Pursuant to Article 23a of Regulation (EC) 1760/2000, the Commission presented a report dealing with the implementation and impact of the provisions on voluntary beef labelling, including the possibility of their review.

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 was adopted in the aftermath of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) crisis, in order to improve transparency and strengthen the confidence of consumers in beef.

Regulation (EU) 653/2014 amended Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and significantly simplified the provisions on voluntary beef labelling, with the main aim of reducing the administrative burden for operators and competent authorities, as well as to reduce costs borne by operators to provide such voluntary information. The amended rules do not foresee the requirement for authorisation of voluntary beef labelling any more. Such voluntary information must comply with the horizontal legislation on labelling and in particular Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers.

Analysis of previous evaluations and reports

Following two evaluations carried out in 2004 and 2009, a third detailed evaluation “Evaluation of EU beef labelling rules” was carried out for the Commission in 2014, a few months after the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 653/2014.

In relation to the voluntary labelling system, the main outcomes were:

- the volume of beef subject to voluntary schemes represented an average of 23% of all beef sold in the national markets of the six case study Member States (DE, FR, IT, ES, UK, IE);

- stakeholders had diverging views on the consequences of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 653/2014 simplifying voluntary labelling rules: some appreciated the simplified procedure; others saw the risk of deteriorating the whole system and loss of consumer confidence;

- consumers were generally able to understand indications provided in accordance with voluntary rules. However, some consumers interviewed complained that labels provided in accordance with the voluntary rules often resulted in crowded labels. This led to the paradox whereby labels on beef simultaneously provide too much information without sufficient explanation, rendering them difficult to understand;

- in general, voluntary indications did not feature as factors that have a major influence on consumers’ self-described purchasing behaviour;

- most stakeholders highlighted that Regulation (EU) No 653/2014 brought voluntary labelling rules for beef in line with general food labelling rules;

- in some cases, voluntary labels were used only in business to business sales;

- some retailers feared that the 2014 simplification of voluntary labelling would lead to a proliferation of labels with low levels of guarantee that the information provided on the voluntary label is objective, verifiable and comprehensive for consumers, which could damage the image of the sector. Others considered it a positive development: the simplification of procedures allows for economic operators to develop new voluntary claims, responding to consumers’ demand.

Results of the consultation

The report highlighted the following issues:

- in addition to voluntary beef labelling now following horizontal rules in all Member States, some national specifics were maintained in four Member States. Portugal and Slovenia kept a full national system of notification and control, Italy simplified the national system and, in France, many operators continued using the specifications approved before 2014 with controls from an independent body;

- overall, the effects of simplification were evaluated positively by Member States and stakeholders. Competent authorities and operators did not find difficulties to introduce the new rules at administrative and operational levels;

- the new rules were considered positively by most respondents, allowing to achieve simplification, harmonisation with other sectors, reduction of the administrative burden and improved capacity of operators to respond to consumers’ demand, without causing problems at intra-EU trade level or undermining the effectiveness and reliability of the system;

- a risk of more frequent non-conformities was mentioned by some respondents but without supporting evidence confirming it. The analysis of available data on nonconformity rates before and after the introduction of the new rules showed comparable levels of non-conformity.

Conclusion

On the basis of the analysis carried out during previous evaluations and of replies to the questionnaires received from Member States and stakeholders, the Commission considers that the simplification of voluntary beef labelling under Regulation (EU) No 653/2014 is functioning satisfactorily and there is no need to review current provisions on voluntary beef labelling.

COM(2019)0625
EUR-Lex

COM(2019)0076
EUR-Lex

ACT : Commission Regulation 644/2005/EC authorising a special identification system for bovine animals kept for cultural and historical purposes on approved premises as provided for in Regulation 1760/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

CONTENT : this Regulation aims to establish a special identification system for animals recognised by the competent authority as being kept for cultural and historical purposes on premises approved for that purpose by that authority.

The special identification system should, in accordance with Regulation 1760/2000/EC, provide for derogations only from the application and removal of the approved ear tags. This regulation is without prejudice to the application of the other provisions of Regulation 1760/2000/EC.

