EU ban on DSM: ‘Common sense has gone out the window’
A New EU regulation on the labelling of desinewed meat has left the UK with little choice but to comply. However, the move will have a huge impact on both producers and manufacturers, says the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA).
The European Commission has asked that a moratorium be put in place on the production of ‘desinewed meat’ (DSM) from cattle, sheep and goats. Desinewed meat is produced using a low pressure technique to remove meat from animal bones. The product closely resembles minced meat, is currently a meat preparation and is regarded as meat.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) says that there is no evidence of any risk to human health from eating meat produced from the low-pressure DSM technique, and the European Commission has also said that it does not consider this to be an identified public health concern.
However, the Commission has decided that DSM does not comply with European Union single market legislation, and therefore requires the UK to cease producing DSM from the bones of cattle, sheep and goats by the end of April.
If the UK were not to comply with the Commission’s ruling it would risk a ban on the export of UK meat products, says the FSA.
DSM may still be produced from poultry and pig bones but from the end of May it must be classed and specifically labelled as ‘Mechanically Separated Meat’ (MSM), and can no longer count towards the meat content of a product.
However, Stephen Rossides, director of the BMPA, says the move will result in ‘a criminal waste of valuable product’.
“While acceding to the Commission’s demands, the government and us hold that current practice in the UK is lawful,” he says. “This product is not MSM. It is meat, and there are no food safety concerns in its usage.”
“This is a criminal waste of a valuable product at a time of a shortage of proteins, and when we are being urged to reduce food wastage. Common sense has gone out of the window.”
He adds: “The market implications of having to bow down to the Commission are huge. We look to the UK government to continue to defend the UK’s legal interpretation and established practice. All this has happened at break-neck speed. The industry must be given more time to adjust to any change in requirements and market circumstances in a controlled and properly managed way in order to minimise market disruption and financial damage.”
