Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)', and - 'Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)'
21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/61 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: — the ‘General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)’, and — ‘Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)’ (98/C 19/19) On 12 May 1997 (green paper) and on 14 May 1997 (communication) the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned green paper and communication. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Jaschick. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to five, with five abstentions. I. THE GREEN PAPER ON THE GENERAL PRIN- CIPLES OF FOOD LAW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1. Introduction 1. 1. The green paper is concerned with the substantive provisions of Community food law. By taking a stand and inviting comments on a large number of specific questions, the Paper seeks to launch a public debate on how far: — current food law meets the needs and expectations of consumers, producers, manufacturers and traders; — measures to improve monitoring and inspection systems meet the fundamental objective of ensuring a safe and wholesome supply of food; — measures designed to further develop Community food law in the future are necessary and appropriate. 1. 2. On the basis of the reactions to the paper, the Commission will subsequently consider the need for a) a general directive on food law in society, b) the consolidation or reworking of existing legislation, c) pro- posals of a non-legislative nature, for example changes in procedures and working methods. 2. General comments 2. 1. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to use the green paper to trigger a wide-ranging public debate on European food legislation and the Community’s future food policy. It sees the green paper as a valuable basis for discussions and as an opportunity to make European food legislation more transparent and more efficient so that high-quality food supplies can be guaranteed. The Committee notes, however, that a comprehensive, integrated EU food policy upon which the different pieces of food law could be based, does not yet exist. Such a comprehensive policy that sets out the general principles of food law should be developed as soon as possible. As a first step, this could be done in a possible white paper on food law and food policy. In addition, the Committee would also call upon the Commission to present a proposal for a general food law directive. The Committee would underline the importance 2. 2. of consumer protection, consumer safety and the main- tenance of a high level of public health standards and welcomes in the as yet unratified Amsterdam Treaty the provisions strengthening Articles 129 and 129(a) to give consumers a firm guarantee that health problems take precedence over economic interests. 2. 2. 1. With a view to ensuring a high level of public health and consumer protection, the ESC attaches particular importance to the strict application of the precautionary principle, so that where there is scientific uncertainty and no possibility of carrying out a compre- hensive risk assessment, the approach taken to risk management must reflect that uncertainty. The Com- mittee emphasizes, however, that an approach that allows anything that is not directly damaging to health alone is not satisfactory from a consumer point of view. It therefore stresses the need for a clear commitment to the principle of preventative health and consumer protection. Both this principle and the precautionary principle should be incorporated into the general food law directive referred to above. C 19/62 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 2. 2. 2. The Committee would nevertheless point out that there is usually no such thing as a zero risk and life’s general risks by and large have to be accepted. The consumer also bears responsibilities, particularly in the food sector, and the ESC is not unaware of this. Against this background, the ESC continues to 2. 2. 3. take the view that legislative and other provisions must be as simple as possible and only go into detail where necessary; consumer confidence after all cannot be achieved by introducing highly complicated and extremely detailed rules and regulations. It is much more important to increase consumer awareness of existing legislation and proven methods of guaranteeing the availability of high-quality foodstuffs. Consumer confi- dence can also be increased by making Europe’s system more transparent. 2. 3. The Committee would wish to make it clear that considerable progress has already been made in the past to ensure that a high level of consumer protection goes hand in hand with the establishment of the internal market. Securing the free movement of goods will continue to be of great importance in the future. 2. 4. The Committee stresses the importance of the international dimension of these questions and under- lines the need for common basic principles in world trade to ensure that consumer interests are protected and that the European economy remains competitive. The Committee assumes that the green paper’s 2. 5. recommended review of food legislation will encourage consumer confidence in European food laws, their safeguards and the manner in which they are implement- ed and monitored. 3. Specific comments on the various parts of the green paper 3. 1. Introduction (Part I) 3. 1. 