Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on  Hygiene rules and artisanal food processors
Date: 2005-12-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, craft business, dairy industry, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, meat processing industry, small and medium-sized enterprises

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/141

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Hygiene rules and artisanal food
processors’

(2006/C 65/25)

On 9/10 February 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion,
under Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on ‘Hygiene rules and artisanal food processors’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 9 November 2005. The rapporteur was
Mr Ribbe.

At its 422nd plenary session, held on 14 and 15 December 2005 (meeting of 15 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 98 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1. Introduction

The new food-hygiene legislation (1), which came into
1.1
force on 20 May 2004, seeks to ensure a high level of
consumer-protection as regards the safety of food products by
pursuing an integrated approach covering the whole of the
food chain (‘from farm gate to plate’). The application of
uniform principles is also designed to ensure the smooth opera-
tion of the internal market.

1.2
The key principle underlying the new legislation is that
food business operators have to assume full responsibility for
ensuring their products pose no health hazard. This is to be
ensured by means of the observance of fundamental, specific
hygiene standards and the application of the principles of risk
analysis systems (HACCP (2)).

The new food hygiene legislation comprises several

1.3
regulations:

— Regulation (EC) 178/2002 laying down the general princi-
ples and requirements of food law (the ‘basic Regulation’),

— Regulation (EC) 852/2004 on food hygiene,

— Regulation (EC) 853/2004 setting out specific food hygiene

rules in respect of food products of animal origin,

— Regulation (EC) 854/2004 laying down specific rules for
the organisation of official controls on products of animal
origin intended for human consumption,

— Regulation (EC) 882/2004 on official controls performed to
ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food
law, and

— the Regulation on microbiological criteria (available in draft

form).

1.4
In order to ensure that Regulations (EC) 852/2004 and
853/2004 are applied as uniformly as possible, the following

guidance documents have been drawn up by the Directorate-
General for Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO). They
are in the nature of recommendations and are addressed to the
food businesses themselves and to the local authorities:

— Guidance document on the implementation of certain
provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004, SANCO/
1513/2005 rev. 1 of 8 September 2005.

— Guidance document on the implementation of certain
provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004, SANCO/
1514/2005 (rev. 1) of 8 September 2005.

— Guidance document on the facilitation of the implementa-
tion of the HACCP principles in food businesses, SANCO/
1955/2005 of 30 August 2005.

As part of the EU legislative procedure, the European
1.5
Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
inter alia issued
opinions (3) on 28/29 March 2001 on Regulations 852/2004,
853/2004 and 854/2004, which were adopted in 2004. In its
opinions, the EESC expressly endorsed the new Regulations and
their underlying principles.

1.6
In drawing up this own-initiative opinion, the EESC is
seeking to set in train an appraisal to determine whether the
new food hygiene rules make the best possible contribution —
from the standpoint of the coherence of the objectives and
measures — towards promoting the politically-desirable goal of
sustainable development in rural areas. Small, artisanal and/or
traditional processing businesses are of particular importance
for the economic development of these areas. Frequent experi-
ence shows, however, that in the last few years there has been
a sharp decline in structures of this kind, especially in the areas
of meat and milk processing and marketing. It has often been
suggested by those affected and by the competent authorities
that high EU hygiene requirements are responsible for this
structural change.

(1) OJ L 226 of 25.6.2004.
(2) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points.

(3) OJ C 155 of 29.5.2001, p. 39.

C 65/142

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

1.7
In the light of this, it needs to be established whether
the EU is in fact directly or indirectly responsible for structural
change prompted by hygiene requirements. This of course in
that of
no way calls into question the essential objective,
preventing risks to human health. What does need to be asked,
is whether differentiated requirements are needed,
however,
and whether
the necessary flexibility exists in seeking to
achieve all the objectives set by the EU (hygiene and creation
and safeguarding of jobs).

