Progress report on work within the Council regarding the White Paper on food safety
To go to main Food Law Index page, click here.
That document calls for a policy on the matter based on an integrated approach applicable to the entire food chain. It has two key aspects: the creation of a new European authority (intended to become the scientific reference point for the whole of the European Union, and with particular responsibility for risk evaluation) and an action plan aimed at making the Union's food legislation more consistent, complete and up-to-date.
The White Paper was first given a complete reading, under the supervision of COREPER, by a Friends of the Presidency group specially constituted for this purpose. It was subsequently examined by different Council configurations in accordance with the following timetable:
All delegations were in favour of the rapid establishment of an independent European Food Authority ( 1) intended to become the European Union's scientific reference point for the whole food chain; they considered that such a body would make an important contribution towards ensuring a high level of consumer health protection and restoring consumer confidence.
2. An Authority in the form of a network
All delegations considered that the Authority would have to work in close cooperation with the scientific agencies and institutions of the Member States by establishing a network in which it would constitute the focal point; such a solution seemed to them to be the most suitable way of ensuring the best possible use of the Union's scientific resources.
However, some delegations advocated the greatest possible clarity in the procedures which would govern the links between the different scientific centres in order to ensure real added value. In particular, those procedures would have to avoid the duplication of tasks, capitalise on the best scientific knowledge and ensure compliance with the principles of independence and transparency. In that regard, the network established by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products was cited as a possible model.
Several delegations recommended that systematic use be made of new information technologies in order to improve the efficiency of the future network.
3. Tasks to be allocated to the Authority
(a) The Authority's role in the risk assessment and risk management process
All delegations considered that the main task of the future body should be to provide scientific advice through risk assessment on all aspects relating to food safety, while the Community institutions ( 2) would continue to be responsible for risk management decisions in accordance with the current rules.
It should be noted that some delegations nevertheless questioned the need to include aspects relating to animal welfare and health in the Authority's mandate.
However, several delegations insisted on the need for close links between the risk assessment and risk management functions, considering that the Authority should be able to influence the risk management process through its advice, e.g. by formulating recommendations for action. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products was again cited as an example of a smoothly functioning interface between a scientific structure and those responsible for risk management. More specifically, one of those delegations wondered whether the Authority should play a part in implementing Community legislation, in particular with regard to individual decisions to place certain types of products on the market.
(b) Information gathering and analysis
Delegations shared the Commission's view that there was considerable scope for improvement as regards identifying and exploiting information available on food safety issues, and that the Authority could play a vital role in that respect.
(c) Consumer information
Broad consensus was reached on the view that the Authority should also be responsible for risk communication in the field of food safety. Most delegations emphasised that the Authority should be able to make its scientific opinions widely and rapidly available, while ensuring that the information it provided was readily accessible and understandable.
Some delegations indicated that they would be in favour of the Authority playing a wider information role with regard to consumer protection.
(d) Reacting to crises
A majority view had not yet been reached on the Commission's proposal to make the Authority responsible for managing the rapid alert system. Although some delegations were in favour of such a move, several others had yet to adopt a final position on that solution and two delegations were expressly opposed to the transfer of a responsibility which they considered to be part of the risk management function.
4. Organisation and operation of the Authority
(a) Scientific committees
The Commission confirmed that it was planning to transfer the five committees covering food for human consumption and animal feed both directly and indirectly from the Commission to the Authority; as far as their structure and method of operation within the Authority were concerned, it said its choice would be based on achieving the highest possible added value.
Most delegations continued to reserve their positions on that question. However, several delegations considered that the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in London, of which the scientific committees responsible for drafting the required scientific advice formed an integral part, could serve as a model.
One delegation wondered about the future of the three other existing committees which were not intended to be transferred to the Authority.
(b) Scope of the Authority's scientific opinions
Delegations raised questions on the procedure to be followed in the event of differences of opinion between the European Authority and a national agency, without drawing any conclusions at this stage.
