COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs

2000/0178 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs

1. BACKGROUND

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council

(document COM(2000)438 final - 2000/0178 (COD): // 14 July 2000.

Date of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee: // 28 March 2001.

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: // 15 May 2002.

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: // 28 January 2003.

Date of adoption of the common position: // 27 October 2003

(unanimously)

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

First proposal of a package of five proposals consolidating and updating current Community rules on food hygiene.

It aims in particular to recast Community rules applicable to food hygiene in general. It contains the following key-issues:

- It applies from farm to table,

- Food business operators have the prime responsibility over food safety,

- The HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) system is proposed as a tool to be implemented by food business operators in order to control microbiological and chemical hazards in food and thus to promote food safety,

- The establishment of guides to good practice by the food sectors in order to give guidance to food business operators on food safety and the implementation of HACCP,

- Flexibility for food businesses in remote areas, for traditional food production and for the implementation of HACCP in small businesses,

- The registration of all food businesses with the competent authority,

- Technical issues (premises, equipment etc.) to be respected by food businesses

3. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

3.1. General comment

At the Plenary meeting on 14 May 2002 the Commission indicated that it could accept most of the amendments, wholly or in part, and subject to drafting amendments, except amendments 5, 8, 13, 14, 28-30, 35, 37-39, 47, 48, 53, 55, 58, 59, 67, 69, 71, 76, 77, 83, 89, 92, 93, 95, 105, 107 and 108.

An important effort has been made by the Council to meet the European Parliament's concerns in this technically complicated dossier. Although the Council has not always been able to introduce the amendments in the same editorial format as that resulting from the Parliament's opinion, it must be considered that care has been taken to respect the objectives pursued by the Parliament. The amendments that were accepted by the Commission have been largely taken into account. The Council also integrated in the common position the objectives pursued by certain amendments that were not accepted by the Commission.

3.2. Relation with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (General Food Law)

Amendments 1, 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61 aim to align the proposal with the General Food Law.

The objective pursued by these amendments has been taken into account in the common position.

3.3. Scope

Article 1(2)(c) of the common position mirrors amendment 103, aiming to clarify that the Regulation does not apply to the direct supply of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local retail trade.

3.4. Definitions

Amendment 26 clarifies that food of animal origin includes blood. The Council considered that this definition belongs to proposal COD 2000/179 and has moved it therefore, taking into account amendment 26, to point 8.1 if Annex I of that proposal.

3.5. Comitology

Amendments 28 and 29 would deprive the Commission of the right to use the comitology procedure for adding new technical annexes to the Regulation. They were rejected by the Commission, but followed by the Council.

Amendments 30, 58 and 59 would not allow the Commission to use the comitology procedure for granting derogations or making amendments to the Annexes. The Commission rejected these amendments. The Council followed the Commission in this matter. Article 13 of the common position would therefore allow, under certain strictly defined conditions, to grant derogations or to make amendments through comitology.

3.6. Microbiology and other criteria or standards

Amendment 106 provides for a redraft of the Commission proposal with regard to the setting of microbiological criteria, temperature criteria, food safety targets and performance standards. The aim of this amendment is achieved through Article 4(3) and (4) of the common position.

3.7. Flexibility

The proposal introduces flexibility for traditional food production and for businesses in remote areas. Amendments 31 and 32 aim to better describe where and how flexibility applies. Article 13 paragraphs (3)-(7) of the common position achieves the objectives of these amendments.

3.8. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system

With regard to the implementation of HACCP at the farm

Amendment 7 establishes that the implementation of the HACCP principles at farm level is not yet feasible, but that their use should be encouraged. It must be considered that recital 14 of the common position together with the possibility to use guides to good practice (Article 7), achieve that objective.

Amendments 8, 9-first part, 35, 37, 38, 67 aim to introduce the HACCP system at the level of primary production. These were not accepted by the Commission, and were not followed by the Council neither.

The Council however introduced an amendment that imposes to the Commission to consider, in a report to be submitted within 5 years after entry into force of the Regulation, whether it would be desirable and practicable to provide for an extension of the requirement to implement HACCP to food business operators carrying out primary production.

With regard to flexibility of the HACCP procedures

One amendment introduces flexibility for the application of HACCP (36-first part). This was favourably accepted by the Commission. Although formulated in a different way, it must be considered that the Parliament's concerns are met in Article 5 paragraphs (4) and (5) of the common position.

3.9. Guides to good practice

The aim of amendments 40 and 45 to clarify that guides to good practice are a voluntary instrument is covered by Article 7 (second subparagraph) of the common position.

Amendment 44, aiming to preserve the status of guides developed under former rules, is covered in Article 8(5).

The idea that guides must be developed by the food business sectors in consultation with other interested parties (amendments 42, 43 and 46) is reflected in Articles 8 and 9.

3.10. Registration of food businesses

Amendments 49 and 52 aim to introduce food business registration and approval procedures to be followed by the competent authority. The Council did not fully take into account these amendments arguing that these procedures are addressed to the competent authorities and should therefore not figure in the Regulation on food hygiene (which is addressed to the food business operators). The Commission believes that this argument is valid, and has included registration and approval procedures with the flexibility required by the European Parliament in Article 31 of its proposal for a Regulation on official feed and food controls [COM(2003)52].

The other amendments (50, 51) on registration and approval of food businesses have been taken into account by the Council (Article 6(3)).

3.11. Report on implementation

The proposal contains a provision for the Commission to present a report to the EP and Council within 7 years of the Regulation entering into force, reviewing the experience gained from implementing the Regulation;

Amendment 62 aims to reduce the period of 7 years to 5 years. The Council followed this amendment (Article 16).

3.12. Date of entry into force

Amendment 63 makes the Regulation applicable "one year after its entry into force". The same amendment has been subsequently introduced for the other proposals of the package so as to ensure that the date of application is identical for the four proposals concerned.

The main concern of the Council with regard to this proposal was to ensure that all the proposals of the package apply from the same date and that Member States are given enough time to adapt to the new situation. The Council therefore decided that for all the proposals of the package the measures should apply 18 months after entry into force and at the earliest on 1 January 2006. Article 18 of the Common position reflects that position.

Although the date of application in the common position is not identical to the one proposed in amendment 63 of the European Parliament, it must considered that the objectives pursued by the Council do not conflict with the objectives pursued by the European Parliament in the amendments on this subject in the different proposals of the package.

3.13. Technical amendments

The technical amendments that were, either partially or after redrafting, acceptable for the Commission, have largely been taken into account (amendments 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 25, 41, 60, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 99, 100, 102). However, the content of Annex II, Chapter X (wrapping and packaging) has been simplified in the common position. Amendments 99 and 100 are therefore not fully reflected.

4. CONCLUSION

The common position largely reflects the amendments of the European Parliament that were accepted by the Commission.

In addition, the common position reflects ideas of the European Parliament that were not accepted by the Commission. These concern in particular, with regard to the possible implementation of the HACCP system at the level of primary production, the establishment of a report by the Commission, and with regard to comitology, the deletion of the possibility to add new annexes to the Regulation. The Commission agreed to these amendments of its initial proposal as a matter of compromise.