REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL On the overall operation of official controls in the Member States on food safety, animal health and animal welfare, and plant health
Date: 2013-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative check, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, food inspection, food safety, health control, plant health control, traceability, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0681 - EN











|



52013DC0681

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL On the overall operation of official controls in the Member States on food safety, animal health and animal welfare, and plant health /* COM/2013/0681 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
1........... Introduction. 3
2........... Review of annual
reports of Member States. 3
3........... Commission's control
activities in the Member States. 7
4........... Other sources of
information on controls in the Member States. 15
5........... Outcome of official
monitoring. 17
6........... Commission follow-up
and enforcement 17
7........... International trade. 18
8........... Conclusions. 18
1.           Introduction
Article
44 (4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004[1] requires the Commission to
establish, and submit to the European Parliament and Council, an annual report
on the overall operation of controls in the Member States in the light of:
(a)            
the annual reports submitted by the national
authorities on their control activities;
(b)           
Commission controls carried out in the Member States;
(c)            
any other relevant information.
This is the third such report submitted by the Commission. Its main
sources are: (a) the annual reports from the Member States for 2010; (b) the
results of the Commission’s own control activities; and (c) other relevant
information related to controls, including:
·       
  reports from Member States to the Commission on
controls in specific sectors;
·       
  the results of EU rapid alert systems;
·       
  Commission enforcement actions (including
infringement cases) related to observed non-compliances in the Member States;
·       
  reports from international standard setting
bodies.
In particular in relation to the results of the Commission's own
controls and other relevant information, the report contains an account of
control information as and when it becomes available, thus striving to be as
up-to-date as possible on the delivery of official controls in the Union.
2.           Review
of annual reports of Member States
The basic principles of EU feed and food law are laid down in
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002[2].
 Under this Regulation, the primary responsibility for ensuring that food is
safe rests with the food/feed businesses right along the food/feed chain, from
primary production to the point of final sale to the consumer. Regulation (EC)
No 834/2007 contains requirements for organic production and the labelling of
organic products[3].
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 contains requirements for quality schemes for
agricultural products and foodstuffs[4].
Member States, are obliged to monitor and verify that business
operators fulfil the requirements of EU law on food and feed safety (including
animal health, animal welfare and plant health), on organic production and on
quality schemes. They are required to operate systems of official controls for
this purpose.
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 sets out how these controls should be
organised and operated. In essence, it lays down general rules for the
performance of official controls to verify compliance with EU rules on food and
feed. In particular, it requires Member States to verify compliance by
operators with specific legal requirements, and that goods on the EU market
(either EU produced, or imports) are in compliance with these requirements. 
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 also sets out rules on controls by the
Commission services on Member States to verify that they comply with the
obligations laid down in food and feed legislation. Member States must
establish and implement multi-annual national control plans (MANCP) to give
effect to the requirements of the Regulation, and are required to submit to the
Commission an annual report on the implementation of these plans.
The first Commission Annual Report (COM (2010) 441) pointed to a
large variability between MS reports in both structure and content making
comparison difficult. Last year's report (COM(2012)122) indicated that the
comparability of data had improved due to dialogue between the Commission and Member States, and the experience acquired by the latter.
To facilitate the comparability of Member States annual reports, a
model for an "Executive Summary" was developed in conjunction with
Member States, based on the existing guidelines for the Annual Report
(Commission Decision 2008/654/EC). These summaries are currently used by the
majority of Member States. Global feedback is being provided to Member States
on an ongoing basis.  This is being supplemented by individual feedback in
writing.
Within the context of the review of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004,
consideration was given to the Article 44 provisions for Member States' reports
and the Commission annual reports. The legislative proposal includes provisions
for the Commission to adopt uniform templates for information and data to be
provided by Member States in relation to: amendments to
their control plans; the results of official controls performed in the previous
year; the type and number of cases of non-compliance; and measures taken to
ensure the effective operation of multi-annual national control plans,
including enforcement actions, and the results of such measures.
An outline of the Commission analysis of the 2010 annual reports
from Member States is described below to the extent that the reports allowed
synthesis of the information provided.  
Overall
effectiveness of controls
Annual reports demonstrate that most Member States have in place
strategic, operational or compliance indicators to assess performance, although
there is considerable variation in the sectors covered, and the scope of the
statement on overall effectiveness. Data are often provided in relation to the
inspection process, such as the number of planned inspections carried out,
rather than related to the outcome of official controls.   
In some countries with more than one central competent authority,
the coherence of their reports could be improved by reviewing inputs from
different services against multi-annual national
control plan strategic and operational objectives. 
