Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls" (COM(2003) 52 final — 2003/0030 (COD))
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal nutrition, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/25

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls’

(COM(2003) 52 final — 2003/0030 (COD))

(2003/C 234/08)

On 28 February 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 37, 95 and 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 June 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Chiriaco.

At its 401st Plenary Session on 16 and 17 July 2003 (meeting of 16 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.

Introduction

The White Paper on Food Safety (1), published by the
1.1.
Commission in 2000, listed deficiencies, contradictions and
loopholes in current European regulations among the causes
of the repeated food crises over the last few decades. It pointed
in particular to the limitations of a sector-based approach and
the significant differences in the way Member States applied
the regulations and organised their control systems.

1.2.
The new regulations being adopted by the EU, in line
with the contents of the White Paper, are based on the priority
of an integrated approach to food safety.

1.3.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the
European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures
in matters of food safety (2), is an essential reference point for
the current proposal. It also has to be seen in conjunction with
the Proposal for a Regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3),
which is being adopted by the European Parliament and the
Council, and the Proposal for a Regulation laying down
specific rules for the organisation of official controls on
products of animal origin intended for human consumption,
which was adopted by the Commission on 11 July 2002 (4).
This package has now been completed by the new proposal
on feed hygiene, on which the EESC will issue an opinion in
the near future (5).

and integrated approach to controlling the feed and food
production system. The production process is considered in
its entirety, both as a production chain and in terms of the
various components making up the product (feed, additives,
food) in order to control the entire production cycle from farm
(or sea) to table.

it clearly lays out

1.5. Moreover,
the Member States’
responsibility to ensure that business operators apply Com-
munity legislation correctly by implementing an adequate
system of controls. It also outlines methods and timescales for
Commission services to conduct inspections and audits to
assess Member States’ capacity to face up to this responsibility.

The system of controls and related activities are already
1.6.
adapting to the priority of food safety. Some Member States
have implemented new institutional and procedural solutions,
or established Agencies, while at European level the European
Food Safety Authority was set up. However, the competences
and characteristics of the national Agencies vary, while the
EFSA only has scientific consultative powers to evaluate risks
and inform the public. Monitoring and control activities are
left to the Commission’s services, and in particular the Food
and Veterinary Office.

1.4.
of

The proposal substantiates the fundamental principle
food safety through a comprehensive

the priority of

( 1) COM(1999) 719 final, EESC Opinion in OJ C 204 of 18.7.2000.
( 2) OJ L 31 of 1.2.2002.
( 3) EESC Opinion in OJ C 155 of 29.5.2001.
( 4) COM(2002) 377 final, OJ C 262 of 29.10.2002, OJ C 95 of

23.4.2003.

( 5) COM(2003) 180 final.

1.7.
Building on the basic principles of Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002, under the new strategy the Commission will
draw up common guidelines for the organisation of control
systems and carry out audits in each Member State to check
their effectiveness and efficiency as well as their consistency
with national control plans.

C 234/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2003

the Regulation,

the entry into force of

Each Member State will be required, within six months
1.8.
of
to prepare a
multiannual integrated control plan. Each Member State will
also present an annual report on controls carried out and
results achieved. The reports by all the Member States will form
the basis of the annual report presented by the Commission to
the European Parliament and the Council.

1.9.
To be effective, this system of controls should be
applied not only to Member States and applicant countries
(which will be full members by the time it enters into force),
but also to imports from countries which have bilateral
agreements with the EU in veterinary and phytosanitary fields,
those with special agreements (Norway, Iceland and the Faeroe
Islands) and other third countries. Besides the European
dimension, there is also an international dimension to harmon-
ising controls.

1.10.
For countries which have bilateral agreements with
the EU in veterinary and phytosanitary fields, the measures
negotiated should guarantee an equivalent level of consumer
protection and animal health. The Commission is, however,
planning special treatment for the less developed countries.
They will not receive dispensations but provision will be
made for assisting their control programmes, training and if
necessary missions of Community experts to the area.

