Parliament holds the line

Brazilian livestock and pharmaceutical input traceability is deficient compared to the mandatory regulations that ensure producer compliance in Europe. These are costly systems and are a heavy burden on European beef producers, working on relatively low margins. Apart from economies of scale, Brazilian beef production benefits significantly from not having to carry these compliance costs. Brazilian authorities and producers argue that beef destined for Europe has all of the necessary compliance regulations in place. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case in practice.

We saw evidence in recent weeks of adulterated beef even reaching as far as Ireland. The argument is made that EU monitoring systems were robust enough to identify this non-compliant meat. That, however, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Retrospective quality control does have a role to play in maintaining food standards. Errors will occur even in the most robust quality-control systems, with the recent contamination of infant formula being a case in point. With Brazilian and other South American beef, however, there is far more scope for lower standard product to be exported to the EU because, for internal consumption and many other export markets, EU standards are not required. The US, for instance, has no problem with importing beef from cattle treated with growth hormones.

The EU already imports substantial quantities of Brazilian and Argentinian beef at varying tariff levels. Without fundamental improvements in traceability standards and quality controls, the risks of contaminated and/or substandard beef imports would have been greatly increased, had the proposed 99,000-tonne additional import allowance kicked in over the next three years. EU consumers have a legitimate expectation that all products on the shelf conform to the highest production standards. The EU Parliament’s decision to refer Mercosur to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reflected those consumer expectations. Ireland is a major beef exporter in the EU. Much as we would prefer not to see an increase in imports to the Union, it would be hypocritical to demand EU import restrictions based solely on the fact that South American beef is more competitively priced. Our legitimate complaint must be around the comparison of production standards between Mercosur beef and those applying to European-produced beef. We should also acknowledge the challenges of assessing whether some Mercosur meat imports have been produced from recently denuded rainforest. The EU insistence on restricting meat or grain imports from newly created grass and cereal lands, previously afforested, is face-saving. At best, beef, poultry or grain for Europe may be produced from traditional grasslands and cereal producing regions, while continuing deforestation provides additional land to produce meat and cereals for those countries with fewer environmental qualms about the source of their food imports.

The other side of the equation cannot be ignored. Europe badly needs to expand its export markets. With a 300-million population, the Mercosur region provides that opportunity. The reality for European economies and millions of European citizens is that opportunities for employment and wealth creation in industries and service sectors would increase as a consequence of the Mercosur trade agreement. We must, at the same time, continue to oppose low food production standards and environmental degradation. The Parliament decision is fully justified in this regard.