Reform of the ‘General Food Law,’ the basic act in modern food law, is underway. And the European Commission aims to cover up secrets about chemical risks.
General Food Law
, coupon and review
The ‘
General Food Law’
(GFL), reg. EC 178/02, initiated the new course of food law in Europe. Everything is based on risk analysis, which must inform every regulatory initiative as well as the authorities’ measures. To ensure high safety standards–of products and manufacturing processes–in food and feed supply chains.
The ‘
Fitness Check’
– That is, the ‘coupon’ to which reg. EC 178/02 was submitted – was successful. The European Commission, in its report dated 15.1.18, confirmed the suitability of the ‘General Food Law’ Compared with the given goals. (1) Except neglecting the widespread phenomenon of food fraud.
The only areas for improvement, according to Brussels, pertain to the (lack of) transparency of the scientific studies conducted by EFSA and the chemical approval processes. Substances that contaminate the environment and, inevitably, enter the food chain. With serious harmful effects and dangers, to human and animal health. (2)
The draft revision of the GFL, a mild reform prepared by the European Commission, is now before the European Parliament and member states and could be adopted by mid-2019. (3)
General Food Law, the proposed revision of Brussels
The European Commission aspires to improve transparency in chemical approval procedures. In the hope of recovering consumer confidence, which has been undermined by successive scandals in recent years.
Scandals such as glyphosate, which in 2017 undermined EFSA’s credibility. When parts of the Parma Authority’s scientific evaluation turned out to be a ‘copy-paste’ of Monsanto’s proposed permit application. (4)
The European Citizens’ Initiative 6.10.17, ‘Ban Glyphosate and Protect People and the Environment from Toxic Pesticides,’ has collected more than 1.3 million signatures. In addition to calling for a permanent ban on the use of glyphosate in the EU, the initiative seeks a reform of the pesticide approval procedure. In order to ensure effective transparency on scientific studies considered by EFSA as part of its evaluations.
The doubts of
ClientEarth
ClientEarth
, an NGO dedicated to environmental protection, nevertheless considers the serious problematic nature and need for reform of the Commission’s proposal.
The critical issue concerns, in particular, those parts of the proposal that commit EFSA to protect information that is submitted as ‘confidential’ by requesting operators. Behind the screen of intellectual property rights protection and data exclusivity. (5)
From Brussels’ perspective, such information could only be made public in two scenarios:
-when urgent actions are essential for the protection of public health, animals or the environment, and
-when the information is part of the conclusions of scientific opinions and is related to foreseeable health effects. (6)
The data protection is excessive, according to ClientEarth, and risks undermining the food safety guarantees that the General Food Law itself is supposed to provide. With unacceptable prejudice to the right of access to sensitive information, by citizens and NGOs.
‘
We need to make sure the public
has all the information on which EU institutions rely when deciding if a chemical is ‘safe’ enough to end up in food or the environment. This is the only way to restore public trust and, importantly, to empower civil society and independent researchers to scrutinize decisions authorising products on the market’.
‘It is in the interest of EU institutions to get civil society and independent researchers on board.
Transparency
will also become a strong incentive for companies to provide accurate and up-to-date data, which may avoid the repeating past abuses’ (Apolline Roger, ClientEarth). (7)
Dario Dongo and Giulia Torre
Notes
(1) https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/general_food_law/fitness_check_en
(2) In the case of endocrine disruptors, the European Commission was condemned in December 2015 for failing to fulfill its duty to protect citizens with respect to risks related to endocrine disruptors: see https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/salute/interferenti-endocrini-la-commissione-latita
(3) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-2941_en.htm
(4) On the EP page The presentation made by Ms Carey Gillam (U.S. Right to Know) on the influence of lobbying on scientific assessments and risk analysis is available at http://www.emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/committees/agenda/201710/ENVI/ENVI(2017)1011_1P/sitt-7163493. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/ENVI/DV/2017/10-11/PH_Glyphosate_Pigeon_EN.pdf On the Efsa – Monsanto – glyphosate scandal, see http://www.eunews.it/2017/09/15/efsa-autorita-alimentare-ue-glifosato-monsanto/92515
(5) The text of the proposal, at https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-179-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF
(6) See proposed Article 1, concerning the amendment of Art. 39 of reg. 178/2002.
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
Graduated in law, master in European Food Law, she deals with agro-food, veterinary and agricultural legislation. She is a PhD in agrisystem.