Trends on controls
There is a continuing trend towards more
risk-based control systems. Some Member States have highlighted an improved level
of overall effectiveness linked to more risk-based controls, and an extension
of risk-based controls into new sectors. However, other reports suggest that Member
States do not use a risk-assessment model in every sector, as confirmed by
Commission audits, and limited information has been provided on trends in
controls, priorities and results.
One of the outcomes of more risk-based controls has been that the
levels of non-compliance may not be directly comparable from one year to the
next. For example, the Czech trend analysis indicates that between 2009 and
2010, for animal health and welfare, there has been an increase in the ratio
between the number of identified non-compliances and the total number of
controls.  This could be indicative of a higher rate of non-compliance and thus
in the emergence of problems.  However, this initial increase is instead
attributed to controls recently becoming more risk-based, thereby contributing
to their overall effectiveness.  The Danish report identified a similar correlation
for animal welfare controls. The German annual report highlights the fact that
since controls are more risk-based, and therefore more intensive on entities
with a previous history of non-compliance, it is thus not possible to draw
conclusions from the annual report on the overall situation on the market. Resources
freed up by more risk-based controls are used to inspect establishments less
able or willing to comply with the rules.  Evidence that they are instead used
to target establishments with poor or suspect compliance records is reassuring
against suggestions that "risk-based controls" might be a smokescreen
for resource reductions.
Trend
analysis of non-compliance
The main areas of non-compliance identified
across sectors include: operational hygiene requirements; HACCP; structural or
equipment based hygiene requirements; labelling of food and feed; additives in
feed; record keeping; and microbiological contamination.
The identification of underlying causes of non-compliance is
generally limited. As was the case last year, HACCP/hygiene deficiencies were often attributed to high staff turnover, a lack of training at
food business operators (FBOs) and minimal or no consequences for
non-compliances.
Enforcement
trends: action taken in case of non-compliance
Member States are required to indicate in their annual reports what
kind of enforcement actions have been undertaken.
While data on enforcement was provided in the annual reports of most
Member States, this data did not cover all sectors, and in general, there was a
lack of analysis of the overall trends and conclusions.
Some Member States have recorded good experience in the use of
administrative sanctions directly applied by competent authorities.
In addition, some Member States identified the need to train staff
on enforcement. In the UK, training has placed an emphasis on the judicial
process and on training staff as expert witnesses, with a resultant increase in
the number of formal enforcement actions since 2008-2009. In Finland, training and new guidelines on enforcement have also resulted in an increase in the use of
enforcement actions. The Netherlands authorities attribute an increased level
of enforcement activity to controls being more risk-based and thus more likely
to detect non-compliances. 
National
system of audits
All Member States carry out audits as required by Regulation
882/2004.  This is an important instrument in the armoury of controls as it
provides management with key information on the effectiveness of their control
systems.  However, an overview of the outcome of their audits is not always
provided, in particular where performed in devolved regions, or information on
follow-up to the audit reports. In addition, some Member States reported that
resource constraints in their audit units had curtailed implementation of
audits. 
Some audits focused on quality management systems introduced by
competent authorities. In Austria, this process led to harmonisation of
procedures and ongoing changes in responsibilities.
The Commission is organising regular meetings, which inter alia
provide a forum for exchanges of best practice between Member States on how the
requirement for audits is being addressed.
Resources
A number of reports pointed to changes in this area, such as
significant organisational change in France, Netherlands, Slovenia and United Kingdom, and streamlining of laboratory services (in Bulgaria; in Spain, for food safety; and in Poland, for pesticides). A review of the resources allocated to
laboratories was also under way in Estonia and Portugal. Some Member States are
re-allocating staff resources from routine controls to more risk-based “control
campaigns”, and there is a general awareness that resources must be deployed
more efficiently, especially in the current economic climate where public
expenditure is under pressure.
Actions taken to enhance the performance of control authorities 
The main
actions involve updating legislation, preparing and/or improving guidelines and
procedures, training and workshops (linked, in particular, to implementing new procedures),
and amendments to the MANCP. 
In addition, information systems and business processes for controls have been
further improved in some Member States, with a view to enhancing oversight by
central competent authorities. Evaluation and critical analysis of control data
has improved in some Member States, while in others, there are plans to improve
the capacity of the central competent authorities to verify the effectiveness
of controls. The preparation of specific performance indicators is ongoing in
some Member States. 
Examples have
also been provided of ongoing improvements in co-ordination between control
bodies, and of improved co-ordination frameworks in Member States with devolved
competences.  Some Member States have described the actions taken in view of the
growth in internet sales in the food sector.  In a number of Member States, the
introduction of performance rating schemes for food business operators assist
in prioritising controls. 
