Consumer groups push to widen scope of food laws

Date: 04/07/1996

ANXIOUS to bolster consumer confidence in the wake of the 'mad cow' scare, consumer organisations are calling for new EU laws to force farmers to compensate customers who fall ill or die after eating substandard food.

They say the Union's directive on product liability should be extended to cover fresh farm products, such as eggs and milk, as well as processed food. That would make farmers responsible, for example, for salmonella-infected eggs produced on their land.

Their pleas have been echoed by Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino, who says she too would like to see the scope of the EU's food safety laws broadened to provide consumers with extra protection.

“The principle of the extension of responsibility to the producer seems to be an important factor in the re-establishment of confidence,” said Bonino. “Most of the problems concern unprocessed farm produce.”

But, given the flood of lawsuits which would inevitably ensue, any such proposal is likely to be resisted by member states with powerful farm lobbies. It would also face opposition from the Directorate-General for agriculture (DGVI) and other Commission departments. Earlier this year, the full college concluded that the law was working well and did not need to be reviewed.

When first drafted more than a decade ago, the directive covered farm products such as eggs, milk and butter. But the draft was watered down in the face of fierce in-house opposition.

Consumer groups also want an unrelated clause in the directive, which allows manufacturers in some member states to escape liability for injuries caused by their defective products, to be deleted. Under the “development risk defence” provision, producers who can prove that they were not aware that their products were faulty at the time of manufacture may not be prosecuted. But the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) argues this “principle of defence is the directive's main weak point and completely contradicts the expectations of consumers”.

The organisation objects to the fact that victims must prove “the damage, the defect and the causal relationship between defect and damage”, and insists that the burden of proof should lie with the producer and not the victim. It is also calling on the Commission to scrap ceilings on the size of compensation awards in certain member states.

In addition, consumer groups would like to see the liability directive extended to cover services as well as goods. They point out, for instance, that if an individual suffers a severe electric shock from a badly-repaired washing machine, he is not entitled to compensation. Yet if he suffers injury because of a defect present from the beginning of the machine's life, he is.

MEPs will get a chance to comment on the directive in the coming months. It is not yet clear what their verdict will be, but they are likely to take a consumer-friendly line.