By way of derogation from Regulation 1760/2000/EC, it is appropriate to provide that the approved ear tags may be removed without the permission of the competent authority, but under its control, after animals are moved to the premises and that such ear tags not need to be applied to animals born on such premises. In both cases the animals must be marked by specific means of identification. The approved ear tags should be applied to animals when they are moved from the premises or should accompany the animals if they are moved directly to other premises.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee.

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 01/05/2005.

32005R0644
OJ L 107 28.04.2005, p. 0018-0019

PURPOSE: to present a report to the Council and Parliament concerning the possibility of introduction of electronic identification for bovine animals.

CONTENT: Bovine animals are identified according to Regulation 1760/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation 820/97/EC. This system includes the elements "double ear-tag", "holding register", "cattle-passport" and "computerised database".

According to the aforementioned Regulation, the Commission was required to examine, on the basis of work performed by the Joint Research Centre, the feasibility of using electronic means for the identification of animals. The European Parliament and the Council, acting on the basis of a report from the Commission, are invited to consider the possibility of introducing electronic identification arrangements in the light of progress achieved in this field.

In 1998 the Commission launched a large-scale research project on livestock electronic identification (IDEA). The final report was presented in April 2002 and necessary clarifications were made in July 2002. This project has demonstrated that in principle, the use of electronic identifiers can deliver a substantial improvement in animal identification systems provided a number of conditions concerning the accompanying measures are fulfilled. The conclusions of this project allow recommendations to be made on technical issues and conclusions concerning the conditions of introducing electronic identification arrangements for bovine animals in the EU.

The purpose of this report is to summarise the experience gained on the basis of the IDEA project on the use of electronic identification in bovine animals and to draw conclusions concerning the conditions of introducing electronic identification arrangements for bovine animals in the European Union. It focuses mainly on the results of the IDEA-project but also considers experiences with the existing system.

The main conclusion of the report is that electronic identification can contribute to improvements in existing systems of cattle identification. For example, electronic identifiers allow a faster reading and a higher reading accuracy than classical ear-tags. Dynamic reading and direct entry of data into databases is also possible (removing potential errors caused by inaccurate manual database entry). This could in particular ease the procedure to report the movements of animals to the database. However the contribution of electronic identification to improve animal identification and traceability should not be overestimated in view of the nature of difficulties in applying existing systems. Complete tagging of all animals and an efficient data management are preconditions for any system of identification, irrespective of whether electronic identifiers or classic ear-tags are used.

The introduction of electronic identification should be considered in the light of its technical feasibility and its capability to improve the existing system of bovine identification. It has been demonstrated that the technology has been developed to the extent that it can be applied. Electronic identification can improve the existing system of identification and registration in certain ways. It can, for example, contribute to a higher accuracy in holding registers, allow instantaneous inputs into central databases and ensure records are continually maintained and updated provided that the current system of identification and registration based on classical ear-tags is well established. Otherwise the benefits of electronic identification would not be achieved.

To decide on the possibility of introducing electronic identification systems on a Community wide basis, the following general conditions for the identification and registration of bovine animals would have to be considered:

- Organisational structures and data management systems have to be well established;

- Animals would have to be identified at any time by (at least) two identifiers, where one must be a ‘visual' ear-tag and the second can be an electronic identifier;

- According to present knowledge the requirement of tagging within a period not longer than 20 days after birth limits the use of the bolus in view of the maturation of the fore-stomachs of the calf;

- Each type of identifier has to be kept out of the food chain, which would limit the use of the injectable transponder due to its reduced recovery rate;

- The additional costs for electronic identification need to be considered in relation to its increased accuracy.

COM(2005)0009
EUR-Lex

PURPOSE: Special Report of the Court of Auditors on the organisation of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals in the EU.

