The Anglo-French beef trade situation over the last 48 hours has become a little clearer in some areas, and less so in others. On balance, however, the prospects for a reasonably prompt lifting of the embargo have improved.

That David Byrne, the EU Health & Consumer Protection Commissioner, has announced the Commission's deadline of Thursday, November 11 for the French Government response to the new initiative is positive news. That is when the Commission next meets and can start its legal action, if France has not responded.

The question then will almost certainly be whether the response is satisfactory. At the very least the UK will be able to raise the issue. It can, thereby, start the clock on the three-month wait before it can takes its case directly to the European Court of Justice. In the final assessment no time has been lost in accommodating the French. And goodwill created may come in handy.

Two of the five issues raised by France are reported to have not been on previous agendas. One of these is labelling. It does not require too much imagination to see the significance of this to the French. If the French government can give assurances that no British beef will enter France without being clearly labelled, it can assure French consumers that they will be able to avoid British beef if they so choose.

The other issue is testing with reports that the French are seeking pre-clinical testing of British cattle. The French interest here is more difficult to fathom. It is something that the Scientific Steering Committee appeared to recommend for all of Europe in their report last week.

The news release stated, "Considering the BSE tests recently evaluated, the SSC concluded that these should be used for a better understanding of the BSE situation throughout Europe." It went onto stress the need for proper evaluation to avoid false assurances and alarms. A July 1999 Commission report on these tests indicated that good progress had been made.

The buzz is that there are probably more BSE cases in European countries, including France, that have whole herd BSE slaughter policies, than the very low levels that get reported. In these countries pre-clinical testing would be unpopular. But in this instance France is probably looking for pre-clinical testing specifically for the UK. This could provide them the opportunity to make milage with the false positives that the new technology may spawn.

The French line of argument is likely to be - if your system is so clean why are you hesitant to accept preclinical testing! The answer to this is surely, tu quoque

The situation in Germany is confusing, probably even so for the German government. Food safety is a Lander - regional government - responsibility. The second German house is composed of representatives of the Lander. Thus, if legislation rather than regulation is involved, the second house could probably play a spoiling role as the House of Lords does when aroused.

This may explain why the federal Germans government is uncharacteristically quiet on the issue, providing tacit support to the French, in due deference to those Landers who wish to maintain the trade embargo. It would seem that the Landers have no obligation to observe the conditions of the Treaty of Rome.

The French position does not appear to be as intransigent as has been portrayed. Addressing the French National Assembly, French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany is reported to have said, "The question is not when but how and whether we can boost measures to guarantee sanitary security." On the British side the word is that there is no question of concessions.

The labelling issue is likely to provide the French with the graceful exit they seek.©

top of page