Checking out the new EU team tasked with improving standards

Date: 04/09/1997

LAST year's BSE crisis forced the European Commission into an unprecedented bout of soul-searching.

Due in no small measure to the exhaustive work of the European Parliament's committee of inquiry, the EU's executive suddenly found the whole scientific basis of its health and consumer policies cast into doubt.

The inquiry appeared to show that sections of the Commission were more interested in propping up the beef market than keeping the public informed of the potential risks presented by 'mad cow' disease.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this perception, the Commission has not been sluggish to react.

Partly for public relations purposes, partly because of the threat of a vote of censure from MEPs and partly because of the recognition that there were shortcomings in the system of scientific advice, it launched a complete revamp of procedures earlier this year.

In the past, advice, legislation and policing of the rules had all fallen under the remit of Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler.

Under its new regime, the Commission has taken care to ensure that the newly-strengthened Directorate-General for consumer policy (DGXXIV) under Emma Bonino controls inspections and the running of the advisory committees.

Just a week before Brussels went quiet for the month of August, the Commission finally decided on the future form of its network of advisers.

In place of the existing six committees in the field of consumer health, it established eight committees - three entirely new ones and the other five reflecting changes in emphasis in the advice required.

The eight new bodies will provide the latest information in the fields of food; animal nutrition; animal health and welfare; veterinary public health; plants; cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers; medicaments and medical materials; and toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment.

A week later, Bonino announced the make-up of the new Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), the body tasked with directing the operations of the specific sectoral committees. Once each of the specific committees has a chairman or woman, they will complete the 16-strong SSC.

The role of the new bodies will be to examine risk assessments made in the member states, develop new techniques for such assessment, prepare scientific opinions and “evaluate the scientific principles on which Community health standards are based”.

At the heart of Bonino's plan for the new committees is a desire to guarantee “the excellence of their members, their independence and the transparency of their advice”.

This follows accusations in the aftermath of the beef crisis that the old committees were overpopulated by British scientists with an interest in playing down the risks posed by BSE and that, too often, decisions were taken as much on political advice as scientific evidence.

Besides giving its network of experts a serious wash and brush-up, the Commission has also launched a major charm offensive to persuade citizens of how seriously it takes the issue of public health.

DGXXIV has a new boss in the shape of German Horst Reichenbach. Despite a shaky start, when Reichenbach allegedly unveiled new scientific advice before it had been given, serious efforts are being made to open up health issues to public scrutiny.

This is not to say that high politics have been removed from the equation completely.

On the legislative side, the Standing Veterinary Committee and the Council of Ministers remain the fora in which the decisions are taken, whatever the advice of the experts may be.

But as the recent decision to ban certain tissues from the food chain illustrates, the Commission seems intent on doing all it can to take a tough line when it comes to the safety of food.

Fischler was prepared to push the measure through despite the opposition of a significant group of powerful EU governments.