1. The Committee agrees with the Commission (see Part I, 4) that food policy-making should take due account of innovation and competitiveness requirements as well as other socio-economic policy directions. The observance of international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius is of particular importance in this respect as long as decision-making reflects the principles of excellence, independence and transparency. These cri- teria should be used to benchmark the EU’s regulatory environment against the general legal framework in place in competing economies. It will also be necessary to create a system whereby the EU’s regulatory system can be adjusted more quickly than in the past to new scientific knowledge and innovations. This will enable the European food industry to retain its international competitiveness and keep abreast of innovations. 3. 1. 2. The Committee is of the view that the Com- munity undoubtedly has a role to play in the field of nutrition (Part I, 5). In this connection it is vital to promote consumer education and information so that the consumer is placed in a position where he can make informed purchasing decisions (1). The Committee nevertheless feels that it is inappropriate to introduce Community rules and regulations on nutrition because of the wide range of nutritional habits in Europe. Community intervention here should be kept to the basic minimum. 3. 2. Simplification and rationalization of EU food law (Part II) 3. 2. 1. A simplification and rationalization of EU food law would be welcome provided that this does not endanger the necessary safety standards. In carrying out this task, the quality of legislation must come before quantity. Simplification must not, however, lead to a renationalization of the European rules and regulations needed in the single market. It is also particularly important to examine how national legislative initiatives detrimental to the free movement of goods are adequately countered at European level. 3. 2. 2. A distinction also needs to be made between self regulation in the foodstuffs sector and the use of voluntary instruments at European level (Part II, 4). In principle, we would lay stress on the food industry’s need to shoulder its own responsibilities. However, the extent to which this should take a ‘self-regulatory’ form must depend on the individual case in question. Without prejudice to existing safety requirements, the use of voluntary instruments must also in principle be examined before the introduction of legislation. The Committee takes the view that the principle of mutual recognition should also be accepted in the case of voluntary Member State instruments, even where there are no grounds for the immediate application of such instruments. Only if voluntary instruments in the internal market are accepted beyond national borders can the emergence of ‘de facto’ trade barriers be avoided. 3. 2. 3. The question of whether preference should be given to general or detailed regulations, to vertical or horizontal provisions in the internal market (Part II, 3 and Part II, 5), cannot be answered comprehensively. General and horizontal approaches are basically prefer- able but cannot be transformed into an incontrovertible principle. It is more important to consider what approach (1) This view is expressed in several ESC opinions, most recently in CES 888/96 — OJ C 295, 17. 10. 1996. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/63 is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Thus, in exceptional circumstances and where a case presents specific difficulties, it may be necessary to have detailed and/or vertical regulations. 3. 2. 4. With regard to national legislative initiatives (Part II, 7), the Committee supports the approach set out in the green paper and takes the view that, contrary to what is stated in Directive 83/189/EEC, the burden of providing evidence that national laws are not detri- mental to the internal market should lie with the Member States. With regard to the notification of national legislation, the Committee approves the extension of powers provided under the labelling, contaminants and hygiene rules to cover the entire Community foodstuff sector. The Committee also welcomes the development of clear principles for evaluating new national legislative initiatives; this likewise implies the striking of a proper balance between the subsidiarity principle and the justifiable need for national legislation, on the one hand, and the requirements of European legislative standardization, on the other. 3. 2. 5. In the fields of processing aids, the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs and dietary supplements (Part II, 8), the Committee agrees with the Commission that the principle of mutual recognition can offer no solution to detrimental effects in the internal market, and that further consultations on the content of laws in these areas should therefore be initiated (1). 3. 3. Review of (Part III) existing Community legislation 3. 3. 1. With regard to the adaptation of Community legislation to innovation and technical progress (Part III, 4), the Committee feels that only purely technical rules should be dealt with under the committee procedure. Questions of principle and sensitive questions from the point of view of the consumer with far-reaching importance should be the subject of a political decision. The introduction of a European-wide defi- 3. 3. 2. nition of ‘food’ and other generally important concepts (Part III, 5) is welcomed by the Committee. Such definitions should form part of a general foodstuffs regulation containing other basic requirements. This is the only way of ensuring that European food law is applied uniformly throughout the European Union. (1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently launched a consultation in view of possible Community legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared on the subject, presenting two options (an approach based on product safety and an approach based on the recommended daily intake). 3. 3. 2. 1. However, the proposed definition of a food- stuff raises, as is also indicated in the green paper, questions with regard to its general use for primary products which can be used as foodstuffs or foodstuff additives or processed into industrial products. Nonethe- less the Committee supports the proposal that the definition based on the Codex Alimentarius be used. An exception could be made for primary products in respect of which it is clear from the outset that they will at no time and in no way enter the food chain. The task of simplifying and rationalizing legis- 3. 3. 3. lation in the field of Community food hygiene (Part III, 6) has now begun and the move is particularly welcomed by the Committee. 3. 3. 3. 1. The numerous vertical directives with their specific provisions for sensitive categories of product (e. g. meat and fish preparations, milk products, etc. ) are incoherent, especially for firms subject to more than one set of provisions, and give rise to considerable red tape and expenditure on permits. The Committee is therefore pleased with the European Commission’s proposal to consolidate legislation into a single text and to launch a consultation exercise in connection with the planned simplification of vertical provisions. The green paper points to a welcome shift in 3. 3. 3. 2. policy in favour of thinking based on the general directive on food hygiene (Directive 93/43/EEC). The ESC shares the Commission’s view that a coherent and consistent body of legislation relating to food hygiene can best be achieved by the application of HACCP (2) principles and by limiting detailed prescriptive pro- visions to cases where they are regarded as essential. In this context the Committee is of the opinion that, in addition to the proposals already submitted, both vertical and horizontal hygiene requirements should be consolidated in a single text. It notes, however, that this would require clarification of the legal basis of such a document since current rules and regulations are based on different Treaty articles. 3. 3. 3. 3. HACCP principles should apply to the whole food chain (from ‘stable to table’), notwithstanding the size or type of establishment. Specific consultations with SMEs and agricultural enterprises are therefore required if such enterprises are to be in a position where they can apply these principles. 3. 3. 3. 4. The Committee considers that it is necessary to be consistent and press on down the road of simplification and rationalization. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the need for a clear definition (2) ‘HACCP’ (a self-checking system) stands for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. C 19/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 of the scope of any future provisions (cf. point 3. 3. 3. 2) — something which can be achieved first and foremost by laying down general and practical definitions. The Committee is of the view that the scope of veterinary hygiene rules should not be widened to include the retail supply of foodstuffs of animal origin since the retail trade is already covered by the general provisions currently laid down in the directive on food hygiene (Directive 93/43/EEC) which guarantees compliance with appropriate hygiene standards. 3. 3. 3. 5. With regard to primary products of non- animal origin the Committee is of the view that pesticide residues and contaminants constitute critical areas from the point of view of safety and hygiene. Legislative provisions on pesticide residues and contaminants should therefore be drawn up where they do not already exist and where they are felt to be necessary; European-level scientific committees should be involved in the drawing up of such provisions and the most stringent scientific standards should be set. Furthermore, there should be strict enforcement of pesticide residue limits. In drawing up pesticide legislation, industrial safety requirements should also be borne in mind. Since rules guaranteeing safety and hygiene standards need to be restricted to key areas, a more general set of provisions is not needed. The Committee underlines the importance of 3. 3. 4. foodstuff quality and points out that high standards have already been achieved. Rules on quality (Part III, 7) only need to be harmonized where a health link is established; preservation of the diversity of European products is another reason why rules on quality should not be harmonized. Any trade barriers resulting from national quality requirements must be countered by the consistent application of the principle of mutual recognition. By taking this line, problems stemming from different national quality requirements would be limited to the question of correct product labelling. Help for consumers in making purchasing decisions would be provided by the latest amendments to Directive 79/112/EEC introducing the principle of the quantitative declaration of ingredients. The Committee would also recall Council 3. 3. 4. 1. Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and for foodstuffs — two regulations which created instruments for diversification in the field of foodstuff quality. In terms of use, however, these regulations have so far been of secondary importance. 3. 3. 5. The Committee would emphasize the growing importance of foodstuff labelling rules (Part III, 8) in helping the consumer make purchasing decisions. The labelling of foodstuffs thus has an important role to play in the internal market. This means fulfilling the three essential requirements of labelling, viz. product identification, consumer information and product mar- keting. To fulfil these requirements, clearly recognizable, legible, simple, understandable, interesting and informa- tive labelling is needed which will not mislead the consumer. Attention must also be paid to increasing consumer wishes and growing consumer interest in receiving specific information. This relates inter alia to foodstuffs containing or derived from GMOs, pro- duction methods, the indication of packaging dates and compound ingredients of finished products. With respect to this latter question, the Committee believes that the 25 % rule should be abolished. 3. 3. 5. 1. The limits to labelling must however also be recognized and efforts made to open up new channels of information such as free telephone numbers, barcode scanners in shops, data banks, the Internet, etc. A look at the more than 40 European pieces of legislation on foodstuff labelling (the vast majority of which are mandatory), combined with the fact that the information on the labels is more and more detailed and hard for consumers to understand, reveals the need to review labelling provisions in the interests of consumers. In carrying out this review, mandatory labelling should be confined to the essential information required for purchasing decisions, whilst opportunities for the pro- vision of information on all other questions should be available on a voluntary basis. The Committee is of 3. 3. 5. 2. the opinion that nutritional labelling should be made compulsory (1). Before doing so, however, this type of labelling should be made more effective. To that end, major information and education campaigns will be needed, as consumers are not particularly well versed in nutritional labelling at the present time and so do not really know what to make off it. In addition, careful attention needs to be paid to the way the information is presented to consumers, so that it is understandable and useful to them (2). 3. 3. 5. 3. The Committee considers that codification is needed in the case of the food labelling Directive 79/112/EEC. Vertical labelling provisions should be incorporated in the consolidated text insofar as they also regulate horizontal labelling questions. They could be consolidated altogether in Directive 79/112/EEC. However, labelling elements particular to certain prod- 3. 3. 4. 2. In the view of the Committee, quality pro- visions with no link to health should be removed from veterinary legislation for reasons of coherence and consistency. (1) The ESC also made this request in its opinion on consumer policy priorities (cf. OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996 — points 2. 6. 3 and 2. 6. 7). (2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/65 ucts should continue to be contained in specific vertical regulations. Insofar as horizontal labelling features of specific groups of products are modified, they should again be incorporated in the horizontal regulation. 3. 3. 5. 4. The Committee would point out that Direc- tive 79/112/EEC also regulates the question of advertis- ing. As a matter of general principle, advertising and labelling should not come into conflict, i. e. advertising should be complementary to rather than at odds with labelling. 3. 3. 5. 4. 1. Advertising claims, particularly those relat- ing to health and diseases, pose problems in the Internal Market because of varying practices in the Member States. This happens despite the fact that Directive 79/112/EEC [Article 2(1)(b)] contains a general provision stating that the labelling must not attribute to a foodstuff of general use the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, nor must it suggest that it possesses such properties. This general provision is by and large sufficient to regulate the question of advertising in relation to diseases. In this respect a uniform interpre- tation and application of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC is nevertheless required in all Member States of the Community. Regarding health claims no such general rules exist. Consequently, although such claims may not be, strictly speaking, misleading in terms of current EC legislation, they may contribute to misunderstanding and misinformation about food and nutrition. Therefore, the following principles should perhaps be incorporated in Article 2 of Directive 79/112/EEC in the form of a clarifying amendment: — advertising messages stating that a foodstuff is suitable for treating or curing diseases shall be prohibited; — health claims shall be allowed provided that they reflect significant agreement among qualified experts supported by the totality of publicly available evi- dence and which contribute to inform consumers about the relationship between health and diet. Also, a framework for the enforcement of health claims should be established; — advertising messages referring to nutritional values and healthy eating habits, and to the importance of nutrients and healthy eating habits in maintaining good health and reducing the risk of disease, shall be allowed, under the condition that these messages are also supported by scientific evidence. 3. 4. Maintenance of a high level of protection (Part IV) 3. 4. 1. The Committee supports the Commission’s stance in favour of the strict application of the pre- cautionary principle to food safety and food legislation (Part IV, 2). 3. 4. 2. Extending the scope of the safeguard clause contained in Article 10 of the general directive on the hygiene of foodstuffs (Council Directive 93/43/EEC) to include intra-Community trade (Part IV, 4) is not in principle necessary since the directive on product safety, which contains effective provisions on the appropriate reaction of the authorities when there is a risk of delay, affects intra-Community trade. If additional, general safeguard clauses are drawn up, they should for reasons of consistency be based on existing veterinary regu- lations. 