CONTENT: The main objective of the audit was to evaluate the cattle identification and registration system, at the Commission (design, implementation controls and follow-up) and in the Member States (operational system allowing effective monitoring of animals from birth until slaughter and allowing verification of correct payment of all direct aid). The audit was carried out in the four Member States with the largest bovine herds (Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom).

The identification system has four components: ear tags, passports, herd registers and the computerized database containing the details of all cattle. This database is one component of the system and was to be operational on 31 December 1999 at the latest.

Cattle identification and registration systems were set up in the four Member States more than two years after the target date of 31 December 1999 and still have some weaknesses. For example, the passports of animals traded between Member States are not monitored, there is no exchange of information between national databases, there are delays in updating the databases and the level of reliability of the information contained in the databases must often be considered inadequate. The main finding is that the cattle identification and registration system that was designed does not guarantee the traceability of intra-Community or extra-Community cattle movements. These movements nevertheless involve approximately three million head of cattle per year (approximately 4 % of the herd).

The Parliament and the Council laid down the general framework of the system. The Commission was given the task of implementing certain components of the system, but responsibility for implementing the system lies with the Member States. The legislation did not include procedures for Member States to exchange data on cattle movements and the exchange was in any case compromised by the fact that data format varies from one Member State to another. All attempts to reconcile information from the various databases have failed. The Member States interpreted certain elements of Community regulations in different ways, in respect of the deadlines for tagging and reporting, the fundamental concept of 'keeper of bovine animals' and return of animal passports. The Commission was not given responsibility for adopting implementing measures for setting up and checking the databases. This explains, in part, the differences found between the Member States.

The control and penalty systems in place have not been adapted to ensure that they are appropriate to the various keepers of cattle, such as traders, assembly centres or slaughterhouses. In addition, the databases contain certain data, such as retagging rates and delays in registration, which the Member States do not use as control instruments. Control practices also vary greatly between Member States.

As far as checks on the implementation and monitoring of the cattle identification and registration system are concerned, the Commission has interpreted its own role in a restrictive manner and has given no guidance on the setting-up of the databases. No standardised management rules have been issued and no quality indicator has been developed as regards the operation of the databases. The procedures for recognising the 'fully operational character' of the databases are unsatisfactory and the Commission's role is too often limited to confirming the technical existence of the databases, without evaluating their actual operation on the basis of precise management rules or predefined quality indicators.

The Commission should be given adequate resources to take on a genuine guiding role in the system, in particular by drawing up standardised management rules, quality indicators and a format for the exchange of data between national databases. The exchange of data between Member States, and even with third countries, should be organised with a view to retaining control over intra-Community and extra-Community movements.

The administrative checks applied in the various Member States should also be compared and specifications provided for cross-checks to be carried out between the identification and registration databases and the IACS databases before the various premiums are paid. The system of on-the-spot checks should also be reviewed, including the penalty mechanisms, and specific approaches for the different types of keepers of cattle should be drawn up and an approach imposed which is fully integrated with IACS.

OJ C 029 04.02.2005, p. 0001-0036
RCC0006/2004

32004R0911
OJ L 163 30.04.2004, p. 0065-0070

COM(2004)0316
EUR-Lex

32003R1082
OJ L 156 25.06.2003, p. 0009-0012

Regulation 2000/1760
OJ L 204 11.08.2000, p. 0001

T5-0318/2000
OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0163-0370

T5-0318/2000

Debate in Parliament

A5-0193/2000
OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0021

A5-0193/2000

EUR-Lex
SEC(2000)0956

08251/1/2000
OJ C 240 23.08.2000, p. 0007

08251/1/2000

EUR-Lex
OJ C 311 31.10.2000, p. 0217 E
COM(2000)0301

EUR-Lex
COM(2000)0301

T5-0148/2000
OJ C 040 07.02.2001, p. 0062-0130

CDR0525/1999
OJ C 226 08.08.2000, p. 0009

T5-0148/2000

Debate in Parliament

A5-0088/2000
OJ C 040 07.02.2001, p. 0005

A5-0088/2000

CES0240/2000
OJ C 117 26.04.2000, p. 0047

2218

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0487

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0487