-*«ï8Pr 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 11.02.1998 
COM(1998) 37 final 
REPORT ON THE INITIAL VISITS 
BY THE COMMISSION'S SERVICES TO THE MEMBER STATES 
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/99/EEC 
WITH A VIEW TO EVALUATING THE NATIONAL SYSTEMS 
FOR THE OFFICIAL CONTROL OF FOODSTUFFS 
(presented by the Commission) 

1. INTRODUCTION 3 
2. THE GENERAL SITUATION 4 
2.1 CONTROL STRUCTURES 4 
2.2 STAFF TRAINING 5 
2.3 BUDGET-HUMAN RESOURCES 6 
2.4 PRIORITIES 6 
2.5 REGISTRATION AND AUTHORISATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS 7 
2.6 FREQUENCY OF CONTROLS 8 
2.7 POWERS OF THE CONTROL AUTHORITIES 8 
2.8 SHORTCOMINGS IN CONTROLS 8 
2.9 CONTROL OF IMPORTED FOOD 9 
2.10 INFORMATION OF CONTROL OFFICIALS - CONSUMER INFORMATION 9 
2.11 TRAINING OF FOOD SECTOR WORKERS 10 
2.12 EVALUATION OF THE CONTROL SERVICES 10 
2.13 ANALYSIS LABORATORIES 10 
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 11 
3.1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND UPDATES 11 
3.2 IN-DEPTH STUDY OF CERTAIN TOPICS 11 
3.3 EVALUATION OF CONTROL ACTIVITIES ON THE GROUND, IN THE COMPANY OF THE OFFICIALS 11 
REPORT ON THE INITIAL VISITS BY THE COMMISSION'S SERVICES 
TO THE MEMBER STATES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/99/EEC WITH A VIEW TO EVALUATING THE NATIONAL 
SYSTEMS FOR THE OFFICIAL CONTROL OF FOODSTUFFS 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Article 5 of Council Directive 93/99/EEC on the subject of additional measures 
concerning the official control of foodstuffs provides that the Commission shall 
monitor and evaluate the equivalence and the effectiveness of the systems for the 
official food control systems operated by the competent authorities in the Member 
States. 
To this end an inspection body was created by the Commission, initially attached to 
the Directorate-General for Industry and later transferred to the Directorate-General 
for Consumer Policy and Consumer Health Protection. The officials of this service 
have been designated to carry out these controls. 
The purpose of the visits was to obtain an accurate picture of the work and 
responsibilities of the competent authorities. 
The Directives on the official control of foodstuffs (89/397/EEC and 93/99/EEC) 
were the principal basis of the search for information. 
Precise information was provided by the food control services on the following 
major domains: 
I. legal powers in matters relating to food control, notably the power to take 
appropriate measures in the event of health hazards; 
II. policy, education and adoption of priorities in regard to official control; 
III. details on the resources allocated to the food control system (budget, staff, 
equipment); 
IV. relations between the central authorities and the authorities implementing 
the controls; 
V. measures taken to ensure that central legislation and policies are correctly 
implemented on the ground. 
The visits took place between February 1995 and June 1997. They lasted a week in 
each Member State. They were carried out by two Commission officials 
accompanied in most cases by a national expert from a State other than the host 
State, selected from the lists supplied by the Member States. 
Prior details on the above-mentioned domains had been supplied by the Member 
States via a questionnaire addressed to the Permanent Representations. 
All the visits were organised on the- same lines, viz. : 
I. initial meeting with the competent central authority; visit to the central 
laboratories; 
II. meeting with regional and local authorities (depending on the country's 
administrative structure); visit to control units and laboratories; 
III. final evaluation meeting with the competent authorities and presentation 
of a report; 
IV. official transmission of the report to the Permanent Representation of the 
country visited. 
The information was collected during the meetings and visits on the basis of a 
questionnaire for use by the Commission officials. 
The visits were facilitated by the full collaboration of all the authorities involved. 
These visits should be considered as the initial phase of the controls provided for in 
Article 5 of Directive 93/99/EEC, with a view to understanding and evaluating the 
official control systems. They should give rise to additional visits on certain themes 
discussed in this report. 
2. THE GENERAL SITUATION 
Food produced in the Community is subject to official control to ensure protection 
of public health, consumers and fair competition. Food control in the Member States 
is carried out independently of the food's place of origin within the Community. 
Controls are also carried out at all stages of production, storage and distribution. 
2.1 Control structures 
Depending on the country's political and administrative structure, two 
systems exist: 
I. powers to legislate and carry out controls exercised by one or more 
ministries with control units at regional or department level; 
II. powers to legislate exercised by one or more ministries or a 
national agency, and powers to carry out controls exercised by the 
regional or municipal authorities, whereby the central authorities 
play a coordinating role. The powers to carry out certain controls, 
notably those concerning imports, are sometimes retained by the 
central authorities. 
In certain Member States the services are currently being reformed (transfer 
or reallocation of responsibilities). 
It should be noted that in several countries the larger municipalities exercise 
control on their territory using their own services. In most cases it was not 
possible to look into the operation of these services. 
The distribution of powers between several ministries sometimes leads to the 
risk of ambiguities as to responsibilities (with absence of controls in certain 
sectors or overlapping powers with redundant controls in others). This means 
that better coordination between these ministries is required. In certain cases 
collaboration between ministries has been observed. 
Investment of regional or local authorities with control responsibilities 
makes the need for coordination from the central and regional authorities all 
the greater. 
2.2 Staff training 
According to the information received it seems that in most countries there is 
a two-tier recruitment system for personnel " on the ground" , depending on 
the nature of the control tasks: 
I. university graduates: chemists, food chemists, "environmental 
health officers", engineers, doctors, pharmacists, veterinary 
surgeons: for the career of "inspector", generally responsible for 
controlling industry-level establishments, 
II. secondary (or intermediate) education supplemented by vocational 
training of variable duration depending on the country concerned, 
provided by institutes or academies or by the administration itself, 
and followed by practical training: for the career of "controller", 
generally responsible for inspecting the retail trade or restaurants 
and for taking samples. In at least three countries which have a 
food police force, police officers are recruited also. 
In quite a number of countries the level of recruitment seems to have been 
unique for a number of years, viz. secondary education followed by an 
environmental health officer diploma obtained after three or four years study 
in a university institute specialised in environmental sciences. 
This training pattern explains why as a rule staff are not responsible for food 
control alone but also for other environmental domains. 
It seems that not all countries have precise requirements as to basic training. 
There is a need for additional information in this area, notably on the content 
of vocational training (subjects taught, practical tuition). 
Continuing training, while available in all the Member States, is more 
widespread in some than in others. It is provided both by the ministries and 
by the regional authorities. The main topic seems to be HACCP (Hazard 
analysis and critical control points) in the undertakings, where certain 
countries have made more progress than others. In several countries the 
controllers have stated that until now they have been inadequately schooled 
in this area. 
A more in-depth study of the topics addressed in continuing training is 
desirable, mainly with a view to pooling information between Member 
States. 
The exchanges of officials between Member State administrations in the 
field of the internal market (Karolus Programme) seem to be appreciated, by 
allowing knowledge and a reflexion concerning the control systems. 
2.3 Budget -human resources 
Depending on the country, funds are provided by national, regional- or local 
authorities or by a combination thereof. 
Except for special cases controls are generally free of charge but certain 
countries charge fees for health approvals (agréments sanitaires), for the 
taking of samples and analyses, for inspections or for a combination of these 
activities. 
It is difficult to compare the inspection budgets in the different Member 
States. This is because the calculations do not always take the same elements 
into consideration and because the controllers' activities are not normally 
confined to food inspections alone. 
In most cases the authorities visited acknowledged that they were short of 
staff. Additional information on human resources in all countries is required. 
2.4 Priorities 
In most countries the central authorities or committees of regional authorities 
lay down priorities, notably taking into account the results of controls 
performed by the implementing authorities, coordinated European 
programmes and the opinions of scientific committees. The role played by 
the implementing authorities in laying down central priorities varies from 
country to country. There were many cases of delays in the transmission of 
the results of controls by the implementing authorities to the central or 
regional authorities: these delays may adversely affect the definition of 
priorities. They also lead to delays in transmitting the Member States' food 
control statistics to the Commission. 
Consideration of the risks, provided for in Community legislation (Directive 
93/43/EEC) on the hygiene of foodstuffs), is one of the criteria for selecting 
priorities and is applied more consistently in some Member States than in 
others. The priorities take the form of annual inspection and sampling plans, 
targeted actions, monthly campaigns and coordinated European programmes. 
Besides the central priorities - issued in the form of instructions or 
recommendations depending on the country's administrative system -
priorities adapted to regional or local needs are determined in all countries. 
The visits revealed that catering establishments (notably in nurseries, schools 
and retirement homes) are a priority control area in the Member States. 
Some countries have developed and adopted a risk evaluation system in 
planning controls of establishments on the basis of several criteria for 
determining the risk level and the frequency of controls. This system 
requires sophisticated information technology and the prior registration of all 
establishments. It looks as though it will be developed in all the Member 
States in the near or not so near future and will replace the traditional and 
more subjective systems, based on the controllers' own experience with the 
establishments, their personal hunches and familiarity with .the socio­
economic structure of the regions, including the at-risk trades. 
2.5 Registration and authorisation of establishments 
Member States differ considerably in regard to the registration and 
authorisation of establishments. 
In most Member States, health approval (agrément sanitaire) is required 
(following submission of a dossier to the control authorities and an 
inspection visit from these authorities) for industrial plants or for certain 
categories, while a health authorisation (autorisation sanitaire) is necessary 
(issued by the control authorities) for retail establishments (fixed or 
itinerant), for catering establishments, import businesses, etc. But such 
requirements do not seem to exist in all countries, or they are just in the 
process of being introduced. Failing these obligations, an inventary and an 
adequate control of these establishements can not be ensured. 
Depending on the country's administrative structure: 
I. the central authorities (one of the ministries) or the regional 
authorities deliver the health approvals; this approach makes for 
greater uniformity; 
II. the local authorities (including the municipalities) deliver the 
health authorisations and, in certain countries, the health 
approvals, which may adversely affect uniformity. 
Some progress has been noted in certain countries or local units where 
information technology has been used to inventory all the establishments and 
their particulars and inspection reports, and also to transmit the lists to the 
other control authorities. On the other hand, other services visited 
acknowledged that they cannot keep tabs on all the establishments which 
have to be controlled (notably in the catering sector). 
A more in-depth study of this dossier will be required. 
2.6 Frequency of controls 
Risk assessment, mentioned at 2.4, is one of the criteria applied in 
determining the frequency of controls. This criterion is most developed in 
countries that have introduced a computerised system in planning their 
controls. 
In most countries the central authorities recommend or prescribe a frequency 
which may range from once monthly for the production of perishable 
foodstuffs to once every two years for the storage of preserved foods. 
However, the visits and the control statistics have shown that, largely 
because of manpower shortages, it has not been possible to meet the 
objectives in several countries and that as a result there are considerable 
differences in "control pressure" between Member States. . " 
2.7 Powers of the control authorities 
The visits showed that in all countries the officials responsible for controls 
had the necessary powers to enforce the rules and to take appropriate action 
in the event of health hazards, accompanied by police powers in certain 
countries. 
The powers to confiscate insanitary food are not always invested in the 
authority responsible for the control but sometimes too in the health 
authority, which must issue an opinion. The same applies to decisions to 
destroy confiscated food, which in certain countries is a prerogative of the 
courts, and to the closure of insanitary establishments, where in certain 
countries the decision must be confirmed by the health authority or by a 
municipal authority. 
In all countries, infringements - depending on their severity -may bring 
warnings, cautions, and administrative or penal sanctions in their wake. 
However - while several countries tend more to a punitive approach - others 
put the focus on education, except in the case of severe infringements. The 
educational approach is designed to correct errors and this is reflected in the 
statistics on infringements. The general trend seems to be in the educational 
direction. 
2.8 Shortcomings in controls 
(1) HACCP in the undertakings 
As in the case of HACCP training of inspectors, the introduction of the 
system into the undertakings is behind schedule to a varying extent in all the 
Member States (however, a few States envisage its general introduction in 
1997), according to the declarations received from the control authorities and 
a number of punctual visits carried out. 
Small firms, catering establishments and above all retail stores (where 
HACCP is almost non-existent in the EU) trail far behind the leading 
industrial firms. Certain Member States are considering enforcing guides of 
good conduct instead of HACCP for the retail trade. However, preparation of 
these guides of good conduct is not equally advanced in all the Member 
States. 
In certain Member States with an education-oriented approach to control, the 
officials help in the preparation of HACCP systems in small undertakings 
and businesses. However, this assistance may clash with their role as 
supervisors. 
The delay in implementing HACCP means in fact that there has been failure 
to comply with the requirements of Directive 93/43/EEC on the hygiene of 
foodstuffs. 
(2) Other topics 
In numerous Member States controls of chemical risks - notably as regards 
additives, contaminants and materials in contact with food - have proven 
inadequate. 
2.9 Control of imported food 
There are considerable differences between the Member States, mainly 
because they apply different systems, viz.: 
I. control at Community entry points, whereby the degree of 
collaboration with the customs authorities differs from country to 
country: there may be systematic document controls or controls 
limited to certain foodstuffs, with batches being analysed at 
random or in the event of suspicion only, in respect of certain 
foodstuffs or for all foodstuffs; 
II. control of food once it has been placed on the market, on the same 
basis as EC-produced food; 
III. application of the principle that liability lies primarily with the 
importer, with verification of the internal control systems (notably 
HACCP) established by the importer in order to check whether the 
imported food complies with Community and national provisions. 
As a result "control pressure" in respect of imported food differs from 
country to country', and in certain cases leads to a laxer treatment of imported 
food than Community food. 
This dossier should be the subject of a more in-depth study on the ground. 
2.10 Information of control officials - consumer information 
The level of information of officials - notably as regards legislation and 
changes in the law, case law, inspection and. sampling procedures 
(sometimes with a breakdown by type of establishment and foodstuff) -
varies from one country to another. The same applies to food safety 
information for consumers. 
A more in-depth study of these areas would be desirable with a view mainly 
to pooling information between Member States. 
2.11 Training of food sector workers 
In certain countries, food sector workers must have received vocational 
training. In some countries the control authorities are involved in training in 
the field of worker hygiene, notably by organising courses or conferences or 
publishing brochures. More information is needed on this topic. 
2.12 Evaluation of the control services 
While in certain countries performance evaluation of the control services by 
the central authorities is limited - sometimes for constitutional reasons - to 
examining the control statistics provided by these services, other countries 
have introduced an audit system, currently at internal level. This system is 
being developed in parallel with quality assurance in the administration. 
These trends should be followed up. 
2.13 Analysis laboratories 
The official controls generally rely on public laboratories, but private 
laboratories are also involved. 
The laboratory accreditation process provided for in Directive 93/99/EEC is 
more developed in some countries than in others, with the result that in some 
cases it is doubtful whether the deadline of 1 November 1998 can be met. 
The accreditation bodies are generally private organisations and in many 
cases laboratories are accredited on a sector of activity basis. Some countries 
have opted for approval of isolated tests, others for approval of batteries of 
tests. 
In many countries the laboratories perform private analyses as well as 
official ones, which means that conflicts of interest are not totally ruled out. 
The role played by the laboratories in determining control priorities varies 
from country to country. 
10 
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 
The results of the first round of visits indicate that, in compliance with Article 5 of 
Directive 93/99/EEC, these visits should be continued with a view to obtaining 
additional information and to investigating in greater depth certain aspects in several 
domains, with an eye to a more thorough assessment of the control systems, notably 
at grass roots level: 
3.1 Additional information and updates 
I. powers and activities of certain ministries, services and coordination 
committees; 
II. activities of the municipalities in certain countries; 
III. progress in laboratory accreditation. 
All major changes in the administrative structure of a country's control services 
should give rise to a new evaluation mission. 
3.2 In-depth study of certain topics 
I. training of control officials, continuing training; 
II. information and instructions provided by the control authorities to their 
officials; consumer information; 
III. evaluation of the control services by the national or regional authorities; 
IV. authorisation and registration of the establishments subject to controls; 
V. training of food sector workers. 
3.3 Evaluation of control activities on the ground, in the company of the 
officials 
I. control of imported food; 
II. control of HACCP in the undertakings; 
III. controls relating to additives, contaminants, materials in contact with 
food; 
IV. controls in priority sectors such as catering establishments;, 
V. control procedures relating to undertakings and taking of food samples. 
11 
Hence as from January 1998 it is planned to organise a one-week visit to each 
Member State with a view to evaluating control activities on the ground, besides 
obtaining additional information and studying certain subjects in greater depth. 
Moreover, it should be possible to organise urgent missions at any moment, notably 
in the following cases: 
I. to accompany control officials in visits to establishments affected by a 
rapid alert and, possibly, other establishments in the same sector; 
II. to follow up the adoption of a safeguard clause concerning a third country, 
in application of Article 10 of Directive 93/43/EEC on the hygiene of 
foodstuffs. 
12 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 37 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 10 17 15 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-061-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-30822-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
\6