Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97'
Date: 2000-03-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: beef, health control, labelling, meat product, third country

26.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/47

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals
and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC)
No 820/97’

(2000/C 117/09)

On 12 November 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 February 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Evans.

At its 370th plenary session on 1 and 2 March 2000 (meeting of 2 March), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 64 votes to three, with three abstentions.

1.

Introduction (1)

The new system for the identification and registration of
bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef
products is based on two proposals. The first (2) (99/0205
(COD), which was considered by the Council and the Parlia-
ment in December 1999, simply extends the current voluntary
arrangements in the light of the difficulties most Member
States have encountered in fully implementing the required
cattle identification system. The Council did not accept changes
proposed by the Parliament but agreed that the effective date
should be brought forward, and the Commission took action
under Article 19 to extend the status quo until 1 September
2000. Therefore, on 21 December 1999, the Council adopted
Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 providing for general rules for
a compulsory beef labelling system (3).

1.1.
The second proposal (99/0204 COD) is for the staged
introduction of a compulsory system of identification, regis-
tration and labelling, together with provision for a parallel
voluntary labelling system. Following the December 1999
decisions it must now come into effect before 1 September
2000.

1.2.
The first stage of this would require all operators and
organisations marketing fresh or frozen beef or veal to label it,
from 1 September 2000 onwards, with:

(1) Reference has been made to the following documents: 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; COM(1999) 487 final — proposals 99/0204 (COD) and
99/0205 (COD); and COM(1999) 487 final/2 — correcting
Article 22A of 99/0204 (COD).

(2) On the agenda at the plenary session of 8/9 December 1999.
(3) OJ L 334, 28.12.1999, p. 1.

— individual traceability codes which may be the identifi-
cation number of the animal from which meat is derived
or an identification number relating to a group of animals;

— region or Member State or third country of the slaughter-

house and de-boning plant;

— approval number of the slaughterhouse and de-boning

plant;

— date of slaughter;

— category of animal (not defined in the proposal);

— ideal minimum maturation period.

1.3.
The proposed second stage, to take effect from 1 Janua-
ry 2003, would introduce compulsory indication on the label
of:

— Member State, or region or holding or third country of

birth;

— Member State, or region or holding or third country of

fattening;

— Member State, or region or holding or third country of

slaughter;

— Member State, or region or holding or third country of

de-boning.

1.4.
The proposal would also allow some wider geographi-
cal definitions to be used e.g. where all the above take place in:

— one or more Member State(s) an indication of ‘origin: EC’;

— a third country and the EC an indication of ‘origin: EC and

non-EC’;

— one or more third countries an indication of

‘origin:

non-EC’.

C 117/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

1.5.
The proposal also includes general rules under which
voluntary labelling systems, supervised by a competent auth-
ority and requiring verifiable controls over identification, may
be operated alongside the compulsory arrangements. Such
voluntary systems can apply both to EU and third country
beef.

2. General comments

2.1. Legal issues

2.1.1.
The legal basis for the proposed regulation is in
dispute. Although a judgement is still pending in the case
taken by the Commission and the European Parliament against
the Council on the use of the former Article 43 of the Treaty
as a basis for the existing Regulation (EC) No 820/97, the
the Amsterdam
Commission believes that Article 152 of
Treaty is the correct basis.

2.1.2.
The detailed rules for the application of Article 22,
which enables the Commission to monitor and ensure enforce-
ment of the Regulation, require the Commission in certain
circumstances to seek the decision or the assistance of the
Standing Veterinary Committee (1).

2.2. Policy objectives

The Committee notes that the policy objectives of
2.2.1.
the proposed regulation are complex; there are no fewer than
thirty-three considerata in the recital. The Committee believes
the following to be the main themes:

— to strengthen consumer confidence in beef;

— to enable veterinary authorities to operate appropriate
controls on both EU and imported animals for the
purposes of combating animal diseases;

— to ensure that all beef offered for retail sale can be traced
back to the processor, the abattoir, and ultimately the farm
of origin;

— to facilitate rapid and accurate exchange of information
between Member States, and co-operation with the Com-
mission in monitoring and tracing bovine movements;

— to reinforce the administration of certain Community aid

schemes;

— to avoid imposing excessive administrative burdens on

producers;

— to give the maximum transparency in the market for beef.

