Brussels, 25/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 24 March, the member states of the EU stood divided over the idea of introducing a reference, on the labels of ready meals, to the country of origin or place of provenance of the meat used in the ingredients. Whilst countries such as France, Italy, Finland and Malta supported the idea of obligatory labelling of this kind, most countries (Germany, Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia etc) felt that this measure could cause disproportionate costs to producers and consumers and competition distortions on the single market.
For the first time, the Agriculture Council discussed the report by the European Commission, which was published in December, on an obligatory reference to the country of origin or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient. European Commissioner for Health Tonio Borg made it clear that, before presenting a legislative proposal, the Commission had to present a report including various options (status quo, in other words optional labelling, EU or non-EU indication, or obligatory indication of the member state or third country of origin). He acknowledged that the impact assessment showed that consumers would like more information on the country of origin or the place of provenance of meat in ready meals. However, they are not prepared to pay any more for it. And obligatory labelling would, the commissioner explained, bring about “structural changes within the food chain” and a 10-15% increase in operational costs. “There is no such thing as a free label”, he said. He stressed that the cost also depends on the sector in question (beef meat only, or poultry and pork meat as well) and on the threshold (provenance labelling upwards of, for example, 10% or 50% of meat in the ready meal). Lastly, he said that the report and the debate had nothing to do with the problem of the scandal of horsemeat (fraudulently found in ready meals instead of beef). Additionally, this labelling would not have prevented the horsemeat scandal, he stressed. “We are open on that aspect of things. The debate will continue within the Council and the European Parliament, and we will take a decision”, Borg concluded.
France in favour, but out on its own. The country calling the loudest for obligatory labelling for the provenance of meeting ready meals, France, argues that 90% of European consumers are in favour of more information on the origin of the products in ready meals, as are the European Parliament and the BEUC. In France's view, “the status quo is not an option”. The EU cannot just accept the fact that food is governed by price alone. It stated the country of origin is “vital in order to reassure consumers” and makes producers take responsibility. Furthermore, according to France, this labelling would improve traceability and help to fight fraud, said the French representative (the French Minister for Agriculture, Stephane Le Foll, did not attend the Council). France has called for a technical-level debate on the three options put forward by the Commission. The subject will be examined within the technical group of the Council, the Greek Presidency announced.
The new Italian agriculture minister, Maurizio Martina, said that useful information and transparency over the origin are very sensitive issues in Italy. He is in favour of measures to give consumers confidence. “We want the maximum amount of transparency and obligatory labelling”, the Italian minister said. However, he stressed the need to analyse the costs and technical complexity for operators. “We need to strike a balance” between more transparency and costs to business, Italy concluded. Finland called for a “reliable” system on the origin of the meat. Austria referred to option 2 (EU or third country origin), or even option 3, under certain conditions.
Disproportionate costs to business, countries and price increases. Germany acknowledged that consumers would like more information on the origin of the meat, but said that there must be a solution which is fair from a financial point of view. This country prefers to keep optional labelling in place. Belgian feels that it is “too soon to look at new legislative measures”. The British delegation stressed the cost of the measure and the need to avoid competition distortions. It referred to a “disproportionate” cost of obligatory labelling, whereas “voluntary systems have proved their worth”. The increase in costs to business will be passed on in the price paid by the consumer, the United Kingdom also stressed. Ireland referred to the increased number of tests which would be required as a result of obligatory labelling of this kind. Luxembourg underlined the risk of distortion in the flows of goods within the single market.
Spain has concerns over the effects of this legislation on SMEs (increase in production and administrative costs) and on the testing authorities. Miguel Arias Canete also spoke of the risk of a “fragmentation of the single market, measures akin to protectionism and rising prices for consumers”. (LC)