3. 4. 3. The introduction of a general obligation to ensure that food is safe and wholesome (Part IV, 7) is to be welcomed. Such an obligation would reduce the number of regulations required in this area. The Committee welcomes accommodation 3. 4. 3. 1. of the ‘due diligence’ defence, i. e. the principle existing in some Member States whereby a business can never be liable to criminal or administrative penalties for bringing a product on to the market if it has taken all the steps which could reasonably be expected of it to ensure that the foodstuff meets legal requirements. The extent to which this principle can be incorporated into different national legal systems nevertheless needs to be examined. Room should nevertheless be found at the very least for a statement of the basic principle at stake. However it also needs to be said that ‘due diligence defence’ is a legal feature of the common law system and as such is incompatible with continental European legal systems which link criminal liability to actual wrong doing and have enshrined the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ in their legal systems. 3. 4. 4. The ESC, in line with what has been said in a number of previous opinions, reiterates its view that the scope of Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (Part IV, 8) should be extended to cover unprocessed primary agricultural products (1). Account should nevertheless be taken of the specific character- istics of these products and the fact that detailed specific provisions already exist in this field. In the forthcoming months the ESC will tackle the question of liability for primary agricultural products again, as it will be (1) See on this question the views expressed in the ESC opinion of 31. 12. 1991 (OJ C 339) on completion of the internal market and consumer production. The opinion underlined the potential risks that the completion of the internal market could entail in the absence of proper monitoring and controls. It called for a consistent product safety policy recommending the inclusion of farm products and unforeseeable risks in the product liability directive. This position was reaffirmed in point 2. 7 of the ESC Opinion on BSE (OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996). C 19/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 consulted on the Commission proposal to amend Direc- tive 85/374/EEC to include these products within its scope. 3. 4. 5. With regard to the question of how the new aspirations of consumers are to be taken sufficiently into account (Part IV, 9), the Committee would draw attention to the green paper’s statement that ‘experience suggests that where there is a genuine consumer demand for more information about certain aspects of a food- stuff, this demand will frequently be met by producers and distributors on a voluntary basis, for example, through labelling, telephone information lines or the Internet’. Information about rapidly changing aspi- rations should also continue to be made available on a voluntary basis. Responding to the new aspirations of consumers is a way of helping to strengthen consumer confidence. 3. 5. Ensuring the effective implementation of internal market rules (Part V) 3. 5. 1. The Committee’s basic feeling here is that the harmonization and adoption of legislative provisions will only be successful if the provisions are transposed, implemented and monitored effectively and uniformly throughout the European Union (Part V, 2). In this respect improvements are needed at all three levels. Thought needs to be given to the extent to which the necessary exchange of information between representa- tives from Member States, producers, industry, com- merce, employees and consumers should be insti- tutionalized. Consideration should also be given to the case for inviting interested parties to meetings of the Standing Foodstuffs Committee. 3. 5. 1. 1. The Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs should also be consulted in connection with the drawing up of regular Commission reports on progress in implementing and monitoring legislation. This Advisory Committee should also be regularly consulted on all draft food legislation — a field where it has a vital role to play. Another institution already in place is the ESC itself. There is also a role here for the Advisory Veterinary Committee. 3. 5. 1. 2. If internal market legislation is to be effec- tively implemented, it is necessary for decision-takers in Member States, e. g. the authorities and courts, to be informed about the current legal situation and brought up to date with European legislation by attending refresher courses in advanced training establishments. The social partners in individual sectors of the economy also have a key role to play here since they are involved in social dialogue and can, for example, attend highly important basic and advanced in-house courses on the implementation of food legislation. 3. 5. 2. The Commission proposal that food legislation should include a general principle calling for equivalent, effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in the different Member States (Part V, 4) is welcome from the point of view of ensuring equal terms of competition and an equally high level of consumer protection. The ESC is aware here that national proportionality must be taken into account. 3. 5. 3. The principle of mutual recognition will con- tinue unchanged to be of great importance in non- harmonized areas (Part V, 5). It would also be a good idea for the Commission to identify and assess problems and cases of inadequate information arising for con- sumers in the non-harmonized areas. 3. 6. The external dimension The Committee agrees with the Commission 3. 6. 1. that imported foodstuffs from non-member countries must meet exactly the same requirements as products produced within the Community. 3. 6. 2. With regard to the multilateral dimension and the ever-increasing importance of world trade, it is necessary for the European food industry and European consumer interests to be represented as effectively as possible in hard-fought world trade negotiations and in relevant international bodies such as the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius. European interests need to be pushed more effectively than in the past and this can be done by coordinating and pooling efforts. To achieve this goal the European Community, its Member States, and the members of the European Economic Area will have to work together more intensively than has so far been the case. 3. 6. 2. 1. The Committee considers that the European Community needs to play an active role in the aforemen- tioned bodies. Steps need to be taken to ensure that should the European Union become a direct member, EU representation is no less effective than that of individual Member States. 3. 6. 2. 2. In this context, the Committee would also call upon the Community and the Member States to actively promote the European viewpoint that in cases of scientific doubt consumer interests take precedence over economic considerations. 3. 6. 3. In the context of the bilateral dimension of food legislation (Part VI, 3), mention could also be made of the fact that, in view of the different attitudes in the US and the EU on food standards issues (GMOs, Hormones, BST), the Committee should continue dis- cussions with its US counterparts in the context of the Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogue. II. THE COMMUNICATION ON CONSUMER HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY 1. General comments 1. 1. Back in July 1996, in its Opinions on the BSE 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/67 crisis (1) and on priorities for consumer policy (1), the Economic and Social Committee expressed its concern about food safety and invited the Commission to strengthen the authority of monitoring systems so as to reassure consumers that health concerns took precedence over economic interests. In this context the Committee welcomes the amendments to Articles 129 and 129a contained in the Amsterdam Treaty. 1. 2. The ESC also drew attention to the misfunc- tioning of the relationship between scientific advice and the decision-making processes and called upon the Council, Commission, Parliament and Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure that food products were safe for consumers and that the present situation did not deteriorate. The Committee welcomes the communication as 1. 3. an essential step towards a consistent policy in the fields of food, cosmetics, animal nutrition, animal health and animal welfare, and sees it as an opportunity to build up consumer confidence, as was underlined during the debate that took place in the Environment Section on 8 May 1997 following the presentation of the communication by Commissioner Emma Bonino. 1. 4. In expressing its views, it also welcomes President Santer’s statement at the February plenary session inviting the ESC as an institution representing different interests and components of society to provide a specific input in this field and to develop a permanent and open dialogue with all interested parties on new complex topics involving ethical, scientific, social and economic issues. 1. 4. 1. However, regrettably, the ESC is nowhere mentioned in the actual communication. As a matter of principle, whenever the European Parliament is consulted, so must the ESC. The ESC firmly supports the strengthening of 1. 5. experts’ committees but feels that changes to the resolution governing detailed procedures — on which the Commission is required by the end of 1998 to submit in accordance with the a proposal to the Council declaration on the final act as set out in Article 18(e) of the Amsterdam Treaty — are also extremely important. In the view of the ESC, any revision of the resolution on detailed procedures should accommodate the need to precisely define the powers invested in the Commission to enact implementing measures, especially in terms of (1) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996. the content and scope of such powers. Carefully defining in advance the scope and limits to the power to enact implementing legislation would then give legitimacy to the greater independence and more extensive decision- making powers enjoyed by the Commission. 2. Specific comments 2. 1. The Committee underlines the importance of scientific advice by the scientific committees, regarding it as a basis for legislation on the protection of consumer health. The Committee likewise supports the call for excellence, independence and transparency. 2. 1. 1. The ESC considers that a multidisciplinary approach is needed to be able to fulfil the tasks of scientific committees. The discussions and conclusions reached by these committees, including dissenting mi- nority views, should be accessible to the public. The independence of committee members is a sine qua non here although realism must also come into the equation. What is really needed in the committees are highly competent scientists who have already had experience of and carried out work in a wide variety of areas. The committee chairman, however, must always be notified of any conflict of interest before a given meeting takes place. The increasing tendency to consult scientific 2. 