HEAD2HEAD:Should the European Union stop importing Brazilian beef? Padraig Walsheof the Irish Farmers Association and Stelios Marco Amarante,Brazilian Ambassador to Ireland debate the issue.
YES:Pádraig Walshe says Brazilian beef fails to meet the standards demanded by European consumers and carries the risk of importing foot- and-mouth disease
The latest EU Commission Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) report on Brazil published earlier this month contains irrefutable evidence that Brazilian beef imports fail to meet EU standards on the critical animal health and consumer issues of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and traceability.
The report vindicates IFA's own findings and our insistence that there should be a total ban on all Brazilian beef imports into Europe. In fact, if the Department of Agriculture found the Brazilian failures on an Irish farm, the animals would be destroyed and removed from the food chain. The farmer could face court proceedings, and a possible jail sentence.
Last month in the European Parliament, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection Markos Kyprianou stated that if the situation in Brazil did not improve, then "the EU will take the necessary action including the implementation of a ban on beef imports by the end of this year".
Commissioner Kyprianou now has the detailed evidence of serious deficiencies in Brazilian controls from his own veterinary experts. He cannot continue to expose the EU to unnecessary risks. The Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan has repeatedly said that "Brazil must meet EU standards". With the publication of the FVO report, she clearly has no option but to press for a total ban on Brazilian beef at European level.
Let us look closely at what the EU vets found. Brazil's first line of defence against FMD is meant to be vaccination. The FVO report stated "the absence of a programme to monitor the efficacy of vaccination in 2007 jeopardises future certification of beef". It added that the shortcomings identified in 2006 "have not been satisfactorily addressed" and warned "it cannot be excluded that such outbreaks (of FMD) are under-reported". The report highlighted that the vaccination scheme recommended was not followed.
A key concern for EU consumers is traceability for all animals destined for the European market. At several holdings visited by the FVO in Brazil, more animals were registered in the official database than were present on the holdings. The quality of ear tags was inadequate, individual identification was illegible and a high percentage of ear tags were lost. Clearly, Brazil does not provide the assurances European consumers expect.
Regionalisation in Brazil is central to the controls the EU depends on to prevent FMD-infected meat entering Europe. The FVO found that animals from a non-EU approved state went to a farm in an EU-approved state and were then sent for slaughter without respecting the EU's 90-day residency requirement. In addition, the FVO found "meat from an animal declared non-EU eligible formed part of a consignment exported to the EU".
In Brazil, the EU only requires animals to be present in an EU-approved state for 90 days and on the farm of dispatch for 40 days prior to slaughter. In Europe, the EU accepts nothing less than full traceability from birth to slaughter. The deficiencies found in the traceability and movement controls in Brazil led the FVO to "call into question the reliability of the 40 days' residence of all cattle on those holdings and 90 days' residency in EU-approved areas."
This is an alarming finding and makes a mockery of the EU's so-called regionalisation policy. Assessing the risk posed by Brazilian beef imports, the eminent academic and consultant veterinary surgeon, Dr Kevin Dodd, stated "the EU Commission's assessment of the risks involved in the importation of Brazilian beef is flawed and inadequate . . . The importation of meat from Brazil involves unnecessary risk and should be discontinued".
The EU's exposure to FMD literally came home to commissioner Kyprianou just two weeks ago with an outbreak of the highly-infectious virus in his native Cyprus.
Europe's policy is out of line with best practice in other developed countries. The US has not had an FMD outbreak since 1929. This is precisely because the US adopts a much stricter bio-security approach and refuses to accept high-risk fresh beef imports from Brazil. A number of countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, insist on these high standards.
The reality is that the EU has dropped its defences and this is placing the European livestock sector and the economies of member-states at unnecessary risk. The 2001 FMD epidemic in Britain originated in imported meat and cost the UK alone €13 billion.
The social and environmental damage associated with Brazilian beef production is totally ignored by those promoting this trade, including retailers, but it is clearly documented. The UN Commission on Human Rights has reported on the worker exploitation and slave labour problem on Brazilian ranches.
Environmentalists have linked the five-fold increase in beef exports from Brazil in recent years with the rapid destruction of the rainforests in the Pantanal and Amazon regions, which is a major cause of global climate change.
Brazilian beef fails to meet EU standards. It fails to meet the standards demanded and expected by European consumers.
It exposes Europe to the unnecessary risk of foot and mouth disease. The evidence requires that it be banned.