The implementation of the proposal’s initiatives to
1.11.
improve the level of food safety control requires a significant
increase in financial support — from 3 to 16 million EUR.

1.12.
There should be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuas-
ive’ sanctions for infringements, based on a minimum safety
standard. Criminal sanctions (Article 55) should be used for
serious infringements (defined as criminal offences in Annex VI
if they are committed intentionally or through gross negli-
gence).

1.15.
The Committee is aware of the inspections currently
being carried out with the help of experts at European and
national level, both by Member States and applicant countries.
This comprehensive survey of the situation should allow
appropriate measures to be identified.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee approves the proposal’s approach,
which is appropriate as regards the Internal Market and the
need for improved planning and harmonisation of control
systems within the Community, in the interests of consumer
protection.

is therefore vital

2.2.
The focus on food safety and the integrated approach
respond to the need to revive and strengthen consumer
confidence, which has been shaken by the repeated food crises.
to establish effective and permanent
It
relations with the European Food Authority to draw up
control priorities on the basis of risk evaluation, as well as
consolidating the European Food and Veterinary Office’s
operational and coordination capacity. A transparent approach
based on partnership is also essential, so as to spread
information to consumers.

2.2.1.
The Food Authority will become fully operational
during the first half of 2003, while the Food and Veterinary
Office still needs to be given adequate resources to increase
the incisiveness of its actions, as the Committee has pointed
out several times. The Committee also stresses the need to
establish a strong synergy and communication capacity
between Community bodies and the competent national
authorities.

2.3.
The proposal includes a number of welcome inno-
vations and features that should make the system more
effective:

1.13.
In the case of serious default by a Member State (e.g.
inefficiency or inadequacy of the system of controls), the
safeguard measures laid down by Regulation (EC) No 178/
2002 will be reinforced, if need be by implementing protective
measures such as suspending product marketing.

a)

Better definition of the responsibilities of Member States
regarding their direct competence as ‘controllers’, both as
‘holders of control powers’ and as ‘guarantors of public
health’, in the context of business operator responsibility,
as set down in the hygiene regulations.

1.14.
Lastly, it must be stressed that the system of controls
will be implemented in a Union of 25 members, as the
regulation will also apply to the 10 new Member States. This
will require a great deal of harmonisation work in order to
ensure free movement in the internal market with all the
necessary food safety guarantees.

b) Operator and importer responsibility as a means of
simplifying control procedures, encouraging effective
‘self-regulation’ of respect for hygiene and safety regu-
lations combined with adequate sanctions for non-
compliance, as well as incentives in cases where voluntary
certification systems can ease the burden on the com-
petent authorities.

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/27

c)

Training of control staff — a principle that should
underpin all new legislation on foodstuffs, and other
areas too.

2.5.1.
Specific measures will also have to be considered for
small businesses operating at local and craft level, to promote
conformity to standards.

d)

Standardisation of roles, principles and measures adopted.

e)

f)

g)

Establishing the principle of ‘support control’ for the
control capacity and feasibility of national plans. This
method makes the ‘subsidiarity’ principle more acceptable
by providing practical ‘instructive’ guidance.

Optimising the existing system of controls and harmonis-
ing national systems.

Formalising the role of inspectors (this already exists but
has not been formally defined) and clarifying training
areas in Annex II.

h) Quantifying resources and identifying Community budget
items and sources of finance (financial record sheet and
Articles 26-29).

i)

j)

The principle of programming through national multi-
annual control plans and annual reports
(Title V,
Articles 42-44).

A single definition of crimes justifying criminal sanctions
(Annex VI), as current systems of sanctions, which are
primarily administrative, have not always been able to
ensure compliance with regulations (Recital 44).

2.4.
The adaptation of national control systems to their
new functions will vary according to the efficiency and
operative equipment of the existing systems, the existence of
an effective partnership system with the players in the sector,
as well as their different levels of integrated approach; some
Member States designate control competences to different
is
authorities, which are not always well coordinated. It
therefore essential to carry out a preliminary audit with the
various Member States in order to examine the current system
of controls and identify areas where adjustments are necessary
in good time.

