Surveying the carnage caused by BSE

Date: 27/02/1997

By Michael Mann

NOT much good has come out of the 'mad cow' crisis. But if there is anything positive to be drawn from the Union's biggest-ever health scare, it is that Europe will at least be better prepared the next time something similar happens.

In fear of the European Parliament doing the unthinkable and voting him and his colleagues out of office, European Commission President Jacques Santer last week announced a genuine shake-up in the way his departments handle food safety.

Whether it will make any tangible difference probably depends on whether the eminently persuasive Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino can persuade somebody to give her more money to allow her bolstered directorate-general to carry out a more effective job than that done hitherto by the Directorate-General for agriculture (DGVI).

The four-month investigation by the Parliament's temporary committee of inquiry into the handling of the crisis made for headlines aplenty about plots and cover-ups.

But more importantly, it also served to highlight how little scrutiny there has been of food health policy and underlined how DGVI was fulfilling the role of both gamekeeper and poacher.

Realising that mere window-dressing would not be sufficient to satisfy MEPs, Santer went further than simply suggesting an internal shake-up.

He also called for “a proper food policy which gives pride of place to consumer protection and consumer health”, advocated “compulsory labelling in all cases” and refloated his idea of an independent agency based on the positive elements of the US Food and Drug Administration. In addition, Santer suggested an enhanced role for the Parliament, with the introduction of co-decision on animal and plant health, and raised the possibility of further Union harmonisation of health policy.

He also indicated that Parliament should be given equal legislative rights with member states within the Common Agricultural Policy, although this is certain to be a total non-starter with EU governments and has already been rejected by French European Affairs Minister Michel Barnier.

However, Santer will at least be able to inform his MEP tormentors that he tried to do his best.

The Commission now has nine months to convince the Strasbourg assembly that it has done enough to answer Euro MPs' concerns, or face the risk of being voted out of office towards the end of the year.

While the Commission may be the most worried by the outcome of the temporary committee of inquiry's work, the Parliament's fiercest criticisms were reserved for the British government.

It was variously accused of failing to implement safety measures, putting undue pressure on the Commission not to carry out inspections, unreasonably influencing scientific committees and keeping a lid on the extent of the problem. UK Minister Douglas Hogg hardly helped his own cause by refusing to testify before the inquiry.

But amidst all the politics, it is easy to forget the central issue. Since March last year, beef markets have been on their knees as consumers boycotted the product following the announcement of a probable link between BSE and its human equivalent Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD).

Farmers and the EU budget have been hit hard. A combination of direct income support, intervention purchases, slaughter programmes and market reforms have already taken the bill to over 2.5 billion ecu, and the costs are set to place a burden on Union taxpayers for many years to come.

Meanwhile, the UK is still struggling to convince its partners to lift the total ban on British beef, almost a year after it was introduced. With more than 1 million cattle already slaughtered, the UK claims it has fulfilled the criteria set out in the framework agreement for a phased lifting of the ban agreed at the June 1996 Florence summit. But it may be a long time before British beef returns to the shelves of continental shops.