Several delegations pointed out that, as the Authority would have to work in close cooperation with the national agencies and bodies, it should be possible to avoid any differences in opinion in most cases.
Two delegations wanted the Authority's opinions to be binding and to take precedence over opinions delivered by national agencies.
(c) Referral to the Authority
Consensus had not yet been reached on this issue. Several delegations thought that it should be possible for matters to be brought before the Authority not only by the Commission, but also by Member States; other delegations considered that the Authority should be entitled to deliver opinions on its own initiative, as that would strengthen its independence and consolidate the preventive role which they hoped it would play.
5. Resources and location of the Authority
Most delegations wanted clearer guidelines on the necessary resources before adopting a final position. On a preliminary basis, however, they considered that most of the financial resources should in principle come from the Community budget.
One delegation was in favour of the Authority being financed solely by the Community in order to guarantee its independence.
As a location for the future European body, the following candidatures were officially put forward by the delegations concerned:
These aspects were examined by taking account in particular of the Annex to the White Paper, which describes the full range of measures envisaged by the Commission together with proposed priorities and timetables.
It should, however, be noted that, as regards the measures proposed in the Annex, a majority of delegations indicated they were not yet able to take a final position on the form of the instruments to be adopted (directive or regulation), and a number of them also formally reserved their positions on the priorities and the timetable drawn up by the Commission.
1. General framework of basic principles for food
Delegations as a whole supported the principle of a general framework of coherent and transparent horizontal rules on food and in particular the principles of the responsibility of producers and suppliers and of traceability along the food chain. One delegation emphasised more specifically the necessity of including in that framework the definitions that would make it possible to apply food legislation uniformly.
However, most delegations considered that while that dossier should have a high priority, it should not delay the drafting of other important proposals, especially a horizontal regulation on hygiene, a directive on the labelling of allergens, a directive on food supplements, provisions on microbiological criteria, antibiotic resistance, zoonoses, etc.
As to the form of the legal instrument to be used for those general rules, most delegations indicated that they were not currently in a position to state whether they preferred a regulation or a directive.
One delegation wondered whether the instrument should necessarily be a legal instrument or whether it would be more appropriate for it to take the form of a political declaration.
2. Application of the basic principles in unharmonised areas
Most delegations were in favour of general application of the common basic principles to be fixed for food, including in unharmonised areas; only one delegation was somewhat opposed to that principle, and two other delegations said they would prefer to know the general principles applicable to food before stating their positions.
Other delegations said they hoped to see considerable development of Community rules, so that the unharmonised area was as small as possible.
In that context, some delegations also pointed out that the application of the principle of mutual recognition would have to be clarified.
3. Animal feed
(a) General regulation establishing basic principles for animal feed
Most delegations welcomed the fact that such a regulation was one of the priority actions envisaged by the Commission. Several delegations expressed doubts, however, about the urgency of such rules.
(b) List of materials permitted or banned in the production of animal feed
Most delegations took a positive attitude to the approach recommended by the Commission, namely that of establishing a white list of materials in the medium term while for the time being endeavouring to expand the black list currently in force.
On the other hand, some delegations expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of a white list, which would raise major practical problems such as that of keeping it up to date.
(c) Novel animal feed
All delegations welcomed the Commission's intention to submit a proposal on the evaluation, authorisation and labelling of novel feed, particularly genetically modified organisms and products derived from them.
However, some delegations emphasised the need to take a global approach and to have a solid scientific basis, as regards genetically modified organisms. They considered it necessary in particular to align the approach to novel feeds on the principles already applied in the context of genetically modified feeding stuffs.
4. Animal health and eradication of animal diseases
Delegations were in favour of strengthening Community eradication and control measures against epizootics, and zoonoses in particular, as this was essential to guarantee a high level of health safety. Some delegations, however, regretted the fact that the budget resources provided for the Veterinary Fund had fallen over recent years from EUR 100 million to EUR 50 million.
One delegation stressed that harmonisation in this area should in any case enable Member States which had already established a high level of protection against zoonoses to maintain that level of protection.
