Fears grow over impact of beef labelling law on single market

Date: 27/03/1997

By Michael Mann

CONCERN is growing that the agreement struck by EU farm ministers on beef labelling could encourage other sectors to attempt to use national labels as an assurance of quality in breach of single market rules.

Officials warn that any attempt to do so could constitute a quantitative restriction on trade, illegal under Article 30 of the EU treaty.

Sweden recently came under fire from the European Commission for specifically promoting Swedish products on its domestic market under a motto which it was felt denigrated the overseas competition.

And the meat trade industry, particularly in the UK and Italy, believes last week's deal to introduce compulsory labels of origin on beef could have serious implications for its ability to compete on an equal footing across the Union.

So great were the concerns of the British delegation during the talks that the rules were amended to include a commitment that compulsory meat labelling “must not lead to any disruption of trade between the member states”.

But industry specialists claimed that this undertaking would be impossible to carry out, not least because stating the country of origin on a label would inevitably raise emotional and nationalistic sentiments.

The European Commission had initially proposed labelling beef according to its region of origin. This was on the perhaps spurious grounds that regional denominations - already used for wines and specialist foods - could bestow certain marketing qualities on beef without negative single market implications.

A spokesman for Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler stressed that he was not particularly happy with several elements of the deal, including the national labelling requirement.

“In theory, this is getting into a dangerous area. That is why we suggested regions,” said the official.

The UK looks like being the biggest loser from the national labelling approach, even once the ban on its beef exports is lifted.

“A national label might eradicate the small trade advantage certain regions such as Northern Ireland might have enjoyed,” warned an official at the British Meat and Livestock Commission.

But a Commission official disputed this, claiming that there was “no reason why labelling should not work to the UK's advantage”.

Many were surprised that London eventually signed up to the deal, but officials stressed that two days of negotiations had made improvements and that it was certainly better than anything the UK could have achieved through co-decision with the European Parliament.

But the Council's decision not to involve MEPs in the decision-making process this week prompted calls from the Parliament's environment committee for legal action against farm ministers.

Socialist Group spokeswoman Dagmar Roth-Behrendt said: “This shows a lack of commitment to democracy which frightens me to death. I think that Commission President Jacques Santer is now obliged to join with the Parliament in going to the European Court of Justice.”