This opinion will examine the new food hygiene provi-

1.8
sions to determine whether:

a) the hygiene rules will serve to hamper or promote the activ-
ities of small food business using primarily artisanal and/or
traditional processing procedures;

b) the way in which the flexibility provisions are implemented
by the respective national authorities may give rise to
competitive disadvantages in the case of artisanal products
or small food businesses.

As the specific hygiene rules set out in Regulations
1.9
853/2004 and 854/2004 cover exclusively food products of
animal origin, the appraisal will focus on the impact on food
businesses dealing in these products. Processors of products of
plant origin (e.g. bakers, cake makers etc) and other animal
products (e.g. fish), which are also covered by the new hygiene
rules (Regulation 852/2004), are thus not considered.

1.10 With this opinion the EESC is seeking to stimulate a
debate on food safety standards and the related issue of sustain-
able development in rural areas. In this context, the Committee
takes the view that the goals of consumer protection, the main-
tenance of cultural diversity, the safeguarding of fair competi-
tion and the maintenance and increase in the number of jobs
in rural areas are objectives of equal importance which need to
be reconciled with each other.

2. Contents of the Regulations

2.1
Regulation (EC) 178/2002 lays down the general prin-
including food safety
ciples and requirements of
food law,
procedures, with a view to improving both the operation of
the internal market and the free movement of food products
and animal feed. Furthermore, the alignment at EU level of
food law concepts, principles and procedures, which hitherto
were still, to a large extent, marked by a national approach,
should ensure a high level of consumer protection.

all food products. This Regulation applies to all stages of the
production, processing and marketing of food products. It also
covers primary agricultural production.
In contrast to ‘food
businesses’, primary agricultural producers are (still) not obliged
to apply procedures based on HACCP principles but they
have to comply with the principles set out in Annex I. All food
businesses do, however, have to be registered and comply
with the general food hygiene rules of Annex II of the Regu-
lation. The procedures for the registration of businesses will be
laid down by the national authorities on the basis of Article 31
of Regulation 882/2004.

All food businesses have to comply with the following

2.3
hygiene rules:

— compliance with microbiological criteria in respect of food

products;

— compliance with procedures which are necessary in order

to achieve the objectives of the Regulation;

— compliance with temperature-control requirements for food

products;

— maintenance of the cold chain;

— sampling and analyses.

2.4

The following are not covered by the Regulation:

— primary production for domestic use and domestic proces-

sing for private consumption;

— the direct supply, by the producer, of small quantities of
primary products or meat from poultry and lagomorphs
(e.g. rabbits), slaughtered on the farm, to the final consumer
or to local retail establishments.

2.5
The new food hygiene legislation does not set out
detailed rules in respect of the criteria listed in point 2.3 above
(e.g. type of microbiological criteria, scale of sampling and type
of analyses). A draft separate Regulation on microbiological
criteria for food products, on the basis of Article 4 of Regu-
lation (EC) 852/2004, already exists, however.

2.6
In view of the fact that food products of animal origin
may give rise to a number of special risks, two specific regula-
tions have been introduced covering these products, namely:

— Regulation (EC) 853/2004 setting out specific food
hygiene rules in respect of food products of animal origin;
and

2.2
Regulation (EC) 852/2004 on food hygiene gives
concrete expression to the objectives of Regulation 178/2002
and sets out basic rules governing the hygienic production of

— Regulation (EC) 854/2004 laying down specific rules for
the organisation of official controls on products of animal
origin intended for human consumption.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/143

Food businesses working with food products of animal

2.7
origin must:

— obtain approval. The procedures for the approval of busi-
nesses will be laid down by the national authorities on the
basis of Article 31 of Regulation 882/2004;

— comply with specific hygiene rules

laid down in the
annexes to Regulation 853/2004 covering inter alia, the
transport of animals, slaughtering procedures, the cutting-
up and processing of meat (red meat, poultry and game
meat), the production of raw milk and processing of milk
etc., as well as eggs, egg products,
fish and fisheries
products, mussels and other sea food;

ments set out in the regulations in order (a) to make it
possible to use traditional methods at all stages in the
production, processing and marketing of food products or
food businesses in
(b)
regions affected by difficult geographical situations.

to take account of the needs of

c) authorisation for the adoption of national rules for
direct marketing (see points 2.4 and 2.8) and the retail trade
(see points 2.8 and 2.9).

