Trade Talk

In the October issue, I referred to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2002, which are in the course of amendment because they contain flawed provisions. Various draft proposals have been circulated for comment during the past three months.

Suddenly, without warning, the European Commission decided that, instead of amending the regulations as agreed, it would repeal the whole lot and replace them with a new set.

Meanwhile, the existing set would remain in force, for some two years, allowing time for implementing regulations to be agreed. However, the new text was circulated too close to the meeting of the amendment working group to be given the attention needed.

The UK and other EU member states objected to this and the inadequate time for proper consideration before the formal consultation stage. The UK was particularly aggrieved that the Commission had not addressed some of the issues it had raised.

The Commission has asserted its priority is to arrive at a final text by January 2007, in time to meet its slot for consideration by the European Council and Parliament. First, it has to be translated into eight EU languages and adopted by the Commission by the end of 2006.

It has also said the proposal would be vetted by the World Trade Organisation before the parliamentary stage. This implies that meeting the deadline is more important than getting it right - alarming when it made a dog's dinner of the first measure.

Adding to the potential confusion, it seems unwilling to acknowledge the relationship with the Waste Framework Directive to differentiate between proper waste and other animal by-products, as well as between pets and farm animals.

This is another example of UK consumers' traditions apparently disregarded at the expense of the precision of definition required for clear, unambiguous interpretation across member states.

[Clare Cheneymailto:clare.cheney@provtrade.co.uk], Director general, Provision Trade Federation​