Brussels, 19/02/2013 (Agence Europe) - EU member state experts had hardly given their go-ahead to implementation of a plan to step up coordinated controls for detecting horsemeat fraud on the EU market, when the Commission formally endorsed, on Tuesday 19 February, the recommendation along these lines in response to the scandal relating to horsemeat found in frozen food products designated as pure beef products (see EUROPE 10787 and 10786).
Tests will now begin in the 27 member states - the 2,250 DNA tests aimed at identifying the animal species used for meat contained in processed food that should only contain beef, and testing to detect possible phenylbutazone (“bute”) residues in horsemeat (minimum 5 tests per member states, with one test to be carried out for every 50 tonnes of horsemeat). The tests, to be carried out over an initial 30-day period, will be jointly funded at 75% by the European Commission and may be renewed for a further two months.
Parliamentary outcry. The day before, during a debate on the labelling fraud scandal, members of the environment, health and food safety committee at the European Parliament had called for further testing on horsemeat throughout the food chain. Many of them had voiced concern about the member states' commitment to ensure that existing EU rules on labelling are respected and had invited the European Commission to step up controls.
Speaking of “considerable fraud”, Peter Liese (EPP, Germany) simply advised that application of the existing legislation should be improved, that controls should be stepped up and DNA testing introduced.
In favour of labelling that shows the origin of the meat used in food products, Linda McAvan (S&D, UK) pointed out that the Parliament had, in the past, supported this measure that had been rejected by EU governments with the result that “the system has failed”. Carl Schlyter (Greens/EFA, Sweden) said it is clear that the risk of fraud is increased when focus is placed on keeping costs down. Labelling meat to show the origin would allow companies to form long term connections with suppliers and thus reduce risk. Furthermore, Schlyter said, companies should be under the risk of having sanctions imposed on them.
“For many people, eating horse is unacceptable. Imagine if it were pork!” said Chris Davies (ALDE, UK), who added: “Where is the evidence that the checks have been carried out by the national authorities? Ideally, some effort should be made for common penalties at EU level”. Ana Rosbach (ECR, Denmark) also called for better labelling so that the consumer may know the origin of the meat. Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) called on the Commission to be “tough on member states that don't apply the legislation”.
Paul Nuttall (EFD, UK) felt Europe was to blame. “Food safety is a competence of the EU, but the UK had higher standards before”, he commented, saying that member states should once more be empowered to set their own standards as “we're not ensuring that food is safe and we're also labelling it incorrectly (…). In this case, the meat travelled to five different countries. It is almost impossible to police”. (AN/transl.jl)