3. Small food businesses and the development of rural

areas

— small food businesses handling products of animal origin
must also obtain approval. In point 4.2 of its guidance
document SANCO 1514/2005 rev. 1 the Commission
makes it clear that the approval requirements should not
place any additional burdens on businesses.

Terms and Definitions

Products and procedures not covered by Regulation
2.8
853/2004. In addition, the following products and procedures
are not covered by the Regulation:

— the direct supply, by the producer, of small quantities of
primary products or meat from poultry and lagomorphs
(e.g. rabbits), slaughtered on the farm, to the final consumer
or to local retail establishments;

3.1 Many EU Member States continue to have a broad range
of food businesses. The processing of agricultural raw materials
and the production of food products can take place in a variety
of enterprises: large businesses organised on an industrial scale
and geared towards the international markets; small food busi-
to
nesses geared to a greater extent
supplying regional markets; and micro-enterprises. Micro-enter-
prises can readily be linked to agricultural enterprises, from
both an organisational and spatial standpoint.

(but not exclusively!)

— subject to certain conditions, retail traders (Art. 1(5)(a).

2.9
Point 3.5 of SANCO guidance document 1514/2005
rev. 1 states that the retail trade shall be excluded from the
scope of Regulation 853/2004 and fall within the scope of
Regulation 852/2004 only when it means (a) direct marketing
or (b) small-scale, regional and limited supply of products of
animal origin to other institutions. It is left to the Member
States to lay down general rules for the retail trade.

3.2
The structure of food businesses and the volume of
processing which they carry out are generally linked to specific
production processes. The range of such production processes
is broad, extending from industrial-scale/mass production
processes to artisanal and traditional processes. The transitions
between the respective levels of production are not clearly
defined.

2.10
lar importance to flexibility:

The new food hygiene legislation attaches particu-

The text set out below will focus mainly on small food
3.3
businesses and micro-enterprises which employ,
to a
greater extent, artisanal and/or traditional production
processes.

a) setting of

rather

targets

than prescribing specific
detailed rules. In comparison to the legal provisions applic-
able hitherto, the new regulations — especially Regulation
853/2004 which lays down specific hygiene requirements
— set out far fewer detailed provisions, for example with
regard to the building requirements to be met by slaughter-
houses and meat-cutting plants;

b) authorisation for the adoption of national rules (Regula-
tions 852/2004 (Art. 13), 853/2004 (Art. 10)
and
854/2004 (Art. 17)) with a view to adapting the require-

3.4
A second area of emphasis will comprise food busi-
nesses engaged in processing meat products (including
meat from poultry and other small animals) and milk; meat
and milk are important sectors in respect of added value for
agricultural products in many EU Member States and specific
hygiene rules have been laid down covering these sectors (see
also point 1.9). These rules apply, specifically and above all, to
their own
regional slaughterhouses, butchers carrying out
slaughtering and processing operations, regional dairies, small-
scale commercial cheese dairies, farm-based cheese dairies and
Alpine dairies.

C 65/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

Small food businesses, rural areas, employment and product quality

3.5
There is a majority of small food businesses in most EU
Member States and they therefore play an important role in
providing employment. Small businesses include artisanal busi-
nesses. These are often located in inner city areas and provide a
high degree of product and cultural diversity and often — a
factor which should not be overlooked — provide jobs for
ethnic minorities. Particular attention should, however, be paid
to food businesses which are engaged in the production and
processing stages and are also closely linked, to a greater or
lesser extent, to agricultural primary producers or commodity
producers. Many of these businesses are based in rural areas. In
some cases they play an important part in safeguarding and
creating employment, especially in rural and often structurally
weak areas.

