Dr Franz Fischler SPEECH/97/159 European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development The future of Beef Producers in the European Union Check Against Delivery National Farmer’s Union of England andSeul Wales le texte prononcé fait foi Wales, 11 July 1997 Es gilt das gesprochene wort Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today on the future for beef and veal producers in the European Union. As you may imagine it is not an easy task to tackle the current problems of this important sector of European agriculture. But I understand very well that beef producers, in particular in England and Wales, have to know how policies in the beef sector will develop. Not only because the livestock sector is the major contributor to the value of agricultural production - here in Wales for instance more than 80 % of this value comes from grazing livestock- but also because the sector has experienced a fundamental crisis during the last year. Beef farmers in particular in England and Wales have had to go through a traumatic period of uncertanity. I therefore appreciate all the more the constructive way the farmers and their unions have contributed to solve the problems. Consumer confidence in the quality and safety of European beef has been profoundly shaken. It is not easy to regain the confidence of consumers and convince them that all necessary actions are being taken in order to guarantee safe food. The Commission has been accused of not giving first priority to human health or even of having deliberately put out misleading information. I firmly reject such accusations. On the contrary, the motto of the Santer Commission has always been to promote transparency and scientific methods in order to eliminate risks to human health. A recent example is our renewed proposal on the treatment of specified risk material in all Member States. On the detailed scientific and technical questions concerning health, the Commission must take scientific advice. Neither I nor any other politician, scientist or journalist alone will ever be in a position to understand all the particular aspects of such a complex problem as BSE. We need the experts to examine the question from all different angles and then advise us, today and in the future. In order to guarantee in the long-term that consumers are at no risk from BSE, I have put forward a major research programme involving international experts which will clarify the areas in which action still needs to be taken. But we should not be impatient with scientific advice and expect quick results instead of trying to understand better the scientific problems and methods. I would add that a methodical approach is also needed when it comes to lifting the export ban. I am aware that farmers in the United Kingdom feel their patience is being stretched. Nevertheless, all the practical aspects of a staged lifting of the ban need to be examined thoroughly by the scientific experts. This takes time. Nevertheless, important progress has been made in examining the UK authorities’ request for exports from certified herds. The Scientific Veterinary Committee has looked at this proposal and raised a number of concerns and points for clarification. I understand that the United Kingdom authorities are in the process of revising their proposal in order to take account of these concerns. We shall then have to see whether on a scientific level the scheme can be given a green light. I also understand that the United Kingdom authorities are looking at a scheme for permitting the export of animals born after a particular date. Although the devil always tends to be in the detail, this idea seems, on the face of it, to have the merit of simplicity. 2 If Community legislation is to make a greater contribution to winning back consumer confidence in European beef, our rules must be consolidated and simplified to make them more transparent. Consumers are often not aware that the European Union is ahead of the rest of the world with many of our veterinary and hygiene measures. Over recent years, the Commission has examined the legal basis of our rules with the aim of achieving consolidated, comprehensive yet simpler measures which the food industry and the consumer will easily understand. However, consumers must also be certain that all measures necessary for their protection are being taken. I don’t have to remind you that the standards approved at Community level must be applied by the Member States. An examination of measures to combat BSE was presented to the Standing Veterinary Committee in March. It revealed shortcomings in many Member States, particularly in the practical application of the approved measures, the training of technicians and inspectors, checks on carcass meat and the prevention of the risk of contamination of other foodstuffs. Meanwhile the Commission is preparing legal actions against 10 Member States for failing to implement properly the new food safety rules. Recent discoveries in relation to illegal export of British beef undermine our efforts to assure consumers that precautionary measures taken to protect them will indeed do so. It is essential that Member States redouble their efforts to ensure proper control. Clearly, the United Kingdom has a key role to play in this respect. Indeed, there is a vital interest at stake since a breach of the export ban does not bring any closer the day when consumer confidence is fully restored. Ladies and Gentlemen, It is in the interest of beef farmers and the beef industry as a whole to rebuild European beef consumption. This is possible only if the whole sector can give sufficient guarantees on the safety and the quality of beef. I believe the best guarantee will be if beef is no longer an anonymous product. Already in 1993, the Commission laid down that a comprehensive system of tracing products was a precondition for the payment of assistance under its promotional measures for quality beef and veal. Sales of beef and veal meeting the criteria of the European quality programme now have reached almost 350 000 tonnes per year. In some Member States the market share has increased to 20 %. I think this can be seen as a real success and we should continue this approach. I think if we want to regain consumers’ confidence in beef and veal it is necessary to individualise it and to give the consumer information on the origin of the meat he or she is buying. You all know the discussion on beef labelling that has taken place since last summer. The main subject of controversy was the voluntary or compulsory character of the system. 3 A voluntary system has the advantage of minimising the whole burden of control. Such a system can be based on internal inspection. External control would then be limited to supervising the system as a whole. A compulsory approach, on the other hand, puts the duty of control on the competent authority, and this would need a fully effective identification and registration system for beef animals functioning in all Member States together with a central data base. Although a compulsory system would be the best solution to satisfy consumer demands as quickly as possible this could not be realised in the immediate future throughout all Member States of the Union. For this reason the Council decided to start with a voluntary system until the year 2000 and to introduce mandatory labelling from that year on. The Council however acknowledged that some Member States already have an efficient animal identification system. They are permitted to introduce immediately an obligatory labelling system for meat coming from their own animals. Another point of discussion was the information to be put on the label. No precise commitments have been introduced for the first phase before the year 2000. However, the Council indicated its intention to introduce obligatory information about Member State of birth, fattening and slaughter of the animal from the year 2000 on. This decision was taken unanimously by the Council against the Commission. The Commission was opposed principally because we were of the view that the legal basis of the rules should be a broader one than simply the “agricultural” article 43 of the treaty. In addition to this concern, the Commission would have preferred that origin indications make reference to regions instead of Member States in order to avoid any distortion of the internal market or even a renationalisation of the beef market. From my point of view, there is no link between the Member State of birth, fattening or slaughter and the quality of meat. For the European consumer this kind of link with a region is much more readily understandable. The main controversial point was however the legal basis. Following the amendment of the European Parliament, the Commission brought its proposals up to date in order to amalgamate the two initial texts into a single proposal and put it on a legal basis, Article 100A, which requires a stronger participation of the European Parliament in the decision procedure. In its final decision, the Council returned to the traditional legal base and I personally regret this very much. During the next years we will have to see how the labelling system develops and examine how it contributes to restoring consumers’ confidence in beef and veal. Based on this experience a report will be drafted by mid 1999 so that the general rules for mandatory labelling of beef from the year 2000 onwards can provide an efficient system of quality control. 4 In my opinion it is essential that the beef sector and agriculture as a whole respond to the demand for all-round quality and control of foodstuff at every stage in the production chain.