>>EU food regulation needs legal teeth - Keith Ellis, global head of food and drink sector, 3i
At our recent food and drinks conference, the hot topic of debate was whether current EU food legislation had enough teeth to effectively govern the whole of Europe’s food and drink sector.
The overwhelming consensus among the 120 delegates from some of Europe’s leading food and drink companies was that the measures in place are not adequate and a new European body needs to be put in place with legal powers of enforcement and punishment in a similar manner to those entrusted to the FDA in the US.
The timing of the question to the delegates was perhaps unfair as the Commission is in the process of reforming the legislation relating to food and drink production.
Over the years, and by way of a vast number of directives, individual member states have been required to introduce regulations relating to food production.
The national requirements have developed in contrasting environments, have been different and often inconsistently policed. On the EU level this has led to commercial barriers being put in place (because of the resulting differing cost basis in food production) that in turn may have restricted the free circulation of food in the internal market.
The Commission has recognised the flaws in the existing patchwork of legislation and policing and adopted a White Paper on food safety in January 2000. The White Paper set out a reform plan that, if and when fully implemented, should resolve a number of the issues and concerns voiced by the conference delegates.
The strategic priorities of the legislation, which should come into force in January 2005, are to introduce consistency on all aspects of food production; to establish the principle that food and feed operators (including farmers) have primary responsibility for food safety; to ensure that there is traceability of feed, food and its ingredients; and to ensure transparency and information sharing with the public.
The consistency is to be achieved in part by ensuring the Commission introduces much of the legislation applicable within the member states rather than rely on member states introducing regulations to flesh out overarching broad principles.
The desired level playing field will only be achieved if the new legislation is consistently policed. Member states must
provide surveillance and control of food producers. The Commission should actively control and monitor the ‘local policing’ through audits and inspectors. Failure to do this will result in little change.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently been put in place in what appears to be an ad hoc manner in direct response to the expansion of the EU. Its purpose is to plug the weaknesses identified in the lack of scientific support for the system of scientific advice; inadequacies in monitoring and surveillance of food safety issues; gaps in the rapid alert system; and the lack of co-ordination of scientific co-operation and analytical support.
Contrary to broad misconception, EFSA is not about enforcement and will not be the ‘European body’ to mirror the USFDA and which delegates believed should have legal powers of enforcement and punishment.
Naming and shaming is no longer effective in an era where food safety and health protection are paramount to the continuation of a thriving food and drinks industry.
It will be interesting to see if any conference in three or four years’ time draws the same responses as those this year.
The Commission’s starting point may be achieving the highest standards of food safety in the EU, but those in the food production chain have a different motivation.
However, the requirements may converge to leave a mutually better position.
At our recent food and drinks conference, the hot topic of debate was whether current EU food legislation had enough teeth to effectively govern the whole of Europe’s food and drink sector.
The overwhelming consensus among the 120 delegates from some of Europe’s leading food and drink companies was that the measures in place are not adequate and a new European body needs to be put in place with legal powers of enforcement and punishment in a similar manner to those entrusted to the FDA in the US.
The timing of the question to the delegates was perhaps unfair as the Commission is in the process of reforming the legislation relating to food and drink production.
Over the years, and by way of a vast number of directives, individual member states have been required to introduce regulations relating to food production.
The national requirements have developed in contrasting environments, have been different and often inconsistently policed. On the EU level this has led to commercial barriers being put in place (because of the resulting differing cost basis in food production) that in turn may have restricted the free circulation of food in the internal market.
The Commission has recognised the flaws in the existing patchwork of legislation and policing and adopted a White Paper on food safety in January 2000. The White Paper set out a reform plan that, if and when fully implemented, should resolve a number of the issues and concerns voiced by the conference delegates.
The strategic priorities of the legislation, which should come into force in January 2005, are to introduce consistency on all aspects of food production; to establish the principle that food and feed operators (including farmers) have primary responsibility for food safety; to ensure that there is traceability of feed, food and its ingredients; and to ensure transparency and information sharing with the public.
The consistency is to be achieved in part by ensuring the Commission introduces much of the legislation applicable within the member states rather than rely on member states introducing regulations to flesh out overarching broad principles.
The desired level playing field will only be achieved if the new legislation is consistently policed. Member states must
provide surveillance and control of food producers. The Commission should actively control and monitor the ‘local policing’ through audits and inspectors. Failure to do this will result in little change.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently been put in place in what appears to be an ad hoc manner in direct response to the expansion of the EU. Its purpose is to plug the weaknesses identified in the lack of scientific support for the system of scientific advice; inadequacies in monitoring and surveillance of food safety issues; gaps in the rapid alert system; and the lack of co-ordination of scientific co-operation and analytical support.
Contrary to broad misconception, EFSA is not about enforcement and will not be the ‘European body’ to mirror the USFDA and which delegates believed should have legal powers of enforcement and punishment.
Naming and shaming is no longer effective in an era where food safety and health protection are paramount to the continuation of a thriving food and drinks industry.
It will be interesting to see if any conference in three or four years’ time draws the same responses as those this year.
The Commission’s starting point may be achieving the highest standards of food safety in the EU, but those in the food production chain have a different motivation.
However, the requirements may converge to leave a mutually better position.
No comments yet