Examples: In Europe there are more than 150 000
3.5.1
independent butchers, with about one million employees. In
Germany alone there are at present approximately 18 000
butchery businesses (or 29 000 butcher's shops,
including
branches) providing employment for approximately 168 000
people. 15 % of those businesses continued to carry out their
own slaughtering, whilst 10 % of the businesses had their own
livestock slaughtered in slaughterhouses. Other centres of the
butchery business are Spain, with some 35 400 independent
butchers (including branches) and some 70 000 employees,
and France, with just under 35 000 butchers and over 55 000
employees.

In the last few years there has been a trend towards
3.5.2
buying meat in large supermarkets and discount stores. The
EESC stresses, however, the importance of small-scale busi-
nesses, which cannot be measured purely in terms of sales
figures (4).

3.5.3
There are a large number of small firms in the dairy
sector too. Thus, in Germany, as a result of the expansion of
organic milk production, over 500 new farm-based cheese
dairies have been set up in the last few years, thereby gener-
ating some 1 500 new jobs. This figure is bolstered by the new
jobs which have been created in organic dairies and commer-
cial organic cheese dairies. Unfortunately no European data are
available on this.

3.6
In the context of Agenda 2000, both the European
Commission and EU Member States stressed the need not only
to enhance the competitiveness of EU agriculture on the world
market but also to focus on quality. With this aim in view, the
multifunctional character of agriculture (also known as the
‘European agricultural model’)
is to be maintained and
promoted. This expression implies that this is a form of agri-
supplies high-quality products
culture which,

inter alia,

(4) In Germany butchers still account for 45 % of turnover in meat
products by value. Measured in terms of weight, the proportion is
slightly lower, as butchers' prices are slightly higher as a result of
higher raw material and wage costs, among other factors.

thereby safeguarding jobs and creating new jobs. This strategy
of increasing added value in rural areas is indissolubly linked to
the maintenance and further development of the downstream
sector of food processing. Protected designations of origin also
contribute to this quality policy.

3.7
The EU policy on food quality is to be implemented, in
future, inter alia, by means of the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development
(EAFRD) Regulation (‘Diversification
Axis’) and by means of the action programme for organic
farming.

Small food businesses, and in particular, small artisanal
3.8
food processors, are of strategic importance in connection with
this quality policy. These small food businesses are the very
businesses which can help to promote diversity by,
for
example, providing consumers with a high level of product
diversity. Growing demand in this sector points to the fact
that consumers are increasingly valuing such diversity and
underlines
artisanal production
methods are indissolubly linked to high product quality. These
production methods are also part of our cultural heritage.
for decades, demonstrated that
These food businesses have,
they are able to produce products which are safe.

traditional

that

fact

the

Different risks require different concepts of safety

3.9
The EESC is therefore pleased to note that, compared
with the existing rules, the new regulations make provision for
a higher level of flexibility. The adoption of a flexible
approach offers new opportunities to small food businesses
operating in the field of artisanal and traditional food proces-
sing. The new uniform approval procedure will in future make
it possible for them to participate in cross-border trade. But
these opportunities must also be exploited by the Member
States.

3.10
This flexibility does, however, also involve risks for
small food businesses. Businesses which were previously only
registered must now meet the higher standards of the approval
procedure. Furthermore, some specific hygiene measures set
out in Regulation 853/2004 lay down requirements which are
clearly more demanding than those applying hitherto. This
applies in particular to the related microbial control require-
ments.

3.11
The laying down of hygiene objectives rather than
rigid requirements and the related flexibility clauses make it
possible to tailor the shaping of the HACCP concept (in line
with Regulation 852/2004) and the approval procedures to the
specific risks posed by various kinds of business and their
production processes.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/145

3.12
This flexibility is of key importance for maintaining a
diverse range of food businesses in Europe, as hygiene risks
and the corresponding hygiene requirements are in some cases
closely linked with the respective specific production, proces-
sing and distribution systems. Small, artisanal food businesses
having a mainly local and regional distribution network
present, to a certain extent, food safety risks of a different order
than those which arise in the case of large food businesses
organised on an industrial scale and having national and inter-
national distribution networks. It is thus clear that, in the case
of large food businesses employing many workers, having high
production volumes and limited areas of responsibility, trace-
ability and quality-management systems, batch-marking and
sophisticated spatial planning arrangements and input-related
microbiological analyses do make sense. In the case of small
food businesses,
in which responsibility rests with a small
number of workers and which are frequently not involved in
intra-Community trade, simple concepts are usually sufficient,
such as sample checks on cold temperatures or cooking
temperatures, or visual
inspection (cooked sausages). Tradi-
tional and proven checks have their place here. More stringent
technical or organisational
in
improved hygiene but may be costly and time-consuming.

requirements do not

result

3.13
One example of the transfer of measures, which in the
industrial context are both effective and necessary, to the craft
domain is the requirement of Directive 64/433/EC for the use
of. sterilisers. In the case of processing line slaughter, where the
line typically moves at high speed, there is no time to sterilise
knives, if for instance they cut into an abscess. A steriliser at
every workplace in the cutting area enables workers to take
new, sterile knives without stopping the line. The work of inde-
pendent butchers is different. A single animal is cut by one
person. There is always enough time to take a new, sterile
knife, if required. And to this end it is sufficient to ensure that
there is an adequate supply of knives sterilised the previous
evening. A steriliser at each workplace is not needed. The revi-
sion of SANCO paper No 1514 of 8 September 2005 is a reac-
tion to this objection raised by the EESC; point 5.3 states that
in small abattoirs a sufficient number of knives, disinfected
before slaughter, will suffice.

In other words, if hygiene standards and safety require-
3.14
ments are based predominantly on the risks inherent
in
present-day mainstream production techniques, i.e. industrial-
scale processing and global-level trade and then applied to arti-
that products
sanal
produced using artisanal and traditional procedures will be
placed at a competitive disadvantage. Such products will then
be denied access to the market, partly directly and partly indir-
ectly (by virtue of increased costs).

there is always a danger

structures,

A request

3.15
is made in the paragraphs below for
concepts of hygiene to be geared to specific procedures and
structures; this call is not made only in order to ensure equal

opportunities as regards market access. The objective is rather,
and in particular, to maintain and promote innovation in rural
areas. By way of example, one of the most important innova-
tions of the last few decades was the development and expan-
sion of organic agriculture. In the absence of both the existing
and the newly secured freedom, the revival of the exploitation
of traditional food processing procedures could not have taken
place. In future, too, there is therefore a need to continue to
provide freedom for regional specialities, artisanal and tradi-
tional procedures, special forms of processing, special qualities
of product and special means of marketing and at the same
time to guarantee the consumer a uniform and high level of
food safety.

4. Possible opportunities and obstacles for small artisanal
food businesses operating in the meat and milk sectors
as a result of the new food hygiene laws

Regulation 852/2004

4.1
Some Member States had taken advantage of the possi-
bility provided for under the ‘old’ legislation to make a distinc-
tion between ‘registered’ and ‘authorised’ enterprises operating
in the meat- and milk- processing sectors.
‘Registered’ enter-
prises were not allowed to take part in intra-Community trade,
without this ban having to be justified on grounds of differing
hygiene standards. Point 3.4 of SANCO guidance document
1513/2005 rev. 1 of 8 September 2005 specifically calls on
the Member States to allow direct marketers, who are excluded
from the scope of Regulations 852/2004 and 853/2004, to
engage in cross-border trade in border areas. Thus businesses
in border areas are being offered new market opportunities.