2.6.
As regards crisis management and contingency plans
(Article 13), working methods need to be updated in view of
recent crises. Moreover, control methods, in particular for
feed, must also take account of natural disasters. Disasters such
as fires, floods, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes can have a
serious effect on foodstuffs. At the same time, these events are
responsible for a series of complications, mainly due to the
ensuing state of emergency, making it easy to avoid even the
most basic protection guidelines.

As regards controls on imports from third countries
2.7.
(Title II, Chapter V),
international cooperation needs to be
reinforced in the light of the Codex Alimentarius and the
WTO/SPS Code. A distinction must also be made between
third countries depending on their level of development,
paying particular attention to technical and scientific assistance
to the least developed countries in order to facilitate respect
for Community rules while taking care not to create new
barriers. The methods identified in point 34 of the Explanatory
Memorandum and spelt out in the body of the regulation are
important for avoiding imports of contaminated raw materials
and guaranteeing the safety of European consumers. However,
these countries have often not mastered the use of pesticides,
chemical fertilisers, anabolic substances, etc., in particular as
regards cereals, feed and livestock products, and need technical
and scientific assistance to implement controls.

2.7.1.
Contamination may also be due to subsequent illegal
tampering (feed being ‘cut’) outside the country of origin. If
objections over the cargo’s conformity to European health
and hygiene regulations are raised following checks at the
destination, the supplying country could suffer serious conse-
quences.

2.5.
Particular attention and adequate resources must be
dedicated to the situation in the new Member States, which
have had to adapt their systems to the acquis communautaire. At
the end of the monitoring work being carried out in these
countries, the Committee invites the Commission to identify
key points in the system of controls requiring specific
measures, in particular regarding staff provision and training,
the quality and quantity of laboratories and their level of
resources.

As part of cooperation with developing countries,
2.7.2.
support structures are needed to check the required conformity
at the point of origin, and if need be useful procedures and
solutions should be suggested in order to encourage the
development of fragile local production structures. Forms of
the
control specifically identifying the responsibilities of
various parties, including importers, should also be provided
for.

C 234/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2003

2.8.
The Committee believes that the public control system
should cooperate with quality, safety and traceability certifi-
cation systems implemented voluntarily by operators in the
sector. This means that multidisciplinary safety and quality
training must not only cover inspection staff (Article 51 and
Annex 2), but also all
the actors involved in the food
chain. Besides business operators, this includes processing,
distribution and storage staff, as reflected in the proposed
regulations on hygiene. A preventative approach and the
attribution of responsibility are vital to increasing the effective-
ness of the public control system, reducing costs and allowing
the competent authorities to concentrate on priority risks.

2.8.1.
To ensure better consumer protection, synergy
between public control systems, self-regulation and traceability
procedures implemented by food operators should be encour-
aged, particularly if these are combined with voluntary certifi-
Interesting experiences are under way in
cation systems.
some Member States concerning the negotiation of sector
agreements (traceability) on food safety and quality, and these
can be benchmarked (1). However, these national voluntary
systems do not benefit from the same ‘mutual recognition’ as
official controls. This problem should be addressed with a
view to harmonising criteria at European level, so that
consumers in other Member States can also benefit from these
schemes.

Socio-occupational organisations in the sector and
2.8.2.
consumer associations can make a useful contribution to
training operators
and spreading information on the
implemented system of controls. However, transparency of
the schemes remains essential, as well as the involvement of
players in the sector in dialogue and partnership.

2.9.
A useful synergy could be established by including
food safety and quality criteria in the review of the CAP, even
though the proposed Regulation delegates COM controls to
the existing specific system. The Committee notes that the
‘cross-compliance’ provisions in the Proposal for a Regulation
on direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural
Policy (2) should play a preventative role and reduce ex-post
evaluations, as they make eligibility for aid dependant on
conformity to the main regulations regarding public, animal

and plant health and animal welfare, with help from an ad hoc
farm advisory service. In its opinion the EESC recommends
making farm controls voluntary and extending them to cover
‘not only compliance with the statutory standards, but also
continuous improvement of the economic, environmental
and social situation of
farms’, by providing appropriate
incentives (3). To establish a useful synergy, communication
and cooperation should be established between the different
responsible authorities and the various players.

2.10.
The Committee welcomes the guidelines for coordi-
nation procedures when more than one organisation is
involved in controls and above all
in cases of delegation
(Recitals 15 and 16 and Article 5), as well as the harmonisation
of reference laboratories, particularly when controls are del-
egated to non-governmental organisations (Recitals 17-21),
which must be duly accredited and must have their operations
monitored.

It is essential to harmonise the conditions and rules
2.10.1.
regulating the bodies carrying out the controls at Community
level, as well as standardising sampling and analysis methods
and rates. This means stepping up the role of Community
reference laboratories and the Joint Research Centre, and
increasing the resources earmarked for this in the sixth
framework programme.

2.11.
In particular in the light of the forthcoming enlarge-
ment to a Europe with 25 members, careful attention should
be given to administrative assistance and cooperation between
Member States (Title IV), intensifying exchanges of experiences
and ‘best practices’ among control staff. The aim of the
proposal is not to reinforce the central EU body — the Food
and Veterinary Office — numerically, but to consolidate its
capacity to operate in a network, coordinating and harmonis-
ing control practices.

2.12.
As the financing of official controls is a matter of
subsidiarity, we need to avoid distortions to competition
by establishing joint principles, particularly concerning the
inspection fees that will be levied on operators. The provisions
in Article 28 regarding fees are very general; the Committee
therefore recommends monitoring the fees applied in the
Member States to check that they are compatible and to
identify more precise harmonisation methods. Checks also
need to be carried out on the costs affecting different operators

( 1) Cf. for example the National Agreement on Food Safety and
Quality signed by agricultural, trade union, employers’ and trade
organisations and the Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry,
at the CNEL (Italian Economic and Labour Council), on 8.7.2002.

( 2) COM(2003) 23 final — 2003/0006 (CNS).

(3) Ibid 4.3.2.

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/29

in the sector, from primary production to final distribution, to
avoid forms of discrimination. It is clear however that the
costs of controls in cases of non-conformity should normally
fall on those responsible, while incentive schemes should also
be considered if voluntary conformity certification is carried
out.

As regards the organisation of local public control
2.13.
systems, reference laboratories should be designated at regional
level for local services and initially co-financed by Community
and national funds.

2.14.
The Committee takes note of the repeal of a series of
directives (Article 61) which are incorporated in or completed
by the present regulation; it nevertheless recommends checking
thoroughly whether the measures correspond, particularly as
regards the directive on the financing of veterinary controls
(96/43/EC), to avoid distortions to competition due to different
application by Member States.

3. Conclusions

3.1.
The Committee supports the integrated approach of
the Commission proposal and considers the proposal a useful

contribution to making food safety a more tangible priority of
the official system of controls for feed and foodstuffs.

3.2.
The Committee considers that to guarantee the success
of the integrated approach, a strong partnership between the
various players in the sector should be promoted, based on
mutual trust and transparency, and an appropriate balance
between official control systems and self-regulation, responsi-
bility and voluntary certification on the part of producers.

The Committee considers that food safety in the
3.3.
European Union cannot be guaranteed without promoting
and strengthening cooperation with third countries through
agreements and specific measures, in line with their level of
development, as well as international cooperation with regard
to the Codex Alimentarius, by strengthening the EU’s presence
in this field, and the WTO.

The Committee recommends paying particular atten-
3.4.
tion to harmonising controls in the applicant countries and
promoting training and information activities, not only for
control staff, but also for the players in the various sectors and
the general public.

Brussels, 16 July 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH