---------------------------------
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints
    on issues in international trade.
    ---------------------------------
 
  A Plan To Improve EU Food Safety Could Offer Paris A Graceful Exit

By David Walker, agricultural economist

NORWICH, England--The announcement by the French government on Dec. 8 that 
it was not lifting its ban on British beef imports was greeted with 
surprise, disappointment and some rather uncharitable comment in British 
newspapers of all hues.

     The reality is that a ''non'' was to be expected, and the surprise was 
probably created for political effect.

     A worldwide ban on British beef exports was originally imposed by the 
European Union in March 1996 at the height of the food safety scare over 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy-- mad cow disease. It was lifted, 
effective Aug. 1, after Britain met a multitude of precautions imposed by 
the EU.

     France, however, announced on Oct. 1 that it was not lifting its ban 
because its new food safety agency had evidence that British beef was still 
not safe. This evidence was refuted without reservation by the European 
Commission's Scientific Steering Committee on Oct. 29. This confirmed that 
the French beef ban was illegal, and since then France and Britain have 
been attempting to find a political solution before taking the legal route.

     A protocol spelling out the results of the discussion was supposed to 
provide the information needed by France to lift the ban. The issue was, 
however, referred back to the rather discredited French food safety agency.

     If France was going to lift the ban, it would have done it a week or 
more ago and soon after the Anglo-French protocol was announced. The 
shuffling of the issue to the French food safety agency and back again by 
French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany, who had been negotiating with the 
British, and the agency's offer of a ''noncommittal opinion'' were only the 
latest in a series of delaying tactics.

     The timing of the announcement on the continuation of the French ban, 
on the eve of the European Council meeting of first ministers in Helsinki, 
is most revealing. It has seemed likely for some time that the French might 
be angling for a political solution at this meeting. And the time for this 
has arrived.

     Meanwhile, there is another debate going on in Brussels involving the 
European Commission and the European parliamentarians. It has received 
little publicity but is a critical piece in the jigsaw puzzle.

     The failure of 12 of the 15 member states of EU to meet a Dec. 31 
deadline for beef traceability and labeling systems, or alternatively the 
EU to get alternate legislation in place, has caused a potential legal void 
-- or quagmire, depending on one's point of view.

     Had these systems been in place, they may have provided the French 
with the assurances they required. As it is, only France, Spain and Britain 
have them. Triangular or third-party trade is reported to be a concern to 
the French.

     The current 1997 labeling regulation is at the moment voluntary, but 
it required a compulsory system to be in place by Jan. 1, and to be based 
on member states' experiences with their voluntary systems. This has not 
happened. Unfortunately other 1997 regulations specifying conditions for 
British beef exports indirectly require member states to have traceability 
and labeling systems.

     It is even arguable that while it is almost certainly illegal for EU 
member states to ban British beef imports, it may be illegal for those 
without traceability and labeling systems to import British beef.

      The European Commission has two proposals for consideration by the 
European parliamentarians. One sets out a compulsory system by Jan. 1, 
2001. The other simply extends the Dec. 31 deadline for current legislation.

     That this is a food safety rather than agricultural issue is 
significant. It is subject to the co-decision-making process that enables 
the European Parliament to veto European Council's proposals. Agriculture 
decisions are still made more cozily by the commission and the council.

     The European Parliament came close to censuring the European 
Commission in 1997 on this same beef issue. It is hardy likely to be happy 
about the commission's role this time around, or at the French for choosing 
to ignore their legal obligations.

     The parliamentarian's food safety committee and the European 
Parliamentitself are scheduled to meet, respectively on Dec. 13 and 14, 
and after the council meeting. French opportunities for striking a deal 
on the council may, therefore, be limited to issues that the European 
Parliament has no influence over.

     If France is genuinely concerned about food safety, it is within the 
realm of possibility that it may be planning to weigh in on the side of 
European Parliament in getting other member states to implement 
traceability and labeling systems promptly and effectively. They have more 
reason to be concerned about the potential hazard of food imports from 
other member states than from Britain.

     This strategy would also work for them if they were to fail to get 
what they wanted at the Helsinki council meeting. The French agriculture 
minister has been quoted as saying, ''The commission tells us it is going 
to allow European countries to demand more rigorous labeling and possibly 
to refuse imports if they don't have guarantees. Well, then we must have 
a text.'' This suggests they have at least been thinking about this.

     The French are unlikely to be planning on a legal defense of their 
ban on British beef in the European Court of Justice, where the issue will 
land if it is not resolved within about two months. If this had been their 
plan, they would have almost certainly delayed announcing their decision 
to keep their ban in place until after the Helsinki council meeting.

     It is also France's turn to hold the presidency of the European Council 
in June. Holding the presidency of the council provides member states with a 
six-month window of opportunity in which they control the agenda and pursue 
their particular interests. France will want to avoid having its EU 
presidency tainted by the controversy over beef.


 
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London 
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of 
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. His views are not necessarily those 
of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/.
 
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
 
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  End
 
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400)
 
[SLUG: BRITISH-FRENCH-BEEF-WAR:BN _ op-ed]