Regulation 852/2004 calls for the application of the
4.2
concept of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) to food safety procedures. The mandatory introduc-
tion of the HACCP concept is to be welcomed; bringing about
maximum product safety on the basis of a small number of
controls — which are as effective as possible — carried out at
the correct points is an approach which chimes with artisanal
tradition. SANCO guidance document 1555/2005 of 30
August 2005 puts forward guidelines for adapting the HACCP
concepts to different types of enterprise. Corresponding guide-
lines for good hygiene practice have been drawn up in the indi-
vidual Member States. These can facilitate the application of
HACCP in small food businesses, as the carrying-out of own
risk analyses can in some cases be dispensed with.

4.3 Whether or not HACCP principles will thus prove bene-
ficial to artisanal food businesses, too, will depend upon the
way in which national HACCP guidelines are framed. If too
much importance is attached to documentation and extensive
checklists, the use of this instrument can easily force costs
upwards without raising safety standards.

C 65/146

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

4.4
The HACCP concept involves carrying out microbiolo-
gical controls; the criteria and scope of these controls have yet
to be determined (Article 4). The form of the new regulation
on microbiological criteria will have a decisive influence on
the costs involved in cases where enterprises carry out their
own controls. This regulation will play a part in determining
whether or not small food businesses can operate competitively
in future since such enterprises have to distribute the costs over
much smaller volumes of processed products and sales than is
the case with large food businesses. The proposed rule
whereby,
in the case of smaller abattoirs, cutting plants or
butchery enterprises, the frequency of checks on minced meat
can be adjusted in line with the volume of production is to be
welcomed. All other enterprises must take weekly samples.

fuges. Businesses using other equipment or procedures would
bear the burden of proof and the cost of having their own
inspections carried out.

4.10
Example 2: In eastern European Member States like the
Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and the Baltic States processes
took place when adapting national laws to the acquis commu-
nautaire similar to those noted in the new German Länder after
reunification. Not only did economic problems lead to massive
structural change and corresponding job losses in dairies and
abattoirs, but
large-scale processors, which
wanted to see increased use of their plants, often influenced the
approval process.

the interests of

Regulation 853/2004: Risks
approach, as demonstrated by the example of milk processing:

involved in adopting a flexible

As a result of

4.5
the adoption of a flexible approach,
considerable discretionary powers will be given not only to
Member States themselves but also, and in particular,
to
regional veterinary authorities responsible for approving food
businesses. There are already at the present time considerable
differences in the application of hygiene rules, in particular in
those areas classified by veterinary officers as areas of risk, such
as:
farm-based cheese
the artisanal slaughtering of poultry;
dairies; and the production of raw milk products.

4.6
In many EU Member States the processing of milk for
cheese production is an important source of farm incomes.
Experience in Poland before and after accession has shown that
veterinary authorities initially banned the establishment of
farm-based cheese dairies, allegedly in order to comply with
‘EU requirements’. They were unsure how to deal with the
‘new’ ideas and wanted to ‘play it safe’, on the assumption that
what does not exist cannot cause (hygiene) problems. Clearly
however, it is not the EU but national and regional authorities
which carry the responsibility for such decisions.

4.7 Many detailed provisions set out in the old EU legisla-
tion covering the processing of milk will now disappear. The
new regulation offers small and artisanal food businesses, in
particular, new opportunities. They can secure recognition of
‘alternative procedures’. These are not, however, specifically
defined in the Regulation.

There is

therefore a fully justified fear

4.8
some
Member States are applying a much ‘stricter’ interpretation of
the regulations and one which is more unfavourable to small
food business, than was intended by the EU.

that

Example 1:

4.9
In Germany the initial drafts have been
prepared for a general administrative regulation (approval
procedure
in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation
882/2004). This requires — as in the past — type approval for
the approval of pasteurisation facilities and sterilisation centri-

The EU is therefore called upon to pay attention to the
4.11
question of maintaining fair competition in the individual
Member States by ensuring that the scope for interpretation
granted in respect of traditional and regional quality products
can also utilised by the authorities to the benefit of local, small
food businesses.

