Today is: Wednesday 22 February 2012 23:24:30
Headlines
Print This Page
20/12/2011 10:09:54
Director of Policy report - 20th December 2011
Defra has now announced its policy for dealing with illegally produced eggs from European Union after 1 January 2012. For shell egg, AVHLA will perform a UV test to identify illegal egg. In the event of a positive test result, the UK will ask the offending country of source to confirm the legal status of the production unit.
For processed Class B egg, which is legal despite being produced illegally, the government is asking processors, retailers and manufacturers to guaranteee not to use egg products from illegal conventional cages. Or as the Minister said at the Private Members Debate on 13 December, to ask stakeholders to "throttle the market" of illegal produced egg.
The government has abrogated responsibility for dealing with illegally produced processed egg because of an apparent "loophole in the EU’s Egg Marketing Regulations" and is leaving enforcement to the food industry. More importantly Jim Paice, the Minister responsible, claims that the legal advice it has received will not allow a unilateral ban of egg from non-compliant EU states. This is not good enough.
Legal opinions obtained by the BEIC and others suggest that there is a case for applying a unilateral ban. Indeed a letter date 30 November to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Anne McIntosh, from John Dalli, the European Commissioner, states quite clearly that "They (Member States) have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets". Yet Jim Paice claims that the European Commission has warned the government against the legality of a unilateral ban.
So we have a difference of legal opinion. Anne McIntosh, formerly a European lawyer, told the Minister at the Private Members debate that a difference of legal opinion is quite common and that she has support from all members of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons to push the Minister for implementing a ban. And this is a position shared by BFREPA.
Even if a ban was judged illegal, it would place us in no worse a legal position than the 13 non-compliant Member States. And it would expedite non-compliant states into compliance.
BFREPA continues to work with the NFU, BEIC and other compliant EU states to push for a unilateral ban.
For processed Class B egg, which is legal despite being produced illegally, the government is asking processors, retailers and manufacturers to guaranteee not to use egg products from illegal conventional cages. Or as the Minister said at the Private Members Debate on 13 December, to ask stakeholders to "throttle the market" of illegal produced egg.
The government has abrogated responsibility for dealing with illegally produced processed egg because of an apparent "loophole in the EU’s Egg Marketing Regulations" and is leaving enforcement to the food industry. More importantly Jim Paice, the Minister responsible, claims that the legal advice it has received will not allow a unilateral ban of egg from non-compliant EU states. This is not good enough.
Legal opinions obtained by the BEIC and others suggest that there is a case for applying a unilateral ban. Indeed a letter date 30 November to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Anne McIntosh, from John Dalli, the European Commissioner, states quite clearly that "They (Member States) have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets". Yet Jim Paice claims that the European Commission has warned the government against the legality of a unilateral ban.
So we have a difference of legal opinion. Anne McIntosh, formerly a European lawyer, told the Minister at the Private Members debate that a difference of legal opinion is quite common and that she has support from all members of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons to push the Minister for implementing a ban. And this is a position shared by BFREPA.
Even if a ban was judged illegal, it would place us in no worse a legal position than the 13 non-compliant Member States. And it would expedite non-compliant states into compliance.
BFREPA continues to work with the NFU, BEIC and other compliant EU states to push for a unilateral ban.
No Comments
Nobody has posted any comments on this story.