Several delegations insisted on the need to establish eradication programmes to improve the control of zoonoses, and to establish priorities among the various control programmes.
Some delegations judged it a priority to include zoonoses in the horizontal rules on hygiene; one delegation was astonished that transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) were not among the Commission's priority objectives.
5. Emergency measures and decision-making process
The Commission representative confirmed that the Commission considered it desirable to rationalise and simplify decision-making procedures in relation to safeguard measures and measures to implement Community legislation, in order to ensure that such measures were speedy and effective (as in certain sectors such as the veterinary sector).
Delegations were not opposed to such an approach, as the present procedures were indeed very lengthy, but most of them emphasised the need to verify the scope of the delegation of powers case-by-case, and also noted the role to be played by the European Parliament in the framework of the co-decision procedure.
1. Usefulness of a new horizontal legal instrument relating to official controls
All delegations recognised the need for coherent and effective legislation on controls in order to ensure the high level of food safety to which the Union aspired.
While most delegations were in favour of establishing a new horizontal legal instrument, they underlined the need to maintain the current sharing of responsibilities for controls between the national administrations and the Commission, and several insisted on compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in that regard. For those delegations, one of the main objectives to be attained by the future legal framework should be to introduce a harmonised approach for national control systems.
However, some delegations pointed out that such an instrument should not increase controls unduly, particularly in sectors which had not hitherto given rise to any specific problems.
Two delegations said that such an initiative did not seem to them to constitute a priority, and in any case it was important that it should not be allowed to diminish efforts in sectors which merited particular attention, e.g. the veterinary sector.
Some delegations wanted greater priority to be given to self-regulation, considering that responsibility for food safety should be borne primarily by agricultural producers and the food industry. In particular, they pointed out that self-regulation allowed the public authorities to target their controls more precisely by focusing them on undertakings in which problems had been detected.
2. Administrative cooperation between Member States
Widespread support was given to the Commission's proposal to improve administrative cooperation between the national authorities with a view to harmonising the results of controls.
Various specific suggestions were made in that connection, including:
Some delegations also referred to the possibility of establishing a network of control authorities.
Furthermore, two delegations advocated harmonising the systems of penalties for fraud.
One delegation drew attention to the fact that any improvement in administrative cooperation should not be at the expense of lowering the high level of protection guaranteed by certain Member States.
3. Use and distribution of the results of controls
(a) Principle of transparency
All delegations stressed that transparency was necessary in order to be able to make better use of the results of controls at Community level, and several delegations considered it essential if consumer confidence was to be restored.
Two delegations pointed out that the results of controls carried out by the Commission in third countries should be subject to the same policy of transparency as Community products.
(b) Commission controls
Some delegations called for a re-examination of the methods used by the Commission to carry out its controls and disseminate the results obtained.
They stressed that, above all else, the Commission controls should avoid any discrepancy in the treatment of Member States likely to distort competition or lead to disputes between them.
With regard to the results of audits and inspections carried out by the Commission, they called for such results to be distributed only in their final version and for the Member States concerned to be able to submit their comments.
Delegations also suggested that:
(c) Other aspects mentioned
Delegations also underlined the following points:
All delegations held the view that effective and correct consumer information on all aspects of food safety constituted a key element of the integrated global approach envisaged. In this regard, they shared the main considerations set out by the Commission, reserving their comments more specifically for the following aspects:
1. Making scientific advice available to the public
All delegations took the view that making scientific advice available to the public constituted an essential aspect of risk communication.
In this regard, most delegations emphasised that scientific advice should be presented in a transparent manner and that all the information on which it was based should be made available to the public, including, in the view of some delegations, any minority opinions. More specifically, two delegations suggested using Internet for the dissemination of scientific advice.
Most delegations also felt it was important to ensure that the information was clear and intelligible to the public at large.
Some delegations nevertheless expressed their concern that a minimum of precautions should be taken when presenting information on food risks to the public, particularly when scientific uncertainty remained, so as to minimise any irrational reactions by the public.
One delegation pointed out that information published should respect commercial secrecy.
2. Consumer information campaigns on the food consumed
Most delegations took the view that information campaigns on food safety, including nutrition, should continue to be implemented at national level, taking into account each country's food traditions, while considering that complementary campaigns on matters of general interest could usefully be carried out at Community level.
As regards European campaigns, several delegations were of the view that they should not only be envisaged for crisis prevention, but should also be carried out with a view to educating the consumer; one delegation nevertheless stated on this point that promoting eating behaviour seemed to be a matter of risk management.
In this context, a number of delegations expressed their interest in having information campaigns carried out for specific categories of consumers, such as pregnant women, children, or elderly people.
3. Labelling and advertising
All delegations said that, like the Commission, they were not against economic operators being free to provide more information on the label than that required by the regulations in force, provided it was correct and not misleading. However, some delegations called for caution in this area, because of the possible risk of excess in the labelling of foodstuffs.
More specifically, as regards health claims, most delegations were prepared, as the Commission suggested, to examine whether it would be appropriate to introduce specific provisions into Community law to govern "functional" claims (for instance, on the beneficial effects of a given nutriment on certain functions) and nutritional claims (describing for instance the absence or the levels of a nutriment contained in a foodstuff). In the view of most delegations, however, such claims should be strictly managed; in this context, some delegations brought up the solution of a white list; two delegations, on the other hand, suggested encouraging solutions based on voluntary codes of practice.
Claims regarding the treatment or the cure of diseases, however, led to reservations from many delegations.
4. Nutrition: Community harmonisation
Most delegations were in favour of Community harmonisation of rules on foods intended to meet the needs resulting from intense muscular effort, food supplements (concentrated nutrients) and fortified foods (fortified with nutrients), areas which for those delegations in fact raise problems of free movement.
The following aspects were the subject of an in-depth exchange of views:
(a) International standards
The Commission representative said that, while taking account of international standards to meet WTO obligations, the Commission did not rule out proposing stricter standards in accordance with the right granted by the SPS Agreement, provided they had scientific backing and were based on an assessment of risks.
All delegations were able to support this approach; one delegation, however, drew attention to the fact that in the recent past the key principle stressed by the Commission, namely that imported foodstuffs "must meet health requirements at least equivalent to those set by the Community for its own production", had not always been respected.
(b) Precautionary principle
All delegations subscribed to the approach envisaged by the Commission, i.e. the need to "clarify and strengthen the existing WTO framework for the use of the precautionary principle in the area of food safety."
(c) Accession of the Community to the Codex Alimentarius and the OIE
Most delegations deemed it inappropriate at this stage to envisage changing the current rules, which involved defining a common position, after prior coordination, for meetings of the CODEX and the OIE; they were therefore against the idea of the Community acceding to the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS and the INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF EPIZOOTICS.
Several delegations reserved their final positions on this question because they did not have information on the matter of votes and on continuing participation by national delegations in discussions in the above two bodies.
(d) Are agreements on equivalence of phytosanitary and veterinary measures applied by third countries an approach that should continue to be used?
Almost all delegations favoured continuing to negotiate equivalence agreements in accordance with the mandate given by the Council while respecting the relevant procedures (participation of the Potsdam Group) and the principle of reciprocity defined in the mandate.
One delegation considered that the fact that the Commission had fallen behind in those negotiations should not prevent bilateral equivalence agreements being entered into with certain third countries.
Another delegation emphasised the need to extend the negotiating mandate to include aspects relating to food safety as a whole, including for example rules on prohibiting antibiotics in animal feed.
Guidelines emerging from the work carried out within the Council
European Union's food policy
All delegations supported the global integrated approach put forward by the Commission, of implementing a food safety policy for the whole of the animal and human food chain, both internally and with regard to extra-Community trade.
European Food Authority
All delegations were in favour of the rapid creation of a European Food Authority which would carry out, in the field of food safety, essential risk evaluation and consumer information tasks. in particular through its important role in the field of risk communication.
Risk management would continue to be carried out by Community Institutions and national authorities in accordance with current principles, on the understanding that appropriate procedures would have to be implemented in order to ensure the link between risk evaluation and management.
In order to carry out its tasks successfully, the Authority must be independent of industrial and political interests, operate transparently, and network with the national competent bodies.
Most delegations were against the Commission having sole power to refer matters to the Authority.
Moreover, with regard to the Authority's financial resources and subject to clearer guidelines in that connection, a majority of delegations considered that most financing should in principle come from the Community budget.
Regulatory aspects
On the whole delegations took the view that it was necessary to set up a general framework defining the principles guaranteeing a coherent and transparent approach on food matters.
As regards the legislative measures to be adopted for the sector, delegations pointed out that such measures should be taken in the following areas as a matter of priority:
With regard specifically to the question of substances used in the production of animal feedingstuffs, delegations appeared receptive to the approach advocated by the Commission of establishing a white list in the medium term while for the time being endeavouring to expand the black list currently in force.
Controls
A large majority of delegations recognised that it was essential to have coherent and effective legislation on controls, in order to guarantee the high level of food safety desired by the Union. They would therefore consider very positively the exhaustive legislative text that the Commission intends to propose with a view to recasting the various provisions on controls, while stressing at the same time the need to maintain the current division of responsibilities for controls between national administrations and Commission departments.
With regard specifically to national control systems, most delegations emphasised the need to improve administrative cooperation between national authorities, particularly in order to harmonise control methods and the presentation of results. They also stressed that it would be useful to define a Community framework for such controls and to improve the training of inspectors.
Furthermore, all delegations believed that transparency was essential when utilising and disseminating the results of controls.
More particularly, on the matter of controls carried out by the Commission, delegations stressed such controls should avoid differences in treatment between the Member States, which could distort competition or give rise to disputes between them.
Consumer information
Most delegations took the view that information campaigns on food safety, including nutrition, should continue to be implemented at national level, taking into account each country's food traditions, while considering that complementary campaigns could usefully be carried out at Community level whenever they provided added value.
As regards labelling and publicity, delegations as a whole supported the Commission's objective of ensuring that consumers receive essential and precise information for the choice of products; they were not against allowing operators to provide more information on the label than was compulsory, as long as it was correct and not misleading.
As regards health claims, most delegations said they were ready to consider positively whether it was appropriate to introduce into Community legislation specific provisions on "functional" and nutritional claims.
Most delegations said they were in favour of further Community harmonisation of the rules on certain dietary products (e.g. food for intense muscular effort), food supplements and fortified foods.
International dimension
All delegations shared the Commission's view that food safety cannot be regarded only as a matter of domestic policy. They believed that imported food products should comply with standards enabling the appropriate level of health protection set by the Community to be attained. They recalled in this respect that the SPS Agreement provides for the possibility of imposing rules which lead to a higher level of health protection than would be attained through measures based on the relevant international standards, provided there was scientific justification and the rules were based on an assessment of risks.
All delegations agreed with the Commission that the Community should set itself the goal of clarifying and strengthening the existing WTO rules concerning the use of the precautionary principle in the area of food safety.
Most delegations considered that the coordination of the European Community and its representation within the Codex Alimentarius and the International Office of Epizootics were satisfactory and that the Community's accession to these organisations was premature. However, several delegations reserved their final positions on this question because they did not have information on the matter of votes or on the actual participation by national delegations in discussions in the above bodies.
Regarding phytosanitary and veterinary matters, delegations favoured continuing to negotiate agreements with third countries, in accordance with the mandate given by the Council, while respecting the relevant procedures and ensuring in particular that the negotiations achieved a balanced outcome .
Footnotes:
(1) One delegation considered it more appropriate to use the term "Agency" for this body.
(2) It should be noted that most delegations, like the Commission, considered that the experience acquired by the Dublin Office constituted an essential contribution with regard in particular to the duty of monitoring the implementation of Community rules.