(1) Corrigendum COM(1999) 487 final/2 refers.

2.2.2.
The Committee’s discussions have revealed serious
doubts as to whether it is sensible to combine in a single
Regulation legal and administrative measures which are intend-
ed to ensure sound veterinary and public health controls
together with labelling provisions which are intended to help
consumers. Thus, Title I consists of provisions which are aimed
solely at ensuring traceability (eartagging, record keeping,
passports, computer database); whereas Title II deals with
labelling provisions (abattoir and de-boning hall approval
numbers, category of animal, date of slaughter, ideal matu-
ration period) which are in part
intended as an aid to
enforcement, but are also supposed to provide reassuring or
useful information to consumers.

2.2.3.
The Committee strongly takes the view that public
health must be the priority concern and that the aim should
be to implement the new arrangements as quickly as possible.
In this connection the Committee notes that the Parliament
was unwilling to extend the voluntary arrangements operating
under Regulation 820/97 beyond September 2000. Given the
practical problems which have arisen in some countries in the
establishment of the database, it will require very determined
efforts by the relevant authorities if the accelerated timetable
is to be met.

2.2.4.
The Committee is also concerned that the supply
chain for beef from the farm to the consumer is long and is
marked by differences of organisation and practice in different
Member States. The Committee believes it to be of the highest
importance that the controls specified in the proposals are
implemented effectively at all points in the supply chain in all
Member States.

The Commission has acknowledged that particular
2.2.5.
considerations arise over the treatment of beef or beef products
imported from third countries where not all of the information
required for EU beef may be available. The Commission
proposes to deal with this situation by way of a derogation
under which the description ‘Non-EC’ or ‘Slaughtered in [name
of third country]’ may be used, in accordance with WTO rules.
The administrative arrangements to ensure that such imported
beef meets the necessary public health standards are not part
of the proposed regulation.

Finally, the Committee is concerned about the pleth-
2.2.6.
ora of differing provisions which apply in the labelling of food,
and which are further complicated by this proposed legislation.
The Committee calls on the Commission to take urgent action
under its food safety programme in the interest of consumer
safety to secure greater simplicity and higher standards of
relevance in the labelling of food.

26.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/49

3. Specific comments

inform customers of the origin of beef by way of notices
displayed in the shop.

The main purpose of the Regulation is to serve the
3.1.
public good and public health. The Committee therefore calls
for a re-examination of the current practice of passing on the
costs to producers alone.

3.2. Labelling issues

3.2.1.
The Committee thinks that from the very start the
origin of animals must be visible on the label for all consumers
to see. However, the Commission is proposing that this should
not be made compulsory until the start of stage two on
1 January 2003.

3.2.2.
The Committee has looked very carefully into the
question of indicating the approval number of the slaughter-
house or the de-boning plant on the label. Any accurate
information is useful for the consumer, and consumer confi-
dence will be improved by being able to see from the label that
the product has been subject to a rigorous system of tracea-
bility. The Committee therefore supports this provision.

3.2.3.
The Committee has also discussed very fully the
proposal that the label should include an indication of the
‘ideal minimum maturation period of the beef’. This provision,
which concerns the cooking quality and taste of beef is a
surprising inclusion on labels which are supposed to be
concerned with safety and traceability. Maturation is a complex
matter, not solely related to the age of the beef since slaughter.
It is a matter of the circumstances at slaughter, the temperature
and consistency of storage, and other factors relating to the
handling of the product on its way from the slaughterhouse to
the consumer. The indication of quality parameters (e.g.
maturity of the beef) should in principle be purely on a
voluntary basis.

Notwithstanding the content of Point 2.2.2,

3.2.4.
the
Committee takes the view that consumer confidence will be
enhanced by mentioning the category of origin of the meat.

3.3. Coverage of the regulations

3.3.1.
The Commission has acknowledged that practical
problems arise over the application of the regulations to small
retail butchers and agricultural producers marketing their
products themselves. Although in practice many such busi-
nesses take their supplies from a single producer or wholesaler,
many also buy in from a variety of sources and may sell retail
cuts from different animals according to the customer’s choice.
Provided the identification and registration procedures are
being properly implemented and policed, this practice involves
no additional risk to the consumer, and it can be argued that
smaller butchers, cutting in the shop to the requirements of
the customer, should be exempted from the burden of
labelling. But we do not in principle favour such exemption
and we believe it should be possible for small butchers to

3.3.2.
Article 14 exempts minced beef, beef trimmings or
cut beef from the full force of the labelling provisions, and
after 1 January 2003, it will be required to carry an indication
of region, country, EU, or Non-EU origin. The Committee
considers in principle that this derogation is inconsistent with
the public health objectives which are central to the proposed
regulation. Traceability is clearly an important issue in the case
of mixed-origin products. We have, however, been convinced
that it is impractical at this stage to apply more stringent
labelling requirements. We have to recognise that many of the
animals used in this sector of the beef industry (which include
dairy cows) may have been born before effective and verifiable
identification systems had been put in place. We also have to
recognise that the trade in these products is complex, and that
they are of considerable importance to consumers and to the
catering business. We therefore ask that the Commission give
particular priority to solving these problems and come forward
with further proposals well before January 2003.

3.4. Screening for BSE

The Committee recommends that the regulation include an
obligation to use an EU officially approved test to screen all
slaughtered bovine animals for BSE once one becomes avail-
able. Research towards such a test should be accelerated.

4. Conclusion

4.1.
The Committee strongly supports the objective of
introducing more stringent public health controls in the
production, processing and sale of beef for human consump-
tion. We agree that the ability reliably to trace all beef back to
the farm of origin from the point of purchase by the consumer
is crucial to the achievement of this objective. We believe that
the proposed regulation will achieve this aim. We also support
the objective of strengthening the consumer’s confidence in
beef by making these controls transparent through a compul-
sory labelling system. We therefore approve these proposals
subject to the detailed comments made above.

4.2. We also believe that both in the area of beef labelling,
and the matter of food labelling more generally, there is much
more to be done before we would regard the arrangements as
providing the consumer with consistently useful and reliable
information. We have indicated above some specific matters
on which we think further urgent work must be done with
regard to beef. On the wider question of food labelling we
would welcome advice from the Commission about the state
of work on the codification of the directive referred to in the
Consumer Policy Action Plan 1999-2001 of December 1998.

C 117/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

4.3. We ask the Commission to undertake all necessary
measures to avoid further prolongation of this new transitional
regime. Such a prolongation would result in losing consumer
confidence in beef meat and in the EU mechanisms. This
means that both the European Parliament and the Council
should follow the existing rapid consultation procedures to
enable them to complete their work well in time.

In parallel, we would like to invite the Commission to
4.4.
set up,
immediately, an appropriate monitoring network
regarding the implementation of the current provisions of
Title I of Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 (identification and
registration of bovine animals), so to assure that by 31 August

2000 the data needed for the introduction of the ‘first stage’ of
thelabelling system are available for all bovine animals. The
same measures should be taken for the introduction of the
‘second stage’, too. To this end, the appropriate Commission
services (i.e. FVO in Dublin) could establish an inspection
programme all over the EU to make sure that all Member
States have put in place the current provisions on identification
and registration of bovine animals.

4.4.1.
Additionally, we would like to suggest to the Com-
mission that, prior to 31 August 2000, it should produce an
interim report reflecting its findings regarding compliance
with the current legislation (I & R) in all Member States.

Brussels, 2 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, which received more than a quarter of the votes cast, was defeated in the course of the
debate.

Point 3.2.2 last sentence

Reword as follows:

‘However, the Committee takes the view that only the approval number for the last stage in the production chain
should be indicated.’

Reason

The problem is that two approval numbers would otherwise normally have to be indicated: for both the
slaughterhouse and the cutting plant. Usually cutting plants buy carcasses from several slaughterhouses in order to
obtain sufficient quantities of the desired quality. Should the slaughterhouse’s approval number need to be indicated,
the cutting plant would have to keep meat from each slaughterhouse separate, which would result in a large number
of small batches. Small slaughterhouses will then be pushed out of the market because their batches will be too small
whereas cutting plants prefer a few, large batches.

Result of the vote

For: 15, against: 37, abstentions: 6.