Discord delays food law framework

Date: 21/03/1996

By Michael Mann

CLEAR divisions within the European Commission have delayed efforts to streamline EU food legislation.

The planned Green Paper on a possible framework to cover the whole range of laws relating to food is now not expected to see the light of day until the summer at the earliest.

Officials in both Directorate-General III (industrial policy) and DGVI (agriculture) admit that they themselves are not certain what the paper should include, although both are determined to dispel the commonly-held impression that Commissioners Martin Bangemann and Franz Fischler have come to blows over the issue.

DGVI feels that harmonisation of the very piecemeal and complex approach to food law should go as far back in the food chain as possible - the so-called 'stable to table' approach - and insists it is best equipped to propose legislation affecting its sectoral interests.

Pointing to the example of salmonella, officials suggest that it is impossible to legislate effectively on contamination without taking account of farm hygiene.

But in a communication presented to the Commission last month, DGIII favoured restricting the framework to “measures which directly relate to the interests of human consumers of food”.

Aware how divergent their views are and conscious of the complexity of the issues, the two departments have now formed a joint working party to draw up a broad-brush consultation paper to allow all interested parties to give their views.

“There was a different emphasis, but we decided there was no point in limiting the public discussion from the word go,” said an official, acknowledging that gathering outside views would take several months.

Both sides recognise that it is not possible to draw up uniform rules to cover, for example, both milk and fish. The Commission is, however, looking at a possible general definition of microbiological standards from which specific product-by-product rules could be developed.

The Commission's job may be rendered easier if it elects to adopt some of the guidelines drawn up by the so-called Codex Alimentarius, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation food standards body. “We'll have to see if the codex is suitable for us, and follow it closely where appropriate,” said an official.

But the EU has not always seen eye-to-eye with the codex and recently suffered an embarrassing defeat in a vote on the use of 'naturally-occurring' hormones in meat production.

International concerns - not least the need to respect the EU's obligations under two chapters of GATT - will also shape the Commission's thinking.

As the Commission wrestles with the problem of deciding on the scope of the proposed framework, groups representing EU food manufacturers and retailers are unwilling to commit themselves to a concerted lobbying campaign at this stage.

But one warned: “The Commission is being typically vague, saying it wants a more coherent approach and better conditions for the consumer. Coordination is necessary, but if it goes too far there's the risk that laws would become too prescriptive.”