Cornerstone of Union’s BSE fight faces delay until early next year

Date: 30/07/1998

By Myles Neligan

THE European Commission's latest bid for EU-wide rules to restrict the industrial use of livestock offals linked to the spread of 'mad cow' disease is almost certain to be delayed beyond the agreed 31 December deadline.

A further delay would represent yet another embarrassing setback in the Commission's two-year battle to push through a measure which it has presented as the centrepiece of its strategy for eliminating bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Unpopular from the start, the proposed ban has already been rejected once by EU agriculture ministers and postponed twice.

The latest proposal is intended to replace an existing ban on contaminated livestock offals (known as specified risk materials, or SRMs) which EU governments approved in July 1997.

In March this year the Commission agreed to postpone the original measure's entry into force by six months, until 31 December, after the US protested that it would result in the suspension of 4.5-billion-ecu worth of pharmaceutical imports containing the SRM-based beef by-product tallow. Eight EU countries which have never recorded a native case of BSE also protested that the cost of implementing the ban would unfairly penalise their beef industries.

"EU scientific experts will assess the consumer safety implications of exempting certain categories of product and geographic regions, and their conclusions will be reflected in the final proposal. But the process is very time-consuming, and I seriously doubt whether the measure will be agreed by the end of the year," said a Commission official.

Under Union rules, if national governments do not approve the new proposal by the deadline, the original ban, which allows no exemptions at all, will enter into force automatically on 1 January 1999.

To avoid further disputes with the US and EU governments, the Commission would therefore be forced to either postpone the ban yet again, or admit defeat and repeal it altogether. Either option would be interpreted as an embarrassing climb-down.

A further factor likely to hold up agreement is that the new proposal, in contrast to its predecessor, must be approved not only by national governments but also by the European Parliament.

The Commission decided to involve MEPs, who strongly support efforts to improve consumer protection, in the decision-making process in order to put extra pressure on recalcitrant EU governments.

"It is a tactical move. National governments will have to explain, under the glare of democratically elected representatives, why they are holding up a vital consumer protection measure," said one of Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino's staff.

But officials now admit that the decision to involve the Parliament under joint decision-making procedures, which take 18 months on average to complete, makes it even less likely that agreement will be reached on time.