicesTechniques

11

Nederland ProductschapVeeenVlees

(PVV)

Österreich AgrarmarktAustria(AMA)

Portugal MinistériodoAgricultura,do

DesenvolvimentoRurale
dasPescas,Gabinetede
PlaneamentoePolíticaAgro-
Alimentar(Ministryof
Agriculture)

Suomi/Finl
and

MinistryofAgricultureand
Forestry

Sverige

NationalOfficeforFood

United
Kingdom

MinistryofAgriculture,
FisheriesandFood(MAFF),
ScottishOfficeAgirculture,
EnvironmentandFisheries
Department(SOAFED),
WelshOfficeAgriculture
Department(WOAD),
DepartmentofAgriculturefor
NorthernIreland(DANI)

Ministerievan
Volksgezondheid,
WelzijnenSport
(VWS),Inspectie
Gezondheids-
bescherming(IGB)
(MinistryofHealth)

Direcção-Geral
Veterinária(DGV),
Direcção-Geralde
Fiscalizaçãoe
ControlodaQualidade
Alimentar(DGFCQA)

NationalVeterinary
andFoodResearch
Institute(EELA)

VeterinaryInspection
Service

Municipaltrading
standardsand
EnvironmentalHealth
Authorities

80

3

0

2.740

11

1.841

12

Table 2

BEEF LABELLING REPORT

Types of indications

MEMBER
STATE

TYPES OF INDICATION (OTHER THAN
ORIGIN)

OTHER ASPECTS
COVERED

Method of fattening or
other information
relating to feeding

Information on
slaughtering
(date, maturity)

Eating
quality

Welfare Breed

Other

of
animal

Identification
number and sex of
the animal
Noinformation
supplied

Noinformation
supplied

4

Nolabellingschemeinoperation

2

None

25

Onlyonpromotional
material
Yes

5

Noinformation
supplied

Belgique/Belgi
ë

Danmark

Deutschland

Ellas

España

France

Ireland

Italia

1

-

3

Yes

18

11

-

4

-

None

None

17

None

-

1

-

None

None

Yes

Yes

None

21

None
specificall
y

12

Farm
assured
(9)

Luxembourg

Compulsorysystemgivesfulltraceability

Nederland

Several

Organic(1);Groupgrown
(2);EuropeanQualityBeef
(EQB)orVeal(EQV)(9)

Allhavedate Several,
mostly
EQBand
EQV

Several Several Category,

age

13

Österreich

Noinformation
supplied

Portugal

Nolabellingschemeinoperation

-

-

-

-

-

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United
Kingdom

Yes-organicproduction

None

None

None

Yes

None

Noinformation
supplied

Locality/farm(73) Feeding(71);Production

292

3

5

68

system(55)

Farm
assured
(45)

14

Table 3

BEEF LABELLING REPORT

Third Countries, Competent Authorities and indications given

Competent authority

Indications in notification

Third
Country

Argentina

Australia

ServiceNationalde
SantéetdeQualité
Agro-alimentaire
(SENASA)
AustralianQuarantine
andInspectionService
(AQIS)andState
authorities

Botswana Botswanadepartmentof

Brazil

Canada

Namibia

New
Zealand

AnimalHealthand
Production
AnimalHealthandPlant
InspectionSecretariat
(SDA),Ministryof
AgricultureandSupply
CanadianFood
InspectionAgency
(CFIA)

DirectorateofVeterinary
Services,Ministryof
Agriculture,Waterand
RuralDevelopment
NewZealandMinistryof
AgricultureandForestry,
RegulatoryAuthority
(MAFRA)

Paraguay MinistryofAgriculture

andLivestock

Swaziland

Uruguay

Departmentof
VeterinaryServices,
MinistryofAgriculture
andCo-operatives
MinsitryofLivestock,
AgricultureandFisheries
(MGAP),General
DivisionofLivestock
Services

Logo,productname,
category,Origin:
"Argentina",dateandplace
ofslaughter
Origin:"ProductofAustralia"
(andothers),ciphers/setsof
wordsdescribingageand
sex
Origin:"Productof
Botswana",halal,slaughter
date,grade,productiondate
Originandlogo"Brazilian
beef",kindofproduct,
productiondate

Date
approved

20 May
1998

27 May
1998

29 April
1998

29 June
1998

Origin:"ProductofCanada",
producttype,nameof
slaughterhouse,production
date
Origin:"Namibia",Halal,
nameanddateof
production

27
November
1998

27 May
1998

Origin:"ProductofNew
Zealand",various
descriptorsofquality,
methodoffeeding,breed,
productreferencenumber
(qualityassurancesystem)
Origin:"Themeatproceeds
fromcattleborn,raisedand
slaughteredinParaguay",
nameanddateofslaughter
Origin:"Swaziland",kindof
product,placeanddateof
production,Halal

31 March
1998

29 June
1998

29 June
1998

Origin:"Uruguay",product
denomination,placeand
dateofslaughter

25 May
1998

15

USA

Zimbabwe

UnitedStates
Departmentof
Agriculture(USDA),
FoodSafetyand
InspectionService
(FSIS)
Departmentof
VeterinaryServices,
MinistryofLandsand
Agriculture

NinetermscoveringUSDA
andUSqualitiesand
approvals,export
identificationnumber,date
ofproduction

Origin:"Productof
Zimbabwe",kindofproduct,
farmlotnumber,
establishmentnumber,date
packed

25 June
1998

29 June
1998

16