Pádraig Walshe is president of the Irish Farmers Association
NO:Stelio Marcos Amarante says Brazilian beef is safe and the IFA's real motive is that it doesn't want competition
No, absolutely not. Brazilian meat is perfectly healthy. European consumers should not have any doubt about it. Our beef sold in Europe is submitted to a special treatment, that makes it absolutely safe for consumption. It is de-boned and matured in low temperatures. The rapid decrease of temperature eliminates viruses or germs of any kind. Besides, Brazil has been exporting beef to EU countries for more than 30 years and no strain of the several FMD outbreaks that historically occurred in Europe ever had any connection to our exports.
Frequent and thorough inspections by non-biased and proficient teams from the EU Food and Veterinary Office have supported our claim that consumption of Brazilian beef presents no health risks. In their meticulous reports FVO has, nevertheless, found some minor procedural shortcomings that are being magnified by the IFA with undisguised protectionist purposes.
Our authorities are taking into account, more seriously than ever, the FVO recommendations and we are implementing new measures to fully comply with further European requirements. I met recently in Brussels our minister for agriculture and the secretary for livestock protection, who were adamant in their certitude that the FVO mission that is now in Brazil will recognize that most of their recommendations have been satisfied.
Only abattoirs and specialist firms jointly certified by the department of animal health of the Brazilian ministry of agriculture and the FVO export Brazilian beef. A state veterinarian who leads a team of no less than 10 aides to control the sanitary conditions of each slaughtered animal permanently supervises our state-of-art abattoirs, capable of preparing meats according to the requirements of more than 140 countries. Non-compliance by any abattoir with the strict rules that regulate the meat-exporting activity in Brazil leads to its automatic removal from the list of certified exporters to the EU. As well as the farmers who are interested in protecting the health of their herds against FMD, the EU-authorised abattoirs don't take risks by buying untraced cattle for exporting purposes.
As for the regionalisation system adopted in Brazil, it must be said that it is the same that prevails in Europe. If it were not for regionalisation, the recent outbreaks of FMD in England would have entailed a ban on meat exports of all other members of EU, which is clearly an absurd hypothesis. Brazil is a vast country, divided by internal borders into 27 states and a federal district. The collection of ICMS (tax on circulation of merchandise and services) by federal states effectively restricts the movement of cattle from one state to another. Furthermore, the displacement of cattle between farms must be endorsed by an official licence which contains information about the vaccines inoculated in the farms. This licence is required by the state in order to issue invoices, without which the herd cannot cross internal borders. Heavy fines are imposed on farmers who might be found in breach of these rules. By the way, entries of vaccination records are already made online at the point of sale.
In Brazil the combination of factors such as large acreage, sunny climate, abundance of water and good soils generate huge areas of pure grasslands. Our farmers are thus able to feed their cattle exclusively on grass. The addition of soybean nuts would be uneconomical and affect the flavour of the meat. As happens in Switzerland, where only premium milk from grass-fed cows is acceptable for making Gruyère cheese, we produce in Brazil immense amounts of premium "green beef".
Since they are naturally fed, Brazilian cattle are completely free from the lethal bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow disease". Outbreaks of this disease led the EU to impose severe and successful measures of traceability in England and Ireland in order to protect consumers.
It is not scientifically correct to equate the seriousness of "mad cow disease" with foot-and-mouth disease. While the former can be lethal to humans, the latter affects the health of other hoofed animals and, of course, the finances of their farmers. It seems to me most unfair to impose on Brazilian farmers, whose cattle never had BSE, the same level of traceability that is required in Europe to detect this disease. In their campaign against Brazilian beef, IFA is spreading the wrong theory that foot and mouth disease is as dangerous to consumers as is BSE. The result could be a sharp fall in meat sales throughout EU.
If the Europeans have no rational grounds to accept the allegations against Brazilian beef, they and their governments should really worry about the elimination from the market of such a competitive and bona fide player. Meat prices in Europe, which are already extremely high, would grow even more, fuelling inflation and reducing competitiveness.
Stelio Marcos Amarante is the ambassador of Brazil to Ireland
join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head
Reader responses to last week's debate - Should SUVs be taxed off the road? - were not registered on our website ireland.com in the immediate aftermath of last week's competing articles, due to an error on our part. Consequently, the poll of views on that debate has been held over. You may contribute to the SUV debate and poll by going to www.ireland.com/head2head2head/archive/index.html. Responses to today's debate will be published next week.