Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97"
Date: 2000-04-12
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: beef, cattle, database, health control, labelling, meat product

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/9

22. Agrees that an effective EU food safety policy must apply
to all food consumed within the EU, not simply that
produced within the EU, and therefore equivalent compre-

hensive and effective controls must be applied to all food
and feedingstuffs entering the EU.

Brussels, 12 April 2000.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

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

(2000/C 226/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a system
for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef
products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 (COM (1999) 487 final — COD 99/0204) (1);

having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 12 November 1999, under Article 152 and the
first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the
Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the COR Bureau decision of 17 November 1999 to direct Commission 2 for Agriculture,
Rural Development and Fisheries to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the decision taken by its president on 6 January 2000, under rule 39 of the Committee
of the Regions’ Rules of Procedure, to appoint Sir Simon Day (member of Devon County Council,
UK/PPE) as rapporteur-general for the opinion;

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 525/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 2 on 24 February 2000
(rapporteur-general: Sir Simon Day),

adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session on 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April).

1. Background

The BSE crisis and other concerns surrounding food
1.1.
safety have produced increasing political and consumer press-
ure for systems of labelling which allow a product to be traced
back down the food chain to its farm of origin and which
provide verifiable assurance of the safe provenance of beef in
particular.

(1) OJ C 376 E, 28.12.1999, p. 42.

1.2.
The Commission responded with the Beef Labelling
Scheme, which was introduced in 1998, under Council
Regulation (EC) No. 820/972 (2). The prior approval which
forms part of this scheme is designed to respond to any claims
made by a retail purchaser about the origin, characteristics and
production conditions of fresh or frozen beef or veal. A
condition of this is that an verification system must be in
place. Approval is not necessary where the label only gives
customers basic information on price and cut.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97, 21 April 1997 establishing
a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals
and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 117,
7.5.1997, p. 1).

C 226/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

1.3.
The existing scheme was always seen as an interim
measure, pending the introduction of a compulsory scheme,
and was due to expire on 31 December, 1999. In the event, it
was not possible to reach agreement on the proposed compul-
sory measures and the Council has therefore extended the
voluntary scheme until 31 August, 2000, in the expectation
of an agreement which would allow its replacement by
In the meantime, the
compulsory measures at that time.
standard EU Regulations governing food labelling will apply
to beef, so as to avoid a legal vacuum.

2. The Commission proposals

The plan is to introduce compulsory beef labelling in

2.1.
two stages.

2.1.1.
Stage 1: As from September 1, 2000, operators and
organisations marketing fresh or frozen beef or veal must
include the following information on the label:

— individual traceability codes, which may be the identifi-
cation (ear-tag) number of the animal from which the meat
is derived or a number relating to a batch of animals;

— exchange of information between Member States;

— supplementary control measures established by the Euro-

pean Commission.

The proposal would also allow some wider geographical
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’.

3. Need for a system for the identification and regis-
tration of bovine animals and for the labelling of beef

— region, or member state or third country of the slaughter-

house and de-boning plant;

— approval numbers of the slaughterhouse and de-boning

3.1.
The COR welcomes and proposes to actively monitor
the proposal for the European Parliament and the Council
to adopt a regulation establishing a system both for the
identification and registration of bovine animals and for the
labelling of beef.

plant;

— date of slaughter;

— category of animal (i.e. steer, bull, heifer etc.);

— ideal minimum maturation period.

2.1.2.
required to indicate:

Stage 2: As from January 1, 2003, labels would be

— 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.

2.2.

The European Commission’s proposal includes:

— an obligation for Member States to establish control

measures;

3.2.

The system will serve two purposes:

— firstly, to meet consumers’ concerns about the safety of
the food they eat. Their demands for transparency on this
subject at local and national level must be followed up at
EU level;

— secondly, to provide a clear framework for beef farmers
and marketing and processing companies hit by the
instability of the beef and beef products market. This will
reduce the instability caused by the BSE crisis.

3.3.
All over Europe, consumers are making the same calls
for transparency about the foods they eat, and particularly
about beef. The COR therefore believes that EU action is
needed in this sphere, and that no Member State has the right
to sidestep measures for guaranteeing food safety for its
nationals.

3.4.
In order to keep the procedure and the labelling
transparent for the consumer, the obligatory details should be
kept to the necessary minimum. There should be no require-
ment that the ‘approval number of the slaughterhouse’ or the
‘ideal minimum maturation period’ of the meat be indicated,
as this will not increase transparency for the consumer.

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/11

3.5.
The second stage of compulsory labelling should, if
possible, be implemented at the same time as the first stage.
As a minimum requirement, the transitional period should be
reduced by one year so that the proposed measures would
come into effect on 1 January 2002.

3.6.
In view of the positive experience gained in connection
labelling schemes, system control should in
with optional
future also be placed in the hands of certified system control
enterprises. This would mean that the monitoring role of
public bodies,
in the Member States concerned, could be
confined to that of inspecting the system control enterprises
and carrying out checks on food placed on the market.

4.

Information for reassuring consumers and dealing
with cases of contamination

4.1.
In order to fully restore European consumers’ confi-
dence in the safety of beef, they must be provided with the
most extensive and precise information possible. We cannot,
therefore, agree with the Parliament and Council proposal to
allow identification of animals by herd or batch and allow the
use of such generic terms as ‘origin: EC’ or ‘origin: non-EC’.
Information on the individual animal and the specific origin is
useful not only to the consumer: it is also vital for ensuring
that contaminated products can be recalled if there is a food-
safety crisis.

4.2.

It is therefore important that:

— the system established by the draft regulation is applied as
widely as possible, without exemptions or exceptions. A
guaranteed quality and safety standard should be reached
for all beef produced throughout the European Union;

— the indications provided for consumers should tell them
exactly what they are buying and where the meat orig-
inated. This is achieved by mentioning the place of birth
of the animal, and the place of rearing, fattening or feeding,
and slaughter.

4.3.
As a body which is close to the grassroots, the COR
wishes to reiterate — as it has done on other issues not related
to beef, and most recently in its Opinion of 18 November
1999 on the Commission’s communication on a consumer
policy action plan 1999-2001 (CdR 181/99 fin) — that
consumer safety remains its overriding concern.

Brussels, 12 April 2000.

5. Conclusions

The Committee of the Regions approves the principle
5.1.
of establishing a system for the identification and registration
of bovine animals and for the labelling of beef and beef
products. The information on the label should be confined to
what is necessary, feasible and of relevance to consumers. It
should not be necessary to indicate the animal’s category and
the minimum maturation period in Stage 1 of compulsory
labelling (1.9.2000). It is necessary in all cases that information
be provided on the animal’s region of birth, rearing, fattening
and slaughter.

5.2.
Enforcement of compulsory labelling should however
continue to be carried out under approved systems. Super-
vision by private checking agencies should also be maintained.

5.3.
The Committee stresses the need to restore the confi-
dence of consumers and beef producers by establishing a
framework at EU level which meets
transparent general
consumers’ general need to have the precisest possible infor-
mation about the origin and guaranteed safety of the food they
eat.

The Committee therefore takes the view that the Commission’s
proposal with regard to ‘geographical definitions’ (see the
second paragraph of point 2.2 above)
fails to satisfy the
demand for precise indications and precise information. The
Committee proposes that the name of the third country,
Member State or region concerned be indicated.

5.4.
The Committee also advocates that in future infor-
mation about the origin of beef which, in addition to indicating
the Member State of origin, also refers to the region of origin,
should be permitted, if it does not involve a regional indication
under Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (protection of geographi-
cal information and description of origin) (1).

5.5.
The Committee recommends that the system be put in
place as soon as possible in order to ease current tensions
between certain Member States; these tensions are jeopardising
the restoration of confidence which both beef producers and
beef eaters are calling for. It would be helpful to avoid as far as
possible introducing the system in different stages.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT