Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on foods and food ingredients authorised for treatment with ionising radiation in the Community"
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: World Health Organisation, foodstuff, irradiation, perishable goods, public health

C 48/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament and the Council on foods and food ingredients authorised for
treatment with ionising radiation in the Community’

(2002/C 48/21)

On 8 August 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21November 2001. The rapporteur was Mr
Jaschick.

At its 386th plenary session of (meeting of 28 November 2001) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 104 votes to four with five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Food is only rarely consumed immediately at the place
it was produced. During the transport and storage which is
usually necessary foodstuffs are subject to influences which
can cause them to deteriorate or even perish.

1.2.
The traditional methods used to prevent this are, inter
alia, drying, heating, cooling and smoking, as well as deep
freezing or storage in a controlled atmosphere (CA). The
treatment of foodstuffs with ionising radiation also aims to
reduce the number of micro-organisms or parasites present or
to inhibit sprouting. Irradiation can also make it possible to
comply with quarantine regulations applicable to fruit (USA)
or honey (South Africa) aimed at preventing the introduction
of insects or pathogenic organisms into areas which are free of
them.

Since March 2001 all

1.3.
irradiated food has had to
comply with Directives 1999/2/EC and 1999/3/EC. Directive
1992/2/EC requires the Commission to forward a proposal by
the end of 2000 completing the positive list of foodstuffs
authorised for irradiation. Article 4(4) of Directive 1999/2/EC
continues to apply, however; it provides that under certain
conditions existing authorisations for irradiated foodstuffs may
continue in force until the positive list has been completed.

the irradiation of

Under this Directive,

1.4.
foodstuffs
and food ingredients may be authorised only if there is a
technological need, if the process can be shown to pose no
health hazard, if there is a benefit to the consumer and as long
as irradiation is not used as a substitute for good hygiene
practices or health measures.

1.5. Many experts and representatives from consumer
organisations, the industry, the scientific and research com-
munity and international bodies have already been canvassed
for their views. The results of these hearings are both complex
and controversial.

1.5.1.
Consumer organisations consider irradiation to be
unnecessary as long as good hygiene practices are followed.
They feel that this technology should be used only very
restrictively, if at all.

1.5.2. Many food producers are against the inclusion of
their products in a positive list, fearing damage to the product
image.

1.5.3.
The FAO/IAEA/WHO International Consultative
Group on Food Irradiation, research establishments and the
irradiation industry itself advocate the authorisation of at least
those products in respect of which the Scientific Committee
on Food has issued a favourable opinion. They feel that
irradiation is the best substitute for the fumigation of fruit and
vegetables and that generally it can replace the use of dangerous
chemicals. The opinion of the US government, given in the
context of the EU consultation process, particularly stresses
that there are no scientifically proven or valid reasons for
restricting the irradiation of food. This assertion is, however,
strongly disputed in the opinion of the Food Commission (UK)
Ltd.

Now the Commission intends to conduct a broader

1.6.
debate on the basis of its Communication (1).

(1) COM(2001) 472.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/87

2. General comments

2.1.
The European Economic and Social Committee (ESC)
welcomes the Commission’s very informative communication.
It provides an excellent summary of the reactions to the
Commission’s consultation paper, setting out the views of the
groups consulted.

The ESC refers to its original Opinion of 31 May

2.2.
1989 (1) and reiterates the view expressed in it:

‘In the above circumstances, the Committee deems it
inadvisable to endorse a Community framework for food
ionisation, apart from ionisation of spices, until such time
as the EC Commission has submitted conclusive evidence
as to the technical need for and acceptability on health
grounds of this preservation method.’

2.2.1. With regard to technical need: The prevailing scien-
tific view is that the irradiation of food is technically necessary
and worthwhile, particularly where chemical treatment has
hitherto been used for the same purpose. Informed consumers
are critical of the use of chemicals because of possible residues.

2.2.2. With regard to the absence of any risk to human
health: The irradiation of foodstuffs does not make the treated
foodstuffs radioactive (i.e.
itself emit
radiation). Rather, sufficient irradiation of food destroys harm-
ful organisms (mould, pathogens, parasites) and thus con-
tributes to better protection of the consumer. The current
scientific view is that
irradiation is safe. The WHO has
repeatedly stated that food irradiation poses no health hazard.

the food does not

2.2.3. With regard to the ESC’s call (of 31 May 1989) for a
report on the various international organisations’ attitudes to
food irradiation.

2.2.3.1.
The consumer associations (BEUC, CI) are very
critical of food irradiation. They feel that, where proper hygiene
practices are followed, irradiation is neither technologically
worthwhile nor necessary. The technology should be used as
restrictively as possible, if at all.

2.2.3.2.
reducing the microbial load in foodstuffs.

The WHO is in favour of irradiation as a way of

2.2.3.3.
restrictions on the irradiation of certain foodstuffs.

The JECFI and the Codex Alimentarius impose no

(1) OJ C 89, 31.7.1989, p. 14, rapporteur: Mr Gardner.

2.2.3.4.
The FAO/IAEA/WHO argue that foodstuffs treated
with a dose of radiation geared to a particular technical
purpose not only can be consumed without risk but are also
nutritionally adequate.

2.2.4. With regard to the ESC’s call for a report on the
further development of alternative methods of preservation:
No such report has been drawn up, as no alternative preser-
vation methods have so far been fully developed.

2.2.5. With regard to the ESC’s call for a report on ways
of identifying foodstuffs which have undergone irradiation:
Analytical procedures now exist which are capable of ident-
ifying virtually every case of food irradiation. Five methods are
already CEN standards and further methods are currently being
tested (2).

2.2.6. With regard to the ESC’s call
for a report on
international irradiation practices: No such report is available.
The quantity of foodstuffs currently undergoing irradiation
worldwide each year is estimated at 200 000 t.

2.2.7. With regard to the ESC’s call for a report on the
import of products which are frequently subject to irradiation:
No such report is available to the rapporteur. Irradiated frogs’
legs are, for example, known to be imported into France from
third countries. Under existing law official investigations by
the Commission will be possible only in the future.

2.2.8. With regard to the ESC’s call
for a report on
establishing the capacity of irradiation facilities installed in the
Community: Under existing law the Member States have to
register all authorised facilities. An initial list of such registered
facilities is now available (3).

2.2.9. With regard to the ESC’s call for a report on the
progress of discussions in the Member States, the Commission
and the Council: No such detailed report is available to the
rapporteur. The fact that in its communication the Com-
mission states that it is not yet in a position to draw up
the positive list called for in Directive 1999/2/EC suggests,
however, that the progress of the discussions has to some
extent been unsatisfactory.

(2) These tests are widely available, as they, together with other
methods, have been adopted in Germany as DIN standards and
are used by the inspecting authorities.

(3) According to expert opinion, the occupational radiation exposure
of workers in irradiation plants is generally below normal
background radiation levels because of the concrete shielding
used.

C 48/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

3. Recommendations

In its Opinion of 31 May 1989 (see point 2.2) the
3.1.
Committee deems it inadvisable to approve a Community
framework for food ionisation, apart from ionisation of spices,
until certain evidence and reports have become available.

Some of the evidence and reports called for by the

3.2.
Committee (points 2.2.1 to 2.2.9) is now available.

consumption are therefore in a position to make buying
decisions based on full knowledge of the facts or to decide not
to buy.

3.4.
The Committee feels that, in view of the concerns and
reservations harboured by some sections of the population,
generalised food irradiation should be handled cautiously. It
should, however, be borne in mind that, according to prevail-
ing scientific opinion, ionising irradiation of foodstuffs poses
no danger to the consumer.

Food which has undergone irradiation or which con-
3.3.
tains irradiated ingredients is required to be labelled. Practicable
analytical procedures exist for the identification of irradiated
food. Informed consumers or those interested in sustainable

The Committee underlines the importance of

the
3.5.
forthcoming EEA rules and expects the open and wide-ranging
discussion taking place in the EU also to be conducted in all
the EEA countries.

Brussels, 28 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS