MEP Reports on Brazil Findings

15 May 2008

JIM ALLISTER MEP REPORTS ON EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BRAZIL VISIT

 

It would be impossible to visit Brazil and not be struck by its sheer size and scale.  It is the world’s 5^th largest country in terms of both area and population (190M).

Northern Ireland would fit into it over 600 times.

 

AGRI SUPERPOWER

 

But it's not only in geographical terms that it's huge. In trade and agriculture it is a veritable superpower. It is the world’s largest producer of coffee, fruit, sugar cane and bioethanol. It is the world’s second largest producer of soyabean and beef (but the world’s largest exporter of both, having 33% of the market share in world beef trade) ; the world’s third largest producer of poultry and maize, the world’s fourth largest producer of pork etc. In sugar, coffee, orange juice, ethanol, tobacco, soyabeans, beef and poultry it ranks as the world’s number 1 exporter.

 

Yes, there is poverty, with the north-east particularly poor, but overall this is a thriving and burgeoning economy with which Europe is being asked to compete in the disadvantageous context of its “developing” designation.

                             

It boasts a huge trade balance, with a massive agrifood trade surplus. It expects to be the world’s fourth largest economy in a few years. Yet, bizarrely and inappropriately, in WTO terms it still attracts “developing country” status – bringing it exemptions and benefits which clearly are no longer merited. A few weeks ago in a WTO debate in Strasbourg I made this very point, asking why the thriving economies of China, India and Brazil still have developing status. What I saw in Brazil strengthens my belief that this inequity must end.

 

THE BEEF ISSUE

 

The main focus of our visit was the controversy which has raged between the EU and Brazil over beef exports. Brazil exports 25% of all the beef it produces, and of that almost one quarter has been coming to the EU. Now, of course, because of public health concerns and the inability of the Brazilian authorities to satisfy the EU’s veterinary inspectors about the efficacy of their procedures, imports have been severely restricted. Imports are only permitted from explicitly EU approved farms, following inspection by EU vets. At present only 95 farms qualify, though Brazil hopes to see this figure climb to 3000 within a year. Thus, beef imports are presently, and necessarily, severely restricted.

 

Brazil sees this as protectionism by Europe; we see it as a public health issue.  The crux of the matter is very simple. In Europe we subject our producers to most rigorous standards and inspections, designed to ensure the meat we eat is safe. Central to this is a strict system of transparent traceability, which begins with the birth of the calf, and continues till the meat reaches the table. This is how it should be, but in Brazil there is very little traceability. 3 of the 27 states in Brazil are afflicted with foot & mouth disease, yet untagged cattle can, and do move, into foot & mouth-free states. Hence, the insistence by the EU on some degree of traceability before Brazilian meat will be accepted into Europe.

 

What is asked of the Brazilians is very little, much less than we demand at home – itself a legitimate cause for complaint. We require traceability which demonstrates that the cattle whose meat is to be imported into the EU was within the state from which it purports to come for 90 days and that the last 40 days are spent on the farm from which it is taken for slaughter.  With Brazil only able to produce 95 licensed farms which meet these basic requirements, out of their tens of thousands of farms, it is self-evident that Brazilian standards are very lax.

 This was confirmed by our visit. We saw thousands of untagged cattle, with no prospect of establishing traceability.  Yes, there are some very well run farms, which are putting in place sound systems, but they are very much the exception.

 

 Likewise with their slaughterhouses. Remembering that we saw only that which the Brazilian authorities permitted us to see, we visited one plant, which was only 4 years old but which would be closed instantly in the EU because of its hygiene deficiencies.  The floors were filthy, not sealed and pitted with holes, ideal for bacteria growth. The workers passed in and out of the factory without adequate hygiene precautions and the cutting room lacked the oversight which we’d expect.

On the other hand, we saw a brand new meat plant where everything was as it should be and the latest technology brought full traceability to every cut of meat passing out of it. So, Brazil has the capacity to put its house in order, certainly as far as its plants are concerned, and when it does it will return as the major player on the world stage. Its on-farm traceability will be harder to secure and I for one do not think the EU should afford them any concessions.

