1. Case study Netherlands
Technical Assistance for Development of Strategy for Alignment with
Common Market Organization (CMO) Requirements
TR2014/AG/10-A1-01/001
This Project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey
Case study Netherlands
Training on classification March 2018
Andrzej Piekarewicz
Arkadiusz Ramotowski

2. Introduction
This document describes the organisation of classification in the Netherlands in three different periods:
the period before 1988,
the period from 1988 until 2013
the period from 2013 until now.

3. Period before 1988 (1)
The responsibility for the implementation of the European legislation regarding classification and price reporting was delegated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (Min LNV) to the Product board for Meat and Livestock. A product board was an organization that represented the total column of a sector, from producer (farmer) until consumer.

4. Period before 1988 (2)
Apart from the mentioned Product board for Meat and Livestock, there were also product boards for arable products, for dairy products etc. A product board had a president appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and a board consisting of representatives from all parts of the sector. Product boards are financed by the government for their work concerning their public tasks (e.g. implementation of legislation) and by the sector for other activities.

5. Period before 1988 (3)
Classification was financed by a levy that farmers payed to the Product board for each slaughtered animal. This levy was not only for classification, but it covered also promotion costs.
The Product board for Meat and Livestock transferred the relevant European regulations into National legislation.

6. Period before 1988 (4)
The actual classification was carried out by staff from the Intervention Agency, part of the Ministry, (named VIB). They got an internal classification education of several months and after this period they got an exam (per specie: pigs, veal and beef). If they passed this exam, they were approved classifiers for one or more species.
Inspections (once per fortnight per slaughterhouse) were carried out by regional management of the intervention agency.

7. Period before 1988 (5)
Daily control on slaughtering, weighing and presentation was carried out by the classifier. In case problems occurred the inspectors of the General Inspection Service (AID) verified shortcomings and had the possibility to penalize slaughterhouses.

8. Period (1)
In 1988 the government decided to privatize a number of public activities including classification. The Product board took over the actual classification and contracted CBS Group for the daily implementation. The responsibility for the implementation of the European legislation regarding classification and price reporting was still delegated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (Min LNV) to the Product board for Meat and Livestock.

9. Period (2)
CBS/Comore-group is/was an organisation specialized in independent checks and inspections working for public bodies, companies and interest groups. The origin of the organisation is in the agro/food sector.
The quality of the service meets international standards. Comore/CBS is accredited by the Dutch Accreditation Council (RVA) based on ISO/IEC
Comore/CBS took over 100 classifiers from the Intervention Agency in order to keep knowledge and experience and to maintain the level of classification.

10. Period (3)
In the meantime the Ministry of Agriculture installed the CKC (Commission Quality management Classification) The board of CKC consists out of a chairman appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, a secretary appointed by the Product board, a scientist from Wageningen University and an advisor (director of Comore/CBS). Commissioned by CKC, 5 inspectors from the field organisation of the Intervention Agency (VIB/LASER) carried out the inspections according to the EU rules (twice per quarter). The field organisation of VIB/LASER became later in 2002 part of the (Food Safety Organisation (NVWA). The lead inspector participates in the quarterly meetings of the board.

11. Period (4)
CKC also certifies the Comore/CBS classifiers. To keep their certificate each classifier is checked at least once per quarter. The CKC certifications and inspections and the accreditation imply a double quality check on the implementation of the classification tasks.

12. Period (5)
Apart from the CKC inspections CBS/Comore has his own internal quality control checking all classifiers by means of inspections and by means of an automated system comparing the classification results (especially in pigs due to big numbers of slaughtering)

13. Period (6)
Also in 1988 pig classification was automated due to new EU legislation. The Netherlands approved two systems Fat-o-Meater and HGP2. Finally the Ministry decided to oblige CBS to use the same equipment in all slaughterhouses which was HGP2. The classification organisation owns the equipment. Daily control on slaughtering, weighing and presentation was carried out by the classifier. In case problems occurred, classifiers reported to the legal department of the Product board and if needed measures were taken

14. Period from 2003 until now (1)
In 2013 the Ministry of Agriculture decided to abolish the product boards. The public (legal) tasks went to the Ministry and the tasks supporting the sectors went to new founded organisations (e.g. Producer organisation Pig farmers). The Ministry transferred the EU regulations into a new national legislation. Classification became the responsibility of Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), an agency owned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs ( The former Intervention Agency is a part of this organisation.

15. Period from 2003 until now (2)
RVO took over the contract with Comore/CBS. Currently Comore/CBS is part of KIWA-CMR ( still accredited by RVA. KIWA- CMR charges the costs of classification to the slaughterhouses by means of an amount per animal.

16. Period from 2003 until now (3)
The system of inspections commissioned by CKC is still existing. The board of CKC changed a little bit, a representative of the Food Safety Organisation became a member whilst there is no longer a representative of Wageningen University. This institution will be asked for advice in case technical advice is needed. The inspection is limited to the required number of inspections: twice per quarter per slaughterhouse. The requirement to inspect each classifier once per quarter has been abolished.

17. Period from 2003 until now (4)
As the classification of veal (category V) is not required by EU legislation, the Ministry decided not to take over this task. Nowadays classification of veal still exists and it is carried out by KIWA-CMR staff commissioned by Branche organisation Veal Husbandry. In the Netherlands sheep classification is not applied due to lack of interest by the sheep sector.

18. Period from 2003 until now (5)
A new development in this period is the approval of three pig classification systems. HGP7, CGM and CSB Image Meater and again by law it is required to use only one equipment; the CGM probe.

19. Period from 2003 until now (6)
Daily control on slaughtering, weighing and presentation is carried out by the classifier. In case problems occurred, classifiers report to RVO. However, due to lack of sufficient and adequate possibilities to penalize it is difficult to correct shortcomings.

20. New developments
Tests are going on in the veal industry to automate classification. Some pig slaughterhouses asks for an allowance to use the CSB Image Meater. Up till now the Ministry has the opinion that the use of only one equipment prevents discussion about differences between equipments. However, due to the high speed slaughterlines (650/hour) it gets difficult to use probes and classifiers get health problems (especially shoulder complaints). Therefore may be in future it is possible to abolish the requirement to have the same equipment for all slaughterhouses. New legislation will be drafted to get better possibilities to correct shortcomings in slaughtering, weighing and presentation.

21. Conclusion :
The three described systems can be used as a possible example for new Member States (e.g. Turkey). These systems are still in line with the EU legislation.

22. Thank you for your attention. Any questions?
Technical Assistance for Development of Strategy for Alignment with
Common Market Organization (CMO) Requirements
TR2014/AG/10-A1-01/001
This Project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey
Thank you for your attention. Any questions?

23. This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union
The contents of this publication is the sole responsibility of NIRAS IC Sp. z o.o. and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union