1. 2. committees is to be welcomed as long as decision-making reflects the principles of excellence, independence and transparency. Such consultations should be obligatory where health problems are concerned. This is particu- larly important in the context of international trade and the high profile of science in the WTO and SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary measures) Agreements. 2. 1. 3. The establishment of a scientific steering com- mittee to coordinate different committees and to take decisions on the involvement of several committees where multiple expertise is needed, is welcomed by the ESC. 2. 2. The legislator must be guided by the precaution- ary principle where safe conclusions are not reached despite calling on the expertise of highly qualified specialists and using all available scientific information. Legislation should in principle be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence; in other words in cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or there are uncertainties, the Commission must adopt an approach to legislation which reflects these uncertainties. It must be remembered that there is no such thing as a zero risk and that what is needed in these cases is a political decision on acceptable risks. C 19/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 2. 3. As far as control and inspection services are concerned, the Committee would emphasize the need for effective and appropriately funded mechanisms. 2. 3. 1. The Committee supports the proposed intro- duction of a new approach which would embrace the monitoring of the whole food production chain (involving both animal and plant products) but would be limited to the ‘monitoring of monitoring’. Monitoring methods will have to be reviewed and systems for inspecting the performance of the competent authorities introduced. The required level of transparency must be achieved in a non-discriminatory manner whilst respecting confidentiality thresholds. The new approach must not however jeopardize consumer protection. The application of an externally audited quality 2. 3. 2. control system (e. g. EN 45004) to the management of the control services is regarded as opportune by the Committee since it would signify bringing control service management up to the current requirements of a modern administration. The establishment of a strong and efficient 2. 3. 3. authority for control and inspection services is supported by the ESC (1). The task of this authority is to ‘monitor monitoring’. The new authority should therefore be expected to meet the most stringent conditions of excellence, transparency and independence. 2. 3. 4. A general foodstuff agency, such as exists in the USA (FDA), is not regarded by the Committee as necessary. The advantages of such an agency over the existing system in Europe are not obvious so no action should be taken in Europe to set up such an agency. (1) In its opinion of 27 November 1996 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection (OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997) the ESC expressed doubts as to whether the conversion of the existing office into an agency was really necessary. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/69 APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Defeated amendments The following amendments, which were supported by more than one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during the debate: Point 3. 2. 5 Replace by the original text of point 3. 2. 5, as follows: ‘In the fields of processing aids, the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs, and dietary supplements (1) (Part II, 8), priority should be given to the principle of mutual recognition. The Committee considers that further Community legislation is needed in these fields only in cases where obstacles to trade cannot be totally eliminated by mutual recognition. ’ Result of the vote For: 34, against: 39, abstentions: 14. Point 3. 3. 3. 3 The second sentence should be replaced by the following: ‘Specific checks are therefore required to establish to what extent these can actually be applied by SMEs and agricultural enterprises. ’ Result of the vote For: 28, against: 56, abstentions: 15. Point 3. 3. 5 Delete the last two sentences, from ‘This relates inter alia. ’ to ‘. should be abolished’. Result of the vote For: 32, against: 56, abstentions: 18. Point 3. 3. 5. 2 Replace this point by the original text, as follows: ‘As far as nutritional labelling is concerned, the Committee would refer to its comments in the opinion on “priorities for consumer policy” (2). This opinion has already made the point that consumers are not very interested in nutritional labelling; this may be due to the fact that consumers are not particularly well versed in nutritional information at the present time and so do not really know what to make of it. The Committee also said in this opinion that “major information and education campaigns will be needed to make nutritional labelling more effective”. Consumer understanding of existing labelling systems must therefore be improved before there is any discussion of further labelling requirements. ’ Result of the vote For: 30, against: 69, abstentions: 7. (1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently launched a consultation in view of possible Community legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared on the subject, presenting two options (an approach based on product safety and an approach based on the recommended daily intake). (2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996