The Department of Agriculture has expressed serious reservations about proposals before the European Parliament which would force producers to supply country of origin details on meat used in processed foods.
In a briefing note, Irish MEPs were told there are also other implications of this proposal which require further consideration.
Moves to have Country of Origin Labelling introduced on processed foods containing meat have been championed by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and backed by a European Commission report published in December 2013 which found that 90 per cent of consumers want to know where their meat comes from.
Last month the European Parliament’s Environment committee voted to accept a report backing mandatory country of origin labelling for processed meat products despite a concerted campaign from lobby groups against the initiative.
The report is now to be voted on by a full plenary session of the parliament and the Government has expressed concern to Irish MEPs about the impact new rules would have on the food sector and on prices on supermarket shelves.
According to the European Commission the price of processed foods containing meat could rise by 25 per cent if labelling was required to simply state whether meat in a product came from within or outside the EU, while the costs could climb by by between 15 per cent and 50 per cent if food producers were forced to specify the actual country of origin.
Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan has discounted these figures and told The Irish Times they were supplied to the Commission by the food industry.
“The Commission went to the industry lobby groups and asked if more transparent labelling would cost more, so of course it said it would.
“The same lobby warned against the cost implications of traceability of beef products years ago, but I think they were subsequently discounted.
“The bottom line is people want more transparency and want to know where the food they are buying comes from.”
In the briefing note sent to MEPs, a Department of Agriculture advisor working under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Brussels said that while there was a clear need for consumers to be well informed when making their purchasing decision, there are also other implications of this proposal which require further consideration.
The briefing document highlights “the additional costs for both consumers and industry and the additional regulatory controls required need to be measured against the strength of consumer preferences and their willingness to pay for this information”.
It warns that the proposal could impact on exporters of meat products if it encourages processors to shorten supply chains and move towards a renationalisation of the meat markets in EU Member States.
The document called for a clear balance to be struck between supporting greater consumer information, and the regulatory and cost burden of any measure proposed, and concluded by saying it was the official Government position that “more consideration of the cost/benefit relationship is required, including where the additional costs will be borne, before any proposals are made by the Commission”.
Many of the points raised in the official Government document are also highlighted by Food and Drink Industry Ireland (FDII), an arm of Ibec. It has claimed the proposed measures “will not enhance food safety or quality”, but said they will “undermine competitiveness, create inefficiencies, and threaten jobs in an industry which already experiences significant competitive disadvantages. They will also increase consumer prices and food wastage.”
Like Ms Boylan, Independent MEP Nessa Childers supports the proposals and she said it was not unusual for Ibec to make such claims in the face of regulation changes.
“Lobbying suggesting a proposal is not workable or is financially impossible is not unusual. I don’t pay much attention to it and the more we know about processed food the better.”
