Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.7.2-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am very pleased to take this first available opportunity of outlining to Parliament the main lines of the Commission's White Paper on food safety, adopted on Wednesday last, 12 January, in association with my colleague, Mr Liikanen.
The detailed action plan on food safety in the White Paper sets a precise timetable for action over the next three years. Over 80 measures are envisaged. Our objective is to put in place a coherent and up-to-date body of food law by the end of 2002.
We are also envisaging the establishment of a European food authority by 2002 as an essential complement to the new food safety regime. This idea will be the focus of much scrutiny and debate. It has already attracted much comment, including reactions from Members of Parliament.
The chapter of the White Paper devoted to the establishment of a European food authority is clearly designed to elicit views and comments. We are seeking views by the end of April on what we envisage. I will return to this process of consultation in a few moments.
The Commission believes that major structural change is required in our system of food safety to ensure the twin objectives of assuring the highest standard of food safety and restoring consumer confidence. Why should a European food authority be an essential part of that structure of change? The first key concern is independence. Key stakeholders, including consumers, are seeking a system that is independent and perceived to be independent of all vested interests.
We must also ensure excellence and transparency. We have made a lot of progress over the past couple of years since the reformed system of scientific advice was adopted as a consequence of the BSE crisis. However, the Commission believes that we must go further. We must create a permanent and truly independent, excellent and transparent system of risk assessment. The key task of the authority will be risk assessment in the area of food safety. We envisage that the work of the existing five Scientific Committees devoted to food safety will be transferred to the authority. They may not be transferred in their present form or structure – this is an issue on which we will elicit views before making our definitive proposals on the authority's establishment.
However, if we were merely to propose a simple moving of deckchairs, this would clearly not be enough. As the White Paper makes clear, the new authority must be a value-added structure.
I am of the view that the existing system of scientific advice needs to be strengthened. Within the authority I envisage much stronger scientific and other support for the independent scientists. I am also envisaging that the authority will be much more proactive than our current regime – anticipate rather than react, identify issues before they become crises. This proactive approach should become the hallmark of the authority. To be proactive the White Paper identifies a number of new areas that would be embraced by the authority. These include a comprehensive information gathering and surveillance function, the coordination of scientific information in the EU, and building up strong networks with food safety agencies and bodies in Member States. As part of its remit we also envisage the authority operating an enhanced rapid alert system for food and feed concerns.
The Commission has decided that it is neither appropriate nor feasible to devolve risk management power to the authority. We believe that decisions in the risk management area should properly remain the preserve of the Commission, Parliament and Council. I make no apology for this approach; I firmly believe that it is the correct one. Certainly there are those who would argue that we should give law-making powers to such an authority. I do not accept those views and reject them with some degree of passion.
It was only last year that the Treaty was amended to give Parliament a much greater role in the legislative process. To give such a role to an authority at this stage would be, in my view, a retrograde step and represent a dilution of democratic accountability. I will be very interested to hear the views of Parliament itself in relation to this matter. There are also those who argue that the Commission could effectively ignore the advice of the new authority. I also reject this line of argument. How could a Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection reject or ignore well-founded independent scientific advice in relation to food safety? Would this be in the interests of Europe's citizens? In my view, most definitely not unless such rejection of the scientific arguments were soundly based, rationally argued and fully justified. It seems difficult to envisage such a situation evolving.
I can assure you here today that the Commission, in exercising its risk management functions, will fully take account of the scientific advice of the authority. I have already said that the authority will be charged with developing networks with national food safety agencies and bodies in the Member States. This is a major task.
At my hearing last September, I promised speedy delivery of this White Paper. I am happy that we have been able to deliver so quickly. The White Paper represents three to four months of intensive work since the new Commission was appointed last September. It takes on board the extensive consultations of the past couple of years since the Commission's Green Paper on food law was published. Equally it reflects our experiences of recent food alerts in such areas as dioxin and sludge, as well as the BSE crisis.
We must develop greater certainty in the science that underpins food safety in the European Union. The authority must become the authoritative source of scientific advice and information on food safety issues. This situation will not come about by the very creation of the authority but will evolve over time as confidence is gained in the authority itself.
I do not believe we can be prescriptive in the area of science and advice based on science. However, with the evolution of dynamic networks with national scientific bodies and agencies, the authority will become pre-eminent on the European stage. I am also anxious to hear the views of Parliament in this regard.
As an integral part of a value-added structure, the White Paper proposes that the authority would have a major role in risk communication: to disseminate complex scientific information in a consumer-friendly way; to be the obvious and indispensable port of call for the most up-to-the-minute data on risk; to be highly visible; to tell the good news story about food; to be proactive.
The White Paper also contains very important proposals in respect of controls. This is a hugely important component of the system of checks and balances to ensure that Member States and operators are complying with Community legislation. I want to see a genuine internal market operating in the control arena. In this context we are also proposing to strengthen significantly the control function carried out by the food and veterinary office located in Dublin.
This revised Community framework would have three core elements: operational criteria set up at Community level, Community control guidelines, and enhanced administrative cooperation in the development and operation of control. As part of our proposals in this area – which I expect to bring forward at the end of this year – I will be examining whether additional powers in addition to infringement procedures need to be given to the Commission. These could include withholding Community financial support or recouping funding already committed to a Member State.
These proposals must be seen as part of our mission to have the highest food safety standards in the world, boost consumer confidence and increase markets for farmers and producers in the Union.
In addition to the proposals for a new European food authority and an enhanced control system at Community-level, the White Paper proposes an action plan with a wide range of measures to improve and bring coherence to the Community's legislation, covering all aspects of food products from farm to table.
It sets out over 80 separate actions that are envisaged over the period ahead and intends to close identified loopholes in current legislation. The new legal framework will cover animal feed, animal health and welfare, hygiene, contaminants and residues, novel food, additives, flavourings, packaging and irradiation. It will include a proposal on general food law which will embody the principles of food safety such as responsibility of feed manufacturers, farmers and food operators, traceability of feed, food and ingredients, proper risk analysis through, for instance, risk assessment – that is, scientific advice and information analysis – risk management – that is, regulation and control – risk communication, and application of the precautionary principle if and when appropriate.
As regards the precautionary principle, I might add that the Commission is currently finalising a communication which I expect to be adopted very soon.
I look forward to having a useful exchange of views this afternoon with the Members of Parliament who would clearly have preferred to do this last week if there had been an appropriate parliamentary forum available. However, having regard to my contacts with the presidents of the relevant committees, I recognise that this was not feasible. But I know too that we will have many further opportunities in the coming months to consider the White Paper's proposals on the authority. We now have a number of months to have the necessary debate on the Commission's ideas on the White Paper on the establishment of a European food authority. Parliament will have a key part to play in this debate. Parliament played a crucial role in Europe's response to the BSE crisis. It has especially active since then in bringing citizens' concerns about food safety issues to the fore. I expect that Parliament's contribution to the debate on the authority can be as incisive and constructive.
The White Paper also reflects the concerns of this Parliament which you have outlined to both President Prodi and myself on the numerous occasions we have debated food safety in this House since the Commission was appointed.
While we have a number of months to the end of April to debate the issue and garner our views, I recognise fully that this is also a very tight timeframe. I would therefore ask Parliament to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that its views can be formulated as quickly as possible. It is essential that the Commission should have the benefit of Parliament's contribution to the shaping of what would be a key component of raising consumer health protection to a new plane and thereby restoring consumer confidence in the European Union's food safety regime.
The European food authority will be a key ingredient in the EU's food safety regime in the years ahead. It is essential that we get the mix right.
I do not need to remind you that consumer confidence in Europe's food safety regime has been badly affected by the crises and alerts of recent years and months. The Commission is fully committed to restoring that confidence by putting in place the most up-to-date and effective food safety regime in the world. When I launched the White Paper last week I said that the shopping trolley is one of the most potent weapons on the face of the earth. The most discerning decisions are made by the consumers of Europe. If their confidence is damaged this is reflected in shopping decisions. This in turn has a dramatic effect on farmers, producers and industry generally.
In an industry worth some EUR 600 billion annually, even a slight dip in confidence levels can have significant effects. Between the agro-food sector and the farming sector there are over 10 million employees. High levels of confidence are necessary to boost job numbers and competitiveness.
This crisis of confidence has also had the unfortunate but inevitable effect of eroding the trust of consumers in the systems and institutions at national and European level that should monitor and assure the highest standards of food safety.
In saying all of this, I would like to make it clear that Europe nevertheless has one of the best food industries in the world and also one of the safest food control systems. The challenge is to make the system the very best.
The overall objective therefore of the White Paper on food safety is to put in place the necessary legislation and structures that will guarantee the highest possible level of health protection for consumers arising from the consumption of food. We are setting out a challenging and ambitious agenda for change. The Commission will need the full support of Parliament if we are to achieve our ambitions on schedule. We will also need the fullest support from the Council and other key stakeholders.
The White Paper on food safety outlines a comprehensive range of actions needed to complement and modernise existing EU food legislation. All of these measures are designed to make it more coherent, understandable and flexible. We want to promote better enforcement of that legislation and to provide greater transparency to consumers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples