Food licensing back on menu

Date: 08/02/1996

By Fiona McHugh

IN another battle of institutional wills, EU member states look set to frustrate European Commission ambitions for greater control over the licensing of new foods for slimmers and diabetics.

At the moment, all special nutritional products must be approved by a qualified majority of member state representatives on a regulatory committee, as well as by the Commission, before they are allowed on to supermarket or pharmacy shelves.

But this system has proved cumbersome, involving the modification of existing food directives, and European firms are often forced to wait years for a licence to sell new products.

Such delays have prompted complaints from manufacturers of special foods, who argue that lengthy approval processes give their competitors valuable time to develop rival products.

To deflect this criticism, last year the Commission proposed a fast-track system which would allow companies to sell goods under a temporary licence for two years, pending final approval by the scientific committee.

While, in theory, that seems an excellent idea, member states argue that it is seriously flawed.

The proposal suggests that, as a time-saving measure, national representatives should be stripped of their power to block the sale of products.

Under the new system, governments would be consulted, but the Commission would not be obliged to heed their wishes.

This has sparked fierce opposition from several countries, led by Sweden, Denmark and Greece, who say they will reject the proposal unless the Commission agrees to reinstate their right to block licences, a power which they argue is necessary to ensure the health of consumers in their countries.

But the Commission argues that consumers suffer more as a result of delays which deprive them for years of needed health- improving products.

To return to a system which requires member state approval of temporary licences, says the Commission, would be, quite simply, to go back to square one. “It is precisely because it is so difficult to muster a qualified majority in the regulatory committee that the process takes so long. That is why we decided to go for consultation instead,” explained one official, insisting the Commission would not abuse its new-found power.

“Obviously we would ask member states for comments before granting a licence and, if they were really opposed, we would not go ahead.”

A separate directive aimed at cutting back on EU food law by withdrawing four proposals “which are no longer necessary” also looks set to cause problems in the future.

While the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament both agree that certain laws should be dropped, they are at odds over which ones.

EU governments would like to see a law introduced on sports foods, such as isotonic drinks, but MEPs insist such legislation is not needed. They are in favour of common laws on food for diabetics, but ministers are not.