Regulation 853/2004: Obstacles facing small food businesses oper-
ating in the meat sector

Regulation 853/2004 contains a number of clearly-
4.12
defined conditions which go far beyond the conditions hitherto
applicable to small
food businesses operating in the meat
sector; these conditions will also have a detrimental effect on
the trend as regards costs and will thus have a damaging
impact on small food businesses. The most important of these
conditions are as follows:

Under the new Regulation, all slaughtering enterprises
4.13
have to provide waiting pens (5). This requirement would also
apply to butchers, even if in small abattoirs the animals are not
held for long and if overall they only slaughter a small number
of animals each week. This rule in principle makes it necessary
for small businesses to carry out a considerable investment
without bringing any recognisable hygiene benefits. It is there-
fore welcome that the revised version of the SANCO/1514/
2005 guidance document picks up on this problem. Point 5.2
stresses that small abattoirs are not to be obliged to maintain
feeding and
sophisticated or
watering facilities.

infrastructures or

extensive

Separate rooms must be made available for slaugh-
4.14
tering and meat cutting. If these operations are not carried
out at the same time, the same room could be used for both
these activities without jeopardising safety status. Moreover, if
this is the case, the premises will have time to dry. This will
improve their hygiene status. It will also reduce the investment
required of small businesses. Exemption from the second room
requirement where there is a sufficient gap between slaughter
and meat cutting, and provided the premises are cleaned appro-
priately, should therefore be included in a revised version of
the guidelines.

(5) Annex III, Section I, Chapter II, points 1(a) and 2(c).

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/147

4.15
A new requirement has been introduced whereby, in
future, small artisanal enterprises, too, which hitherto had the
status of ‘registered enterprise’ must now maintain a tempera-
ture of 12°C in meat-cutting rooms or else introduce alterna-
tive procedures. Quite apart from the fact that working at 12oC
poses problems, this will give rise to additional investment and
refrigeration costs for small businesses. It would be quite suffi-
cient to require that the meat to be cut be removed from the
refrigeration room in portions.

4.19
In the past abattoirs were required to carry out annual
microbiological inspections of carcasses for microbial load and
spoiling agents (enterobacteriaceae) and to carry out appro-
priate inspections of equipment, walls etc ten times a year. The
planned increased in the required frequency of inspections will
impose significant additional costs on small businesses (for
minced meat see point 4.16).

The new temperature and inspection provisions in
4.16
respect of minced meat set out in Regulation (EC) 853/2004
are particularly problematic as minced meat is a product of
major economic importance, also in the case of micro-enter-
prises and small meat-processing enterprises. In Germany at
least, these businesses have in the past been classified ‘merely’
as ‘registered enterprises’ and they have therefore had to
comply with the national
rules on minced meat, which
prescribe a temperature of 4°C. As, in future, there will only be
EU-authorised enterprises, artisanal meat-processing enterprises
will also have to comply with the strict temperature require-
ments (2°C) set out in the new Regulation (6). As long as busi-
nesses are producing fresh minced meat and selling it only on
the day of production (as the old rules required) there is no
hygiene advantage to be derived from lower temperatures. As
old plant cannot simply be adapted to lower temperatures and
moreover defrosting systems will be required, businesses will
have to invest in new refrigeration equipment. Another feature
of the new regulation which poses problems for the competi-
tiveness of artisanal businesses is the fact that it allows the
mincing of frozen meat. This will only encourage more price
dumping.

4.17
A further new requirement is that artisanal meat enter-
prises will be obliged to carry out microbiological inspec-
tions of minced meat even if these enterprises sell or flash-
freeze the minced meat on the very day of production (7). This
results in a considerable cost burden without any recognisable
advantage as regards food hygiene. The required frequency of
checks is still open. The draft regulation merely states that
small businesses will be exempted from the requirement for
weekly checks (see points 4.18 — 4.20 below).

Regulation on microbiological criteria

The

4.18
is
regulation on microbiological
currently being drawn up; the form taken by this regulation
will be of particular importance to the future competitiveness
of small food businesses. There needs to be a sensible correla-
tion between the degree and scope of sampling and the level of
production of the enterprises concerned and there is a need to
ensure that this sampling is statistically meaningful.

standards

‘Conféderation Générale de

4.20
A further factor to be borne in mind is that the small
volumes of production give rise not only to statistical problems
but also to problems in respect of the quantities which have to
be taken away for testing. This factor has been highlighted by
the
l'Alimentation en Détail
(CGAG)’, the French trade organisation representing retail food
traders. The CGAD points out that,
if the planned rate of
testing were to be maintained, this would result in a situation
whereby, in particular cases, there would be no more products
left to be offered for sale, quite apart from the costs involved.

5. Conclusions

5.1
The EESC welcomes the flexibility of the new regula-
tions. They offer new opportunities to traditional and/or arti-
sanal and regional food businesses.

5.2
The EESC points out, however, that the degree of leeway
allowed by the proposals carries a degree of risk for artisanal
food businesses, as both national governments and local autho-
rities may be able to interpret the rules in a way which is disad-
vantageous to these firms. Experience with the implementation
of EU directives suggests that this may happen. It should be left
up to the firms themselves to decide how they achieve the
hygiene objectives. This is also stressed in point 4 of
the
SANCO 1513/2005/rev. 1 guidance document of 8 September
2005. The Commission must therefore ensure that the guide-
lines are appropriately publicised in the Member States.

The EESC sees a need to amend specific aspects of the

5.3
regulations:

5.3.1
Artisanal individual slaughter should be recognised as
a traditional process. This applies to all national amendments
based on Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Article
10(4) of Regulation (EC) 853/2004 and Article 17(4) of Regu-
lation (EC) 854/2004.

5.3.2
The facilities used by the retail trade for the prepara-
tion and/or cutting of large quantities of food of animal origin
retailers should, without exception, be
destined for other
included in the scope of Regulation 853/2004 (8).

(6) Annex III, Section V, Chapter III, point 2c.
(7) Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Chapter II, Article 4(3)(a).

(8) See also EESC Opinion of 28 March 2001 (OJ C155, p. 39).

C 65/148

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

5.3.3 With regard to buildings (Annex III to Regulation (EC)
853/2004), account should be taken of the recommendations
of SANCO 1514, point 5.2, that craft enterprises which do
their own slaughtering should not necessarily have to provide
waiting pens and that only simple feeding and watering facil-
ities need be provided.

production) used. Moreover, the frequency of microbiological
inspections of minced meat in businesses which produce only
small quantities and which either flash-freeze or sell it on the
day of production should be geared to the quantity of minced
meat actually produced (Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Chapter II,
Article 4(3)(a)).

5.3.4
The requirement for an additional room (Chapter II,
paragraph 2(c)) should be waived if there is a clear separation
in time of slaughter and cutting.

5.3.5
should be waived if the meat, as in artisanal enterprises,
removed from the cold store and cut in portions.

Requirements for the temperature of cutting rooms
is

5.3.6
In the case of artisanal meat processors, the require-
ment for minced meat to be chilled to 2°C (Section V, Chapter
III, paragraph 2(c)) should be dropped, and instead the old
German requirement for registered enterprises (4°C provided
that produce is fresh and that it is sold only on the day of

Brussels, 15 December 2005

The EESC also proposes that a comparative study be
5.3.7
drawn up in order to 1) analyse the implementation of the
regulation in various Member States which differ in relation to
the structure of their artisanal food businesses, and 2) draw up
proposals for improving the competitive position of artisanal
food businesses. The availability to small food businesses of
initial and further training facilities should in particular also be
looked into. The systems for publicising Commission guidelines
should also be looked at to ensure that small businesses are
sufficiently informed about the degree of flexibility available to
them.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND