To go to main Food Law Index page, click here.
Mr Chairman, Honourable Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this morning's session on the "farm to table" concept, as I have long held the view that a coordinated and coherent approach to food safety and quality throughout the food chain is vital if we are interested o ensure a high level of consumer protection.
The nearly one hundred submissions which the Commission has received in response to the Green Paper, indicate that there is a very high degree of acceptance, from all sides, that appropriate regulation must extend from the farm to the table. I doubt if this would have been the case had we asked the same question five, or even two years ago. At that time, there were increasing demands from several sectors of the food industry for large-scale deregulation, to allow the industry to set its own standards, with the Commission's role reduced to trying to persuade Member States to operate the single market on the basis of mutual recognition. Consumer organizations were almost alone in calling for the retention of legally binding Community standards for food quality and safety.
In the last few years, however, we all have seen how serious the effects about food-borne disease can be. The BSE crisis, outbreaks of food poisoning caused by salmonella, E. coli and other organisms, and the continuing controversy over the use of hormones and other growth promoters in meat production have had consequences beyond the unfortunate, and sometimes tragic effects on those directly concerned. These incidents have shaken the confidence of consumers and caused serious economic damage to the sectors concerned. As a result, the old dogmatic arguments about regulation or de-regulation are now being replaced by thoughtful debate on how best to regulate health of consumers, and at the same time on how best to protect the liveliehood of those involved in food production.
Effective and rational legislation is to the benefit of all of us, and I hope that this morning's session will give us some pointers to the way forward in developing a coherent legislative approach throughout the food chain.
We already have Community rules affecting each link of the chain, from agricultural inputs to shops and restaurants. In addition, Member States have national rules on aspects not covered by the Community. We in the Commission consider that the existing legal structure could be improved in order to meet the goals set out in the Green Paper more effectively, and we are open to suggestions on possible improvements. I do not wish to pre-judge or unduly influence your contributions to the debate, but I feel it may be useful to highlight a few areas in which questions have arisen concerning our present law.
Agricultural inputs such as pesticides and veterinary drugs have been regulated at Community level for many years, but questions are being raised about the transparency of the approval procedures, and the extent to which consumers and elected political representatives are involved in decisions about the use of agro-chemicals in food production. In this context I must mention the dispute in the WTO on the use of hormones in livestock production, particularly as the Community's appeal against the Panel ruling is being heard in Geneva today.
The outcome of this dispute will have far-reaching implications for the rights of governments to determine the degree to which their citizens are protected from hazards in food. Make no mistake the Community is a strong advocate of the multi-lateral trading system and we played an active part in drawing up the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, known as the SPS Agreement, which is at the core of this dispute. But, in drafting the SPS Agreement, the Community and others, including the USA and Canada, were careful to protect the sovereign right of governments to decide what level of health protection is appropriate for their populations.
The SPS Agreement makes a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the choice of the level of health protection, which is a political choice for governments to make, and on the other hand the application of measures to achieve that chosen level of protection. Under the SPS Agreement, the applicatory measures are subject to the disciplines of risk assessment and scientific justification, while the choice of the level of protection is not. Indeed, the SPS Agreement explicitly states that GATT Members are not obliged to change their level of protection. Nevertheless, the Panel has ignored this basic principle of the SPS Agreement and is seeking to impose its own opinion of the appropriate level of protection for the Community.
It is unacceptable for the European Union to have such a fundamental responsibility as the protection of the health of its citizens taken away by panel of ajudicators to a trade dispute. Whatever the outcome of the appeals process, the Commission will not abdicate its duty to apply the Treaty requirement for a high level of health protection, and we shall continue to take all measures to prevent the presence of added carcinogens in food.
The most important agricultural input as far as farm animals are concerned is their feed. Mainly in response to the BSE crisis, but also to take account of wider concerns expressed by both farmers and consumers over the content of animal feed, the Commission has already taken certain measures to improve the labelling of animal feedingstuffs and to ban the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants.
Following a conference here in the Parliament earlier this year, on the use of meat-and-bone meal in animal feed, I am launching a further public consultation, on the internet, in respect of two matters raised at that conference. The first is the question of extending the ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants by banning the feeding of any animal protein to ruminants, as these species are vegetarian by nature. The second is the question of allowing the use in animal feed of material from animals which have been found dead of unknown causes. I am not asking you for definite answers to these questions today, but I urge you to consider them carefully and let us have your opinion as quickly as possible.
We also have a comprehensive set of Community veterinary rules on hygiene. At present, these are scattered throughout a large number of Directives, which has led to problems of transparency and to difficulties of interpretation. Which is why soon after becoming commissioner, I announced in June 1995 my intention to simplify the veterinary food hygiene legislation with a view to presenting a coherent, transparent and more user friendly piece of legislation. The veterinary hygiene rules consist of Directives covering many commodities such as fresh meat, meat products, minced meat, fishery products, milk and dairy products, and egg products. One of the problems with these Directives is that similar requirements are covered in different ways, giving rise to confusion, repetition, overlap and sometimes inconsistencies.
I do not intend to describe in detail the progress with this simplification exercise, as the next session this morning will cover it. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Paul MULLEN, Chairman of the Veterinary Advisory Committee, who will present the subject to this conference, for the considerable time and effort which he has devoted to this complex exercise over the last two years.
In the Directives on fishery products and on milk and milk products, we introduced a system of hygiene control known by the acronym HACCP, which stands for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points. This is a logical and systematic approach to the control of food-borne hazards, operated by producers under the supervision of the official services, in which production processes are carefully analysed, critical points where potential hazards may be controlled are identified, and the appropriate action is taken. The system includes inbuilt checks, verification and documentation of actions.
HACCP is also the basis of the Community's so-called "General Hygiene" Directive, which applies to the food chain after primary production, where specific sectoral rules do not apply. Again, I do not wish to enter into details of matters which are likely to be covered by other speakers, but in view of the fact that suggestions have been made that HACCP could be applied at farm level, I will be interested to hear opinions on the general applicability of this system to small businesses.
The Green Paper refers to the question of product liability, and invites comments on extending the scope of the current Community Directive on the subject to include primary agricultural products. At present, Member States may, at their own discretion, apply the rules of the Directive to primary agricultural products but, until now, only Greece, Luxembourg, Finland and Sweden have done so. In response to a specific recommendation by the Parliament's Temporary Committee of Enquiry into BSE, the Commission has already proposed to amend the Directive on product liability in order to bring primary agricultural products within its scope.
The Commission's action does not mean that all comments on this matter are now redundant, because the applicability of product liability to primary products raises the question of traceability, and I would be interested to hear your comments also on this.
You will be aware that the Council has already adopted rules on the labelling of beef, which allow to indicate the origin and the production methods, as long as they are truthful. Again, this raises the question of traceability.
I am aware that consumers are often critical of the way in which food is labelled, claiming that the information given on labels is not what they really require and is anyway, in too many cases, difficult to understand. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the methods and systems of animal production, including feeding and housing. We have for some years had a system of allowing indications of production systems to be put on boxes of eggs, and we have Community standards for the use of the description "organic". Recently the Commission has decided on a food labelling policy to indicate whether or not food contains, or may contain, genetically modified organisms.
I am in favour of giving consumers all the indications they want, as long as the information is accurate and can be verified. However, labelling cannot be a substitute for legislative action to ensure a high level of consumer protection. To return to the example of hormone growth promoters, the WTO Panel added to its opinion some concluding remarks, which were outside the scope of its terms of reference. Among these is a statement to the effect that in countries where the use of hormone growth promoters is permitted, meat which has been produced without their use may be so labelled.
If this is a proposal to the Community to adopt such a system, I reject it. I am prepared to listen to all comments and suggestions, but commentators must appreciate that the Commission will only act in accordance with our Treaty obligation to maintain a high level of protection. We cannot avoid our responsibilities by hiding behind health warnings on labels - we must ensure that the highest possible standards are respected throughout the food chain.
I thank you, Mr Chairman, and I await this morning's presentations with interest.