Actions
taken to improve performance of Food Business Operators (FBOs) 
The main
actions identified in Member State reports involve guidelines, training,
information campaigns and other events, and brochures. Other reported actions
include: the creation of a centre for animal welfare in
  Denmark; and mechanisms to incentivise compliance by
establishments, and to obtain feedback from operators with a view to
simplifying the operation of controls.
Conclusions 
Member States'
Annual Reports demonstrate that Member States are actively looking for ways to
improve the efficiency of the systems in place. There continues to be a trend
across Member States towards increased risk-based controls. Member States are
also introducing instruments to enhance oversight by central competent authorities,
and the performance of control authorities.
There are a
number of areas for ongoing improvement. In relation to the consistency and comparability of control
data within MS, improved links between data presentations could better
demonstrate the extent to which controls translate into identification of
non-compliances, and, in turn, into effective enforcement.  A greater emphasis
in reports on self-assessment, such as the results of national audit findings
and the impact of the Annual Report review process on future planning, would
enhance the process of continuous improvement.
3.           Commission's
control activities in the Member States
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the Commission to carry out
controls in the Member States to verify that, overall, official controls take
place in accordance with the respective multi-annual national control plans and
in accordance with EU law. 
To meet its obligations, the Commission undertakes an annual programme of audits and inspections to verify
compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare and plant health
legislation, and to verify that official controls in these areas are carried
out in line with EU law.  This programme is published on the Commission’s web
site. 
The findings of each audit are set out in a report addressed to the
relevant national authority, together with conclusions and recommendations to
address identified shortcomings. Through the publication of the audit reports
and the Member State action plans, as well as regularly updated country
profiles, the Commission provides stakeholders and citizens with a factual
account of how control authorities in each Member State deliver on their duty
to ensure the correct implementation of EU law. 
In recent years, the Commission has carried out around 250 audits
each year, covering the whole food chain as well as animal health, animal
welfare and plant health, of which around 70% relate to food safety.  Around
60% of all audits are typically performed in Member States, with the balance in
third countries.  Pre-accession audits have taken place to Croatia, which is due to accede to the EU on 1 July 2013. 
In
addition, overview reports[5] have recently been produced
for a number of sectors. These reports provide an opportunity to get a
comprehensive overview of the controls being carried out by Member States,
based on the outcome of the individual audits carried out. They identify the
principal failings which are likely to be relevant to all Member States,
including those not subject to individual audits.  They also provide a valuable
input to the Commission Services and Member States for reviews of legislation. 
The reports of Commission audits, as well as competent authority responses to Commission report recommendations and
country profiles, can be found at:           http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm
The following section sets out a range of issues of particular interest
covered by the programme in the Member States on food safety, animal health,
animal welfare and plant health. It provides also a brief summary of the main
findings and conclusions arising from the different series of audits. 
Food safety
Official controls on milk and meat production
The Commission carried
out a series of audits on hygiene controls related to red meat and milk
production in all Member States between 2008 and 2011. These confirmed that
Member States have introduced control systems largely in line with the
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and carry out robust controls in
relation to red meat and milk and their products. However, a trend already
previously observed has been confirmed in relation to enforcement: whilst
control authorities largely identify deficiencies correctly, sustained enforcement
action is not always taken in a timely manner and as a result, non-compliances
may persist. 
Traceability of beef and beef products
A series of
audits on traceability of beef and beef products was completed in 2011, and the
overview report is available. The latest review indicates that controls of
traceability of beef and beef products and compulsory labelling have improved
significantly in the Member States visited. In relation to the traceability of
live animals, deficiencies in implementing current legislation and carrying out
official controls were seen in places where animals are gathered, such as
dealers' premises, markets and assembly centres. Some shortcomings were also noted
related to the management of databases used for the registration of animals. 
Game – wild and farmed
A series of fact-finding missions to four Member States was
conducted to gather information regarding the implementation of official
controls in relation to the production of wild and farmed game meat. The
overview report is available, and provides details on the outcome of these
missions. 
A number of issues of interest have arisen from this mission series
and legislative provisions in this respect are currently under discussion in
relation to: incomplete testing for Trichinella
spiralis in small quantities of susceptible game species directly supplied
to the consumer; a liberal interpretation of the "small quantities"
which can be excluded from official hygiene controls; the regular use of wild
game collection centres, which were not always registered and therefore not
subject to official controls; unclear demarcation between farmed and wild game
with risks of misleading consumer information on the true origin of game meat;
and intra-Union trade of the bodies of unskinned wild game animals, contrary to
EU legislation.
Official controls on fishery products and live bivalve molluscs
Audits were carried out in nine Member States to assess compliance
with EU requirements on fish and live bivalve molluscs.  
For fishery products, it was found that overall, comprehensive
official control systems were in place in all the countries visited. In some
countries significant variations in the implementation of official controls
were found between different regions. In general, laboratories performing
official analyses were well equipped and able to carry out the necessary
analyses. Most laboratories were accredited.
While the
overall systems were well designed and managed, some important weaknesses were
identified in relation to controls on: 
·       
Primary production sites, such as fishing
vessels and fish farms; 
·       
Live bivalve molluscs, in relation to:
classification of production areas; the frequency of testing in monitoring for
biotoxins; and end product testing. 
Similar findings have been reported in audits carried out in 2012.
An overview report is also under preparation.
Official controls on poultry
Audits of Member State control systems for poultry meat and poultry
meat products continued in 2012. As was the case last year, the overall level
of compliance was generally good and much improved on the situation which
existed prior to the enactment of the "Hygiene Package".  The entire
poultry production chain was covered, although in some cases the number of
controls at farm level was limited, and some recent audits identified
inadequate post-mortem inspection. The main areas identified for improvement
continue to be in relation to: the application of specific hygiene
requirements, such as the sampling frequency of carcasses and the
implementation of HACCP plans in establishments; and non-notification to the
Commission of national legislation allowing flexibility for small capacity
slaughterhouses. 
As was the case
for controls on milk and meat product establishments, a trend was identified in
relation to enforcement, where although control authorities largely identify
deficiencies correctly, enforcement action was not always taken in a timely
manner. 
Salmonella control plans
Audits of Salmonella national control plans in the poultry sector
continued in 2011. In all Member States visited, control plans had been
introduced, but in some cases implementation had been delayed for certain
categories.  Nonetheless these plans coincide with an observed significant
downward trend in Salmonella in poultry.  In most Member States, the plans for
monitoring and official sampling for Salmonella in different poultry categories
did not fully comply with EU legislation; deficiencies mostly related to
deficiencies in sampling, actions taken following positive test results and
laboratories. In the most recent audit in 2012, weaknesses were also identified
in the oversight by the central competent authorities of regional authorities'
implementation of the plans. An overview report is under preparation.
Import
controls on food of non-animal origin
An overview report is available on a series of 12
audits undertaken between 2010 and 2011 to evaluate implementation of the
official control systems for import controls on food of non-animal origin.
Since the entry
into force of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 on the increased level of official
controls for feed and food of non-animal origin, Member States have been taking
satisfactory steps to implement it. Clear cooperation and communication between
the competent authorities is in place in Member States, and sufficient staff are
available for controls. Documented procedures are well developed, though not
always systematically updated. 
However, onward
transportation, as defined under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, and transfer of
goods, under Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009, (which may allow certain checks to
take place at a consignment's final point of destination, after onward
transportation from its point of arrival in the EU) did not always guarantee
full traceability, in particular when several Member States were involved, and
the prior notification requirement was often not followed. In half the Member States, customs release did not
always correctly follow the procedures established by EU regulations.
These deficiencies may lead to the situation where goods are released without
the finalised checks. While the overall systems for laboratory analyses have
improved, deficiencies in the
implementation of specific analytical requirements of EU legislation were often
detected. 
Pesticide residues
An audit series on controls for pesticide residues was finalised in
2011. An overview report of the series is available. The
outcome of this audit series was overall positive. Considerable progress has
been made since the last audit series in the planning, performance and
reporting of official controls for pesticide residues. The number of samples
taken has increased. Sampling procedures followed EU legislation
and adequate enforcement measures were in place in the large majority of Member
States, thus ensuring a high level of consumer
protection. Effective procedures were in place for import controls of pesticide
residues. Recommendations were made to Member
States to organise controls more efficiently and effectively. Controls should
be more targeted on identified risks, taking account of the compliance history
of FBOs as well as the auto-controls carried out by them. The number of
designated laboratories should be reduced to ensure that analyses are only
carried out in laboratories with adequate analytical equipment. A new series
has started, covering nine Member States in 2012, focused on controls on the
marketing and use of plant protection products.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
A new series of
audits started in 2011, covering official controls on Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMO). Apart from GM food and feed it
included, for the first time, an evaluation of controls on the deliberate
release of GMO into the environment for trial and cultivation. Four Member States were
audited. A system for
authorisation regarding GMO for trial purposes was in place and official checks
were carried out in line with
EU requirements. There were some variations between Member States in relation
to controls on cultivation of GM maize MON 810. In relation to GM food and
feed, there were no significant changes since the previous audit series. The
zero tolerance of GMO presence in non-GM seed was not respected in two Member
States. GMO laboratories performed adequately in most cases. 
Animal health
Electronic Identification systems for small
ruminants
The Commission completed a series of
fact-findings missions to four Member States with significant populations of
sheep and goats.  The objectives of this series were
to: assess progress with the implementation of electronic identification (EID)
in sheep and goats; assess the effectiveness of EID measures in ensuring proper
traceability of sheep and goat movements; identify factors causing
dissatisfaction amongst stakeholders; and identify factors promoting acceptance
of the use of EID. An overview report of the series has been produced and is
available.
The overview report points to significant differences in
implementation between Member States, in particular, in relation to the use of
electronic identification for disease control and management purposes, which is
partly due to the fact that some Member States adopted EID earlier than others.
As regards ensuring permanent identification, the use of electronic boluses
proves more reliable under field conditions than the use of ear tags, but
requires specific competence and technical support, which was provided in some
of the Member States concerned. In these Member States, financial support to
farmers to help cover the additional costs associated with EID also proved an
encouraging factor in terms of uptake.
Rabies
A major
programme for the eradication of rabies in central and eastern European Member
States is co-financed by the EU. The Commission has carried out a number of
audits of the programmes in these countries.  These have confirmed that
substantial progress is being made by the campaigns to vaccinate wildlife and
that this has resulted in a significant reduction in cases in humans and
domestic animals.  However, in some Member States, the implementation of
vaccination programmes showed deficiencies, particularly in relation to the
timely completion of the campaigns and the dispersion and time intervals in the
use of vaccines in bait. 
Classical swine fever (CSF)
The EU is now
close to confirming the total elimination of CSF on its territory. This has
been achieved through the increased application of bio-safety measures and
improved vaccination campaigns for wild boars in the context of EU-funded
eradication programmes.  Commission audits have confirmed that these measures
have been effectively applied in Romania and Bulgaria where sporadic outbreaks
of CSF in domestic pigs had occurred in recent years.  These programmes are
continuing and are increasingly focused on verifying freedom from the disease,
than eradication.
The ongoing risk
of reintroduction of the disease from neighbouring countries, particularly as a
consequence of movements of wild boar, necessitates the maintenance of high
levels of vigilance and enhanced co-operation with these countries.
Official controls on Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) laboratories 
A series of
inspections of EU laboratories that handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus was
completed. While the bio-security standards applied in most laboratories were
found to be generally satisfactory, minor deficiencies were detected in
virtually all laboratories, with serious deficiencies detected in a number of
laboratories. Immediate remedial action has been taken to mitigate potential risks
to animal health that could ensue from the escape of live FMD virus.
A significant
conclusion from this series of inspections is that FMD laboratories should only
be approved in those Member States that are in a position to guarantee continued
compliance with specific EU requirements, and in particular, to ensure the
necessary resources for that purpose.  The Commission and Member States are considering how controls on FMD laboratories should be organised in the future.
Animal welfare
In addition to
audits specifically devoted to animal welfare controls, Commission audits of hygiene
controls on red meat and poultry now also routinely evaluate Member State controls on animal welfare at slaughter.  This provides an important additional
resource in promoting better respect of animal welfare controls. These audits
examined in particular slaughterhouse facilities, such as lairages and stunning
facilities, and transport of animals to slaughter, with appropriate
recommendations for improvement.  One audit contained findings that although a
significant number of slaughterhouses in the Member State concerned performed
slaughter without stunning under a derogation related to slaughter according to
a religious custom, only part of the meat produced was sold as such.
Commission
audits specifically devoted to animal welfare controls, looked at welfare
on-farm and during transport.  These audits formed part of the monitoring of
Member States carried out by the Commission services of the ban on the use of un-enriched
cages for laying hens, which should have been effective from
1 January 2012, and resulted in infringement proceedings being opened
on 27 January 2012 against 13 Member States. Equally, Commission audits of
Member States provided an update on their level of preparation for the deadline
of 1 January 2013 for the obligatory group housing of pregnant sows and gilts.
One audit was specifically carried out in order to obtain evidence in relation
to infringement proceedings opened against one Member State on the welfare of
animals at slaughter.
The welfare of
broilers has also been included in recent audits.  Species of animals which are
not the subject of EU provisions, but for which Council of Europe
recommendations are fully applicable under EU law, are also being included in
animal welfare audits.
Regarding
transport, the focus is now on also helping Member States to learn from best
practice.  Previous audits had indicated that the process of vehicle approval
was not adequately addressed in a number of Member States, and audits in 2012
focused on the approval procedure, identifying areas of best practice. These
have been shared with other Member States at the ongoing meetings of national
contact points held twice a year at the Commission. An additional meeting was
held in the port of Sète, in France, with all Member States responsible for approval of sea vessels, as several
competent authorities had indicated difficulties with implementing requirements
for the transport of animals by sea.  
The export of
animals to Turkey, a growing trade, was also addressed in Commission audits.  An
audit was carried out at the EU exit point in Bulgaria and recommendations were
made to expedite procedures so that any unnecessary delays could be eliminated.
During this audit, the team also visited the Turkish side of the border to
review their controls.
Plant health
Plant health audits
in Member States, assessing import control measures and the implementation of
EU emergency measures in the case of harmful organism outbreaks, showed
substantial differences between the audited Member States in the organisation
of import controls, and in their effectiveness in detecting harmful organisms
in consignments presented for import.  The success of eradication efforts
varied greatly between the different harmful organisms, some being easier to
control than others. The audits also demonstrated the importance of determined
eradication efforts as soon as the organism is found as once established it is
infinitely harder or even impossible to eradicate. 
Despite regular
audits to Portugal since 1999 in relation to the eradication of pinewood
nematode (PWN), the situation remains unsatisfactory, in particular in relation
to testing and removal from the buffer zone of trees in poor health.
Animal
feed
In the area of
feed safety, the main picture shows that the level of compliance of operators
along the chain is variable. While the situation is satisfactory for primary
production, there is clear room for improvements in non-primary production in relation to:  the design and implementation of
HACCP-based procedures; measures in place to minimise cross-contamination from
previous production batches; and the monitoring of undesirable substances.
Official controls on feed usually cover the main operators in the feed chain,
but certain types of establishments (notably food establishments supplying part
only of their production to the feed chain) are often still outside the scope
of these controls. In addition, the implementation of inspections and sampling
activities is affected by some flaws in their targeting.
In the area of
feed marketing, audits established a satisfactory level of compliance with the
relevant requirements.
Transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and animal by-products (ABP)
Audits on these
topics are now generally combined as with some exceptions BSE is no longer a
high risk priority. Audits identified that handling of ABP and derived products
according to their category was largely in compliance with EU rules. However,
in a few Member States, ABP (including specified risk material) generated
during on-farm slaughter on back-yard farms are still disposed of on-site;
this, together with deficiencies in the disposal of fallen stock originating on
these back-yard farms also affects the effectiveness of BSE monitoring in these
Member States. At rendering plants, the level of compliance was usually
satisfactory, although there were some cases where there were deficiencies in
monitoring adherence to time, temperature and pressure processing requirements.
Import
controls on food of animal origin and animals
Audits in this
area continue to be a major plank in the arsenal of defences aimed at ensuring
that imports are safe.  Controls on imports are improving thanks, inter alia,
to improved cooperation with Customs Authorities and significant training.  The
Commission noted deficiencies in some Member States in the communication
between central and devolved authorities, undermining in some cases the overall
effectiveness of controls. While pre-notification of transhipped consignments
is improving in some Member States, enforcement by competent authorities is
still poor in relation to this requirement in some major ports. 
Since last
year's report, the level of implementation of TRACES, the common computerised
system for imports, has improved. Some of the Member States previously not
using TRACES have now joined the system.  New versions of TRACES require BIPs
to adapt and this is an ongoing process.
Residues
of veterinary medicines and contaminants 
Member States
continue to face challenges similar to those identified in last year’s annual
report in implementing their national residue monitoring plans, including:
variations between Member States in the number of methods included in the scope
of laboratory accreditation for residues analysis; and variations in the
interpretation of requirements relating to Food Chain Information at slaughter.
With regard to
the ongoing current round of dioxin audits which are evaluating the ability of
Member States to ensure that fish caught in the Baltic Sea and placed on the
market for human or animal consumption comply with EU limits for dioxins, the
evidence gathered to date indicates that there is a lack of consistency in the
approach taken by Member States to minimise consumer exposure to non-compliant
fish.
Follow-up to Commission recommendations
All recommendations
arising from Commission reports are systematically followed up, through a range
of activities. 
Member State competent authorities are requested
to present an "action plan" describing how they have addressed or
intend to address Commission recommendations. In turn, the Commission evaluates
the action plan and systematically monitors the implementation of all these
actions through a number of follow-up activities including:  (a) general
follow-up audits; (b) on-the-spot follow-up audits on specific issues, or
requests for written reports on specific issues; and (c) high-level bilateral
meetings in the event of over-arching, or persistent problems. 
General
Follow-up Audits (GFA) follow
up outstanding issues and verify progress in relation to recommendations
remaining open from previous FVO sectoral audits to Member States. Country
profiles showing the outcome of these audits may be found at the following
website: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm
In relation to monitoring progress by Member States in addressing
FVO recommendations the outcome of the GFA process over the period 2005-2010,
indicates that for 97% of recommendations, action has been taken by Member
States to address the recommendations, or satisfactory commitments have been
provided to address the recommendations within an identified timeline.  Those
recommendations for which a satisfactory commitment has not yet been obtained
(3%), are actively pursued through a number of mechanisms, as described in
Section 2.5.  While small in number these recommendations are by definition the
most difficult to resolve and usually reflect deep underlying issues, including
interpretation of legislation.
4.           Other
sources of information on controls in the Member States
Sector-specific
reporting
Provisions in EU
legislation on different aspects of food safety, animal health and welfare and
plant health require Member States to submit regular reports on certain
specific requirements. On the basis of these national reports, the Commission
in turn produces a number of sectoral reports, which provide an account of the
state of implementation of certain aspects of EU legislation applicable to the
food chain, including in some cases specific data on official controls and of
results thereof in the areas concerned. 
Among the most
relevant of these reports, are those on: monitoring and testing of ruminants
for the presence of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSEs); trends and
sources of zoonoses; zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European
Union (mandated to EFSA); notifiable diseases of bovine animals and swine (in
the context of the intra-EU trade); annual EU-wide pesticide residues
monitoring report; and reports on animal disease
eradication task force meetings.  The information in these reports is an
important input in the decision-making process on where to prioritise audit
resources.
A table, listing
the main Commission reports published in the past year and their websites, is
included in the Annex to this Report. 
Rapid alert
systems and other reporting tools 
The existing rapid
alert systems for food and feed safety (RASFF), animal disease outbreaks (ADNS)
and plant disease outbreaks (Europhyt) represent important tools for managing
the rapid response to emergencies and emerging risks and a source of
information on the pattern of pests and diseases. The data they provide may also
be an important indicator of shortcomings in relation to compliance with
established safety standards and this data is consequently closely reviewed in
the evaluation of controls.  Detailed results from these food safety and animal
disease alert systems are summarised each year in annual reports on RASFF and
ADNS published on the Commission's web site:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/adns/index_en.htm
. 
For Europhyt, the notification tool for interceptions
of consignments for plant health
reasons, the Commission has launched a website with monthly interception
reports[6]. It is planned to publish an Annual Europhyt report in 2013.
TRACES, the system
which allows the exchange of information between the Commission and the Member
States on controls carried out on animals and animal products (on domestic
products and imports from third countries) is another important source of data,
not only on volume of movements of the commodities covered, but also on
official veterinary controls carried out: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/traces/index_en.htm.

5.           Outcome
of official monitoring
Salmonella and Campylobacter are the two main causes of food borne
illness in the EU. The analysis of the zoonoses reports of each Member State by EFSA and ECDC[7]
confirms a decreasing trend in the European Union of
salmonellosis cases in humans. In total 99,020 confirmed human cases were
reported in 2010 (data published in 2012), a reduction of 8.8 % compared with
2009, and part of a trend which has continued for the sixth successive year.
The EFSA report points to the application of Salmonella control
programmes in Member State poultry populations as a
reason for this ongoing reduction.  Audits of the poultrymeat sector in the
Member States substantiate this view.
6.           Commission
follow-up and enforcement
Sustained attention to and co-ordination
of enforcement action remains a priority in all areas covered by this report. 
Significant efforts are deployed to eliminate, in cooperation with
the Member States concerned, obstacles to the correct application of EU legislation.
The approach adopted in each case takes into account the seriousness of the
shortcoming, the risks involved, the action already taken by the Member State, and whether or not other Member States are also concerned. The underlying
causes of the shortcomings are examined so that solutions are sought with a
view to preventing further occurrences.
Thus, for example, the Commission has been engaging in an intense
dialogue with some Member States with a view to addressing persistent
non-compliances and outstanding enforcement issues, including through regular bilateral
high-level meetings. 
One such Member State is Greece. The Greek authorities have provided
a detailed action plan, including clear milestones, which is currently being
used to monitor progress towards improved compliance.
The Commission has also designed specially tailored training actions
within the Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) programme in cases where
training could assist compliance. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, specific training activities have been organised to guide the authorities in addressing
shortcomings in the handling and disposal of animal by-products.
When necessary and appropriate, infringement proceedings are
initiated.
An important source
of information in relation to non-compliance or enforcement problems is
complaints from members of the public or NGOs, and the Commission is careful to
ensure that these are pursued with the Member States concerned, with a view to
achieving a positive outcome.  If laws are not being
properly applied, there is a risk that European policy objectives in the food
safety area will not be attained. The application and enforcement of EU law
involves both European institutions and Member States, including local and
regional authorities and courts. Member States have primary responsibility for
the correct and timely application of EU Treaties and legislation. The
Commission launches infringement proceedings as a last resort to achieve
compliance when it has evidence that there is a systematic and persistent
pattern of inadequate application of EU law. 
The Commission can institute infringement proceedings asking Member
States to correct an absent or wrong transposition or incorrect application of
the law. The Commission can bring the matter before the Court of Justice,
seeking a declaration of an infringement of Community law by the Member State.  It can apply to the Court a second time seeking the application of financial
sanctions until the first ruling of the Court is respected.
The infringement process plays an essential role in guaranteeing the
correct application of EU legislation, and bringing benefits to citizens. The
Commission has shown that it takes this role seriously through the package of
infringements launched in 2012 in relation to implementation of legislation on
the protection of laying hens and the clear signals of a similar approach
towards the protection of pigs. 
In terms of other tools, the Commission EU Pilot Project is aimed at providing quicker and fuller answers to questions arising from
the application of EU laws. It is used to enhance
communication between the Commission and Member States, and to contribute to
the resolution of enforcement problems, without the need to resort to formal
infringement proceedings.  
More information on infringements is available in the annual reports
on monitoring the application of EU law published on the Commission's website:   
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_annual_report_en.htm
7.           International
trade
The Commission participates actively in international standard
setting bodies which operate in the fields of food safety, animal and plant
health.  There are also very extensive contacts with non-EU countries where
assurances are both sought and given in relation to the safety of trade in
food.  This in turn involves extensive discussion on the efficacy of controls
in place aimed at ensuring that trade takes place on a safe basis.  The lessons
learned in this process feed through to the management of the control systems
in place in the Member States.
8.           Conclusions
On the whole, Member States ensure a good level of implementation of
official controls across the food chain, and respect for food safety, plant and
animal health, and animal welfare issues. While there is still scope for
improvement, there has been progress in the efficient use of control
instruments and resources, and in planning, implementation, and co-ordination
of controls across all sectors.
Official controls, and legislative instruments to optimise their
effectiveness, are key features of the EU food chain. They allow competent
authorities to perform controls on a risk basis, and to identify shortcomings
and address them in a timely manner. They also provide competent authorities
with a meaningful overview of the food safety and health situations.
Member State reports provide reassurance that
national competent authorities take their role seriously, with controls
becoming increasingly risk-based, as confirmed by
reports from audits carried out by Commission experts. New instruments to enhance oversight and the performance of control authorities are
being introduced.
On-the-spot specific audits by the Commission, as well as general
follow-up audits covering all sectors and focusing on underlying causes of
non-compliance, are of particular importance in identifying weaknesses to be
addressed, and in ensuring that corrective actions are taken. The Commission operates
a system, reviewed on an ongoing basis with targets and indicators, to
quantitatively review progress by Member States in taking corrective action.
These Commission audit reports, complementing Member State control activities and reports, provide a robust system for assessing the effectiveness
of Member State control systems.
This system allows the Commission, whenever necessary, to take the
appropriate measures to achieve improvements in official controls and audit
systems in Member States.
_______________________
ANNEX
LIST OF PUBLISHED
COMMISSION SECTORIAL
REPORTS
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EU LEGISLATION ON FOOD
SAFETY, ANIMAL HEALTH, ANIMAL WELFARE AND PLANT
HEALTH
 Report || Legal basis || Publication 
 Annual Report on the monitoring and testing of ruminants for the presence of transmissible spongiform  encephalopathy (TSE) in the EU || Article 6 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies || http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/monitoring_annual_reports_en.htm   
 The EU Summary Report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne  outbreaks in the European Union || Article 9 (2) of Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC (Mandated to EFSA, elaborated by EFSA in cooperation with ECDC) || http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2090.pdf 
 The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) annual report || Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 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 || http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/rasff_publications_en.htm   
 Report || Legal basis || Publication 
 Annual EU-wide Pesticide Residues Monitoring Report || Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Mandated to EFSA) || http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2430.pdf     
 Annual report on food irradiation || Article 7(3) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation || http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/irradiation/index_en.htm   
 Commission Staff Working Paper on the Implementation  of National Residue Monitoring Plans in the Member States || Article 8 of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC || http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/control_en.htm   
 Reports of the meetings of the experts sub-groups (Bovine brucellosis, sheep&   goats brucellosis, bovine    tuberculosis and rabies) of the Task Force (TF) for monitoring disease eradication in the Member States. || The Task Force was created in 2000 as an action foreseen in the Commission White Paper on Food Safety. || http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/eradication/taskforce_en.htm 
 Animal welfare: transport Regulation || Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 || http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transpor t/inspections_reports_reg_1_2005_en.htm 
[1]               Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed
to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health
and animal welfare rules – OJ L 191, 30.04.2004
[2]               Regulation (EC) No 178/2002
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 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.
[3]               Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on
organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91 -OJ L 189, 20.7.2007
[4]               Regulation(EU) No 1151/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for
agricultural products and foodstuffs  -OJ L 343, 14.12.2012
[5]               http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/specialreports/index_en.htm
[6]               http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/europhyt/interceptions_en.htm
[7]               Scientific Report of EFSA and ECDC: The European
Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and
Food-borne Outbreaks in 2010   
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2597.pdf