- 12/04/2015
- Posted by: Marta
- Category: News
On 20 May 2015, the European Commission, as mentioned above, filed a report on the origin of the raw materials of single-ingredient foods, those with a primary ingredient (> 50%) and unprocessed foods. But also a report on the provenance milk, milk used as an ingredient in dairy products and various types of meat of the bovine, swine, sheep, goat and poultry species. Again, nothing new on the Western Front.
In Italy, on closer inspection, the obligation has been in force for ten years (1) to indicate the milking area or the barn of origin for fresh milk only. This did not cause particular inconvenience to the production chain, nor did it involve an increase in costs or consumer prices. And indeed unfortunately, this attempt to enhance the milk of our peninsula was of little consequence compared to the serious damage caused to Italian farms by the CAP reform. (2), imprudent and reckless for this supply chain.
The Brussels report also considered a broader area, the origin of milk - fresh and UHT - as well as that used as an ingredient in dairy products. A prospect of great depth for all dairy products whose 'supply chain' is not already controlled within the framework of the regulations of the numerous PDOs (eg Parmigiano Reggiano, Grana Padano, and many other typical cheeses). Of particular importance for consumers, to distinguish, for example, real mozzarella from those made with frozen curds from Northern and Eastern Europe.
The same report also considers the hypothesis of extending the mandatory indication of origin to the meat of the species that in Europe are still lacking in it. (3), namely horses, rabbits and hares, ostriches and quails, game. A not insignificant hypothesis after the pan-European scandal of horse meat - including racing (!) - found through DNA analysis in a wide range of products and ready meals in every part of Europe, shortly after the publication of the so-called FIR, 'Food Information Regulation' (4).
But not even the experience of 'galloping lasagna' and 'steed in meat sauce' were not enough to move the inaction of the Commission which - following a ritual feasibility study, on the various options available for the mandatory origin labeling of the aforementioned alimony - has once again proposed to keep it 'status quo'. In the wake of previous reports, Brussels has repeated the usual game. Considering the interest of consumers to receive more information on the origin of the foods offered to them, the potential burdens and additional costs for businesses and public authorities have been estimated.
Without even mentioning the advantages in terms of greater guarantee of food safety, which is associated with more stringent measures and controls on the traceability of goods, the EU executive therefore concluded that 'it is not worth it'. Consumer prices would rise to a greater extent than the consumer's propensity to pay a premium in order to benefit from more information. The Commission therefore suggests maintaining a voluntary approach. It will be a coincidence, or maybe not, in these days the US Congress has voted to cancel the obligation to indicate the origin on meat (5).
Dario Dongo
Footnotes:
(1) See Ministerial Decree of 27 May 2004, Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2005
(2) Common Agricultural Policy
(3) Specific requirements are in fact established both for beef (reg. CE 1760/2000, 1825/2000), and for sheep and goats, pigs and poultry (EU reg. 1337/2013)
(4) EU Reg. 1169/11
(5) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150611/us-congress-meat-labeling-11265046c4.html
