 |
|
CFG
13/02 rev. 1
- Introduction
1.1 The issue of full and even implementation
and enforcement of EU food legislation is a serious question for
UK consumers. For example, although BSE began in the UK, controls
here are now quite strict. The threat of new outbreaks may exist
in those countries which are not so thorough in controlling use
of cattle meat and bonemeal or in supervising slaughterhouse procedures.
On the other hand, the UK is one of eight countries which have
failed to implement EU legislation to control salmonella in poultry.
1.2 Enforcement issues are currently being considered
by the EU under the White Paper on Food Hygiene. Member
States’ food law implementation varies enormously because
of different legal bases e.g. Roman versus case law. So does enforcement
– centralised in France under the State Veterinary Service
for example, but localised in the UK even down to District and
Borough Councils, and in Portugal where it is largely the responsibility
of the municipalities which have an average population of approximately
30,000 people. In both of the latter countries however, there
are still central government departments with food law enforcement
responsibilities.
1.3 In the United Kingdom, food law is enforced
centrally by two executive agencies within DEFRA, the Pesticides
Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate which carry
out EU surveillance programmes for residues as well as acting
as enforcement agencies in these areas. The Meat Hygiene Service
and the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate are responsible for primary
stages of meat and dairy hygiene enforcement. At a local level
food law is enforced by 499 local authorities. Environmental Health
Officers (EHOs) enforce food hygiene regulations and Trading Standards
Officers (TSOs) enforce composition and labelling regulations,
although EHOs enforce all food legislation in the new Unitary
Authorities.
1.4 The Commission’s proposals (July
2000) recast the 17 food hygiene directives introduced since 1964.
The Commission’s aim is to consolidate simplified rules
into four regulations – general food hygiene rules (which
would require HACCP-based procedures) – specific rules for
products of animal origin – official controls for products
of animal origin – and animal health rules. These proposals
have been delayed at the European Parliament, which focused on
the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
first. This has now been set up, and the Management Committee
has been formed. Its first meeting took place on the 18th/19th
September 2002. An Executive Director has now been appointed.
In order to be effective the new Agency will have to co-ordinate
Food Standards Agencies, or their equivalent (where they exist),
and the EFSA Liaison Body which will need to enforce and encourage
best practice.
- Foodaware comments
2.1 Uneven enforcement is a barrier to fair
competition and the efficient operation of the Single Market,
as well as unsatisfactory for consumers. The Commission should
establish minimum EU standards of enforcement, based on a number
of key principles such as efficacy and independence, and monitored
by the Commission as it is seeking to do for meat hygiene.
2.2 Foodaware advocates uniform standards of
enforcement across the EU, at the highest possible level. The
emphasis should be on effective audit procedures to ensure broad
equivalence in terms of outcome, rather than in techniques. Audits
and Surveillance cannot be enforced but they can give an indication
as to whether the law is being applied effectively. The Food and
Veterinary Office for example is monitoring the beef labelling
scheme.
2.3 One example of inconsistent approaches is
in one of the simplest of foods – minced beef. An EU harmonised
standard is laid down in Directive 99/65 for centralised manufacture
and inter-community trade but it does not apply to a local butcher
preparing mince on the premises. The EU standard for lean minced
beef is not more than 7% fat, whereas the UK standard applied
by analysts is not more than 5% fat.
The UK also permits two antibiotic drugs, avilamycin and flavomycin,
on “specific recommendations of the responsible veterinarian.”
Avilamycin has been banned in Denmark under a voluntary agreement
after fears about the rise of superbugs. The EU is debating whether
to phase out all antibiotic growth promoters by 2006. Until the
rules on food production methods are harmonised throughout the
EU, if not the whole world, enforcement of laws on, for example,
residues cannot be possible.
2.4 Member states are under an obligation to
give assistance to each other’s enforcement bodies through
the Single Liaison body arrangements. Consumers in Europe Group
called in the past for more co-operation between enforcement officers
across Europe and is also encouraged by the establishment in 1999
of IMSN Europe, an network of enforcement bodies. Details of cases
being pursued nationally are usefully shared between enforcement
authorities, including by means of a shared website. Details of
investigations, national and European Court of Justice case reports
etc. are attached to the rapid alert page of the DG SanCo website.
2.5 The Commission should organise regular meetings
with the governments on these issues and establish central national
contact points on enforcement. Transnational contacts between
local enforcement offices are welcome too. Many food issues are
dealt with on a sectoral (e.g. wine) rather than horizontal approach
(e.g. pesticides, hygiene) which could be resolved by means of
an up-to-date directory of EU enforcement agencies in the EU making
clear who is responsible for each issue. A rolling programme of
reviews of the implementation and enforcement by member states,
more staff exchange and joint surveillance would also ensure more
consistent action.
2.6 We regret that there have been unnecessary
delays in member states’ implementation of food law such
as zoonoses. Member states must transpose legislation more quickly.
A consequence of these delays may be that the Commission will
introduce new legislation by the less satisfactory means of Regulation
instead of Directive. This is an inflexible tool which does not
allow any change to be made, nor for member states to make any
local adjustments. The Commission could also consider a scoreboard
on implementation of food legislation similar to that of DG Markt
on the Single Market.
2.7 The consumer has the right to safe food
and the whole food chain must ensure that right is respected.
Foodaware is therefore pleased to note Regulation (EC) 178/2002
which does require enforcement ‘from plough to plate’.
Once the consumer has bought the food, s/he needs to handle it
safely too. There is a need to develop European consumer information
and education so that consumers take action to protect themselves.
Foodaware sees the need for more food preparation and nutrition
education in schools, starting at primary level. Foodaware hopes
that the Commission will fund co-operative EU level information
programmes by consumer organisations. Foodaware itself is developing
basic consumer information on food safety, standards and nutrition
on its own website.
- Resources – local authorities
3.1 However many rules and regulations are introduced
to ensure that food is safe, wholesome, and properly labelled,
it comes to nothing if not properly administered. Food laws are
enforced at retail level and locally by Environmental Health and
Trading Standards Departments of local authorities. All food businesses
are registered with their local authority and are risk-assessed
in order to determine frequency of official visits. Levels of
enforcement are inevitably dependent on the availability of resources
and competing priorities, whereas they should respond to the needs
of the community. Recent studies have revealed disturbing trends
in the levels of recruitment and retention of staff in both of
these professions.
3.2 Environmental Health: There is a current
shortage of Environmental Health Officers nationally of 1,000.
A decreasing number of students are entering the Environmental
Health degree course, which has resulted in three degree courses
closing in recent years. The average number of students taking
the course has reduced form 30-35 to just 20, and 20% of graduates
are not progressing into local authority environmental health
departments. These trends have an impact on local authorities’
ability to attract sufficient staff, which could in turn affect
their enforcement capability and consequently have an adverse
effect on public health.
The causes may be attributed to a lack of awareness in schools
and colleges, the image of the profession, financial pressures
on food law enforcement services and budgetary constraints on
development, sponsoring and training of students.
3.3 Trading Standards: These face similar problems
to Environmental Health - decreasing number of applicants to Trading
Standards courses. Recruitment is not keeping pace with numbers
retiring from or leaving the profession. Local government re-organisation
had a negative impact on trading standards services, many of which
became smaller units of local government which compounds the problems
when staff leave or retire. Early retirement has aggravated the
situation. Other agencies, industries and central government have
all competed for qualified trading standards staff.
3.4 Some Solutions: For food laws to be enforced
and policed effectively, adequate resources must be allocated.
The Food Standards Agency could assist with this by, for example,
sponsoring Diploma in Trading Standards and Diploma in Consumer
Affairs training courses; supporting update training courses;
and by promoting careers by means of information. Lack of resources
was identified in the FSA paper LOG41 as one of the reasons for
the recent inconsistency in enforcement, and falling sampling
rates. Consideration needs to be given to the importance of sampling
as an enforcement tool, and whether lack of budget or other factors,
such as deliberate policy are the causes.
- Recommendations
4.1 Foodaware asks the EFSA to undertake a review
of enforcement at EU level. The EFSA should co-ordinate the national
food standards agencies with the EFSA liaison body in order to
enforce and encourage best practice.
4.2 The Commission should consider the establishment
by the new Authority of minimum EU standards of enforcement, based
on a number of key principles such as efficacy, level of risk
and independence, and monitored by the Commission.
4.3 The emphasis should continue to be on effective
audit procedures (which may be product specific) to ensure broad
equivalence in terms of outcome, rather than in techniques. Foodaware
supports the use of HACCP.
4.4 The Commission should organise regular meetings
with the governments on these issues and establish central national
contact points on enforcement. Transnational contacts between
local enforcement offices should continue to be encouraged too.
Many food issues are dealt with on a sectoral rather than horizontal
approach (e.g. pesticides, hygiene) which could be resolved by
means of an up-to-date directory of EU enforcement agencies in
the EU making clear who is responsible for each issue. A rolling
programme of reviews of the implementation and enforcement by
member states, staff exchange and joint surveillance would also
ensure more consistent action.
4.5 Member states must implement EU directives
more quickly to avoid the need for less flexible EU regulations.
The Commission should consider a scoreboard of member states’
implementation of food legislation.
4.6 In the UK, the problem of enforcement agencies
competing for scarce funds with education, social services, etc.
needs to be addressed. More food control officers are needed.
- Conclusion
Overall the legal framework for food safety in the United Kingdom
and in the European Union is satisfactory. However, implementation
and enforcement is of the utmost importance, as is harmonisation
of enforcement procedures and information throughout the European
Union. The newly established European Food Safety Authority should
make it a high priority to ensure effective enforcement of food
safety legislation throughout the EU, and in particular to ensure
that the ten new Members States are equally well policed.
January 2003
 |
|