 

POLITICIANS IN DENIAL

 

It is clear the beef ban severely hurt Brazilian pride. Its politicians do not hide their anger, which the Latin temperament accentuates. As a delegation of EU MEPs we met their full irrational fury at a meeting of their joint Senate and parliamentary committee on agriculture.  Denying anything needed to change and interested only in aggressive attack on what they misrepresented as European protectionism, we had a full and frank exchange of views. Our normally placid Chairman, Neil Parish, demonstrated the frustration of us all when he vigorously and effectively defended our position and insisted that the findings of the FVO reports must be addressed. We firmly reminded them that as the customer we had every right to insist that they meet our standards and that we will do so.

 

INDUSTRIALISED FARMING

 

Happily, when we met the Federal Agriculture Minister, Rheinhold Stephanes, he was much more realistic and accepted that if Brazil wanted to export to the EU, then it must meet our requirements.

 

There is no doubt Brazil has tremendous natural advantages in agricultural production, with a favourable climate, year round grass and locally produced supplements, but one of its key promotional claims proves to be dubious. Brazilian beef is often presented as natural produce, coming from cattle reared on their abundant grasslands. In some cases, that is true, but there is huge industrial farming going on, where cattle are finished in massive feed lots. Here they are penned together and fed a high protein diet so that they have a weight gain of 1.7 kilos per day for 70-90 days. On one feed lot we saw 24,000 penned cattle. It is predominantly this industrialised produce which has been coming into Europe, with 29% of all such exports in 2007 ending up in the UK.

THE GMO FICTION

 

Brazil is enthusiastic about the use of GMOs. 50% of its soya is GMO varieties. Its cattle are fed without distinction as to GM and non-GM feedstuff. Thus, while Europe pursues a policy of zero tolerance of many GM traces, so long as we import beef from Brazil, and elsewhere, it inevitably will have been GM fed. Thus, it makes nonsense of the strict GM regime, which we impose on our own producers.

 

BIO-ETHANOL: THE PRIZED PRODUCT

 

Brazil has been heavily into biofuels for decades. Today all its new cars have multi-fuel engines, which can run on normal petroleum or ethanol or a mixture of both. They lead the world in bio-ethanol production and are ambitious to extend their dominance. It struck me that developing their bio-ethanol industry is even more important to them than beef exports. 

 

Sugarcane is the chief source of the ethanol. It has an extremely efficient conversion rate. We visited an ethanol plant, and heard of plans to multiply them across the region. An inevitable consequence is that land currently used for livestock production will convert to growing sugarcane. However, this is unlikely to reduce livestock breeding, because, frankly, my impression is that the livestock areas will simply eat into the areas of forestation, most notably, and controversially, the Amazon.

 

Brazilian government officials were over anxious to reassure us that such will not happen and that livestock production will be increased by greater efficiency and better breeding. It is clear Brazil is conscious of the worldwide debate about food security and is fearful that its over-concentration on biofuels might lead to international opprobrium. Hence, their frantic efforts to assure us that expansion of their biofuel industry will not have adverse impacts, either environmentally or in regard to food production. We were constantly told ethanol can expand “without the loss of one tree”, or less food being produced. I found their arguments implausible.

 

With ambitious targets for ethanol use in Europe – set with insufficient regard to food security considerations - I anticipate that the EU will progressively move to importing ethanol from Brazil. Thus we will be directly implicated in this linked and important food security debate.

 

CONCLUSION

This was an extremely worthwhile visit. I return confirmed in my view that it is right and necessary, from a public health perspective, to severely curb the importation of Brazilian beef and unapologetic that I was one of the MEPs on the Agriculture Committee who campaigned vigorously for the restrictions which the Commission reluctantly introduced. I remain determined that they must not be prematurely relaxed, nor our producers disadvantaged by less onerous requirements on those we import from.

 

I also return with an appreciation of the vast potential of Brazil and thus its competitive threat. Even in milk production, it is now a net exporter, having for years been a key importer of whole milk powder, which we in Northern Ireland produce in abundance.

 

 

Jim Allister QC MEP

 

Agriculture and Environment