CFG
03/06
Letter dated 25 January
2006 from Foodaware to Troy Sinclair, Official Control Regulation
Implementation Team, Food Standards Agency:
The scope of the National Control Plan
Level of Detail
Impact on the Competent Authorities
Dear Mr Sinclair
European Commission Guidelines on preparation of multi-annual
control plans
The FSA has asked for specific comments on the following questions
to assist in its negotiations on a working document which will be
used as the basis for EU guidelines.
The scope of the National Control Plan
The FSA takes the view that the scope of the national control plan
should be consistent with that set out in Regulation 882/2004 on official
controls which cover the approach of competent authorities in monitoring
and enforcing feed and food law and animal health and animal welfare
rules. It should not, in the FSA’s view, encompass additional
areas such as controls on plant protection products or the health
and welfare of domestic pets. We agree that pets should not be included,
but we consider that there are food safety issues that arise from
the use of plant protection products. Consumers are concerned about
the safety of these substances and are concerned that the level of
residues in foodstuffs should be monitored and where appropriate reduced.
For this reason, and to ensure a national control plan is comprehensive
in coverage, we think they should be included.
Level of Detail
The FSA is concerned that the Commission’s approach is unduly
prescriptive in some areas and quotes ‘a requirement to consolidate
and integrate the control plans of all designated competent authorities,
and the need to provide detailed information on human resources’
as examples. We understand that the FSA would not wish to collect
inappropriate and unnecessary data viewing it as a costly bureaucratic
exercise that does not meet the objective of establishing effective
controls nor allow them to be monitored. However, the issue of full
and even implementation and enforcement of EU food legislation is
a matter of serious concern for UK consumers. Many examples can be
found of failure by Member States (including the UK) to implement
Community rules, or of inadequate enforcement resulting in outbreaks
of disease, cross-contamination and hygiene problems remaining undetected.
Member States’ food law implementation varies enormously because
of the different legal bases, as does enforcement. In France this
is centralised, but in the UK spread unevenly between central and
local government, regional and national assemblies and the Scottish
Parliament, and several Executive Agencies. The landscape of Trading
Standards and Environmental Health responsibilities is changing following
the Hampton Enquiry, and there is significant overlap in responsibility
and accountability between Defra, the Food Standards Agency and the
Meat Hygiene Service in relation to food and farming controls. The
State Veterinary Service and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate
are also implicated in this guidance.
Given the complexities of official control and enforcement in the
UK, Foodaware considers it is particularly important for there to
be a co-ordinated and comprehensive high level plan in which consumers
can have confidence. This should clarify the scope, responsibilities
and accountabilities between the various bodies, and identify how
their effectiveness in meeting EU obligations will be measured. Such
a document should also link to both Defra’s and FSA’s
performance management systems so that consumers can see the linkages
and have access to reports on their effectiveness.
Impact on the Competent Authorities
The FSA believes, as a general principle, that where information is
required in the plan, the rationale for it and the use to which it
is to be put by the Commission must be explicit. We do not dissent
from this. The approach should be proportionate, and no more than
is necessary for the performance of national control systems to be
assessed. The guidelines should allow for some flexibility to take
account of the diversity in implementation and approaches between
Member States, but must also allow for a fair comparison of the effectiveness
of controls to be undertaken. Foodaware has in the past called for
a review of enforcement at EU level, and believes these guidelines
should ensure that minimum standards are achieved and can be appropriately
audited. They should be based on a range of principles such as the
level of risk, extent of disease, how controls are applied and by
whom, and whether the outcomes are sufficient to protect public health
and consumer safety.
These are our initial thoughts and we would expect to comment in more
detail when the specific plans are published alongside the final Commission
Guidelines.
Foodaware is content for this response to be made publicly available.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Saunders
pp Susan Knox
Chairperson
|
