I welcome Mr. Eamon Corcoran, principal officer, and Ms Roisin Cahillane, assistant principal officer in the food unit of the Department of Health and Children, and Dr. Rhodri Evans from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, who are here to update members on four EU legislative proposals COM (2006) 423, COM (2006) 425, COM (2006) 427 and COM (2006) 428, relating to the reform of the regulatory environment for food additives, food flavourings and certain food ingredients. Before asking Mr. Corcoran to make his opening remarks, I draw to the attention of delegates the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not attach to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Corcoran to make his opening remarks.
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Presentation.
Mr. Eamon Corcoran
I am accompanied by Dr. Rhodri Evans from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Ms Roisin Cahillane and Mr. Michael Burke. I thank members of the committee for the opportunity to make a presentation on the four proposals that form what is termed the food improvement agents package.
I am principal officer in charge of the food unit of the Department of the Health and Children. The Department is responsible for the national legislative framework that applies to food safety and for policy input into food safety legislation agreed at European level. In this area, the Department is assisted by experts from the FSAI, one of whom, Dr. Rhodri Evans, is in attendance today.
Legislation governing controls on the safety of foodstuffs in Ireland is mainly based on EU legislation which has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and is binding on all member states. The Department of Health and Children's responsibilities include the transposition of European legislation into national law and the FSAI is then responsible for its enforcement, thereby ensuring compliance. In carrying out its enforcement responsibilities the authority has entered into service contracts with a number of agencies including the Health Service Executive and the Department of Agriculture and Food.
On 28 July, the Commission adopted this package of four linked proposals intended to introduce harmonised EU legislation on food enzymes for the first time and which would also update existing flavourings and additives legislation, bringing the rules into line with the latest scientific and technological developments. The package also includes a simplified approvals procedure that will lay down a common authorisation system and procedural rules for the other three elements of the package. The reason for the package approach is that all three categories are essentially added to food for technological reasons and while the separate texts seek to achieve the same objectives — loosely these are to: simplify and harmonise legislation; ensure efficiency in the areas of food safety and human health; and to assist the free movement of products within the EU — they also reflect the fact that each have different starting points.
In respect of each element of the package the Commission has examined the proposals under the principles of proportionality, that is, legislation should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its stated objectives, and subsidiarity, that is, the EU should not adopt measures at Community level except where member states agree that individual action is insufficient to achieve the stated objectives, and has put forward convincing argument that the proposals are in keeping with the terms of those principles. The proposals are mainly technical in nature and, as they are in the form of regulations, will be directly applicable in each member state. The package provides for independent scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA.
Since September, each of the proposals has been introduced by the Commission to the Council working party on foodstuffs, with a first read-through under the Finnish Presidency. The process of detailed discussion will continue under the German Presidency, which commences on 1 January next.
I will set out the key elements of each of the proposals. In regard to enzymes — the relevant document is COM 425 — the legislation controlling the use of enzymes in food processing is not fully harmonised in the European Union, which can create barriers to trade. Currently, enzymes used in food processing are considered to be either food additives or processing aids. However, most enzymes are used as processing aids and are therefore excluded from food additives legislation and safety assessments at EU level. The proposed regulation will apply to enzymes used for a technological purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport or storage of food, including those used as processing aids. It will allow the Commission to update and add food enzymes to an EU positive list of food enzymes following a positive opinion from the EFSA. For every food enzyme included in the positive list specifications, the criteria on purity and the origin of the food enzyme shall also be laid down. In proposing this regulation the Commission has set as its objectives the protection of human health and consumers' interests and the promotion of fair trading of food enzymes. It is considered that only those enzymes still active in the final product will require to be labelled, setting out also the function it has such as, for example, acting as a stabiliser.
In regard to additives — the relevant document is COM 428 — as identified earlier, the proposed regulation aims to update existing legislation in this area which dates back to a 1989 framework directive, 89/107/EEC, which has been updated and amended on many subsequent occasions. The current directives, namely, the original framework directive and three others covering sweeteners, colours and other additives, will be incorporated into the new regulation.
One of the key changes envisaged is that industry would be able to gain approval for new additives in a relatively prompt manner as the draft regulation envisages the use, under the common procedures, of a comitology — committee-based — system to clear applications. The current system, in contrast, requires that all approvals arise by updating the original directives, which requires a formal legislative proposal to be approved by the European Parliament and Council through co-decision.
Additives legislation, in particular, is one of the last technical areas which require to be updated through co-decision. Under the proposed system companies or a member state would apply to the Commission to approve a new additive, whether a flavouring or enzyme, or for a new use of an already approved substance. The Commission would then ask EFSA for an opinion on the safety of the substance. On receipt of a favourable opinion from EFSA, the Commission can draft a decision clearing the substance, which it could adopt after approval through the new comitology procedure's two stages, that is, a regulatory committee followed by Council and Parliament's three-month right of scrutiny. All approvals will be based on a safety evaluation carried out by EFSA.
The proposal also sets out a re-evaluation system for all additives currently on the EU market, based on risk assessments from EFSA, and envisages a review of the technological aspects of all current food additive authorisations. The proposal does not seek to impose stricter rules on the use of additives in food, although the process of re-evaluation of additives already on the list may result in some additives being removed from the list. It also includes new harmonised EU provisions for additives used in other additives and enzymes and updates the labelling rules for food additives and those produced from genetically modified organisms, GMOs, in line with Regulation 1829/2003/EC on GM food and feed.
In regard to flavourings — the relevant document is COM 427 — this proposed regulation aims to update the existing legislation governing food flavourings currently laid down in Directive 88/388/EEC. The proposal aims to allow for future technological developments and to better inform the consumer about the use of flavourings. It also seeks to take into account scientific advice on substances of toxicological concern and to adapt the existing legislation to the requirements requested by Regulation (EC) 882/2004 on official feed and food control. The role of EFSA is also formalised.
Directive 88/388/EEC lays down general rules for flavourings, labelling requirements and maximum levels for substances present in flavourings. In the proposed regulation, definitions of flavourings have been refined and some new definitions introduced for "food ingredients with flavouring properties", "source material", "flavour precursor" and "other flavouring". The proposal introduces stricter conditions for the use of the term "natural" when describing flavourings and it is proposed to remove the reference to "nature-identical" in order that only two categories of flavourings for labelling purposes would remain. These are "natural" and "artificial".
The proposal also sets out clearer rules on maximum levels for undesirable substances in line with EFSA opinions.
In regard to COM 423, the common authorisation procedure, this proposal is in line with the Commission's aims for simplification of legislation and its better regulation initiative and with the objectives set out in the White Paper on Food Safety. The proposed regulation introduces a single common procedure for the assessing and authorising of additives, flavourings and enzymes and includes a safety evaluation by EFSA. It is designed to be simple and effective, while respecting the principles of good administration and legal certainty. The expected benefits of this common approach include simplified centralised legislation and more consistency in the approval procedures.
The proposal assigns to the Commission, on the basis of the authority's scientific assessments, the task of creating, maintaining and updating a general positive list for each category of substances concerned. The inclusion of a substance on one of these lists means that its use is authorised in general for all operators on the Community market. Under the proposal, the competent authorities of the member states will be able to follow all stages of the authorisation procedure. The requests for updates must now be addressed to the Commission, without first going through the national authorities and the administrative burden on member states will be eased.
In an intervention at the meeting of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny held on 12 October last, Senator John Dardis queried if this approach would favour larger rather than smaller Irish companies and also questioned its relationship to the subsidiarity principle. It is not considered that there will be any negative impact on smaller Irish enterprises that submit applications.
In respect of the subsidiarity principle, it is considered that these proposals are in compliance. The joint committee may also wish to note that a public consultation on the proposals held by the FSAI closed recently. Submissions received are being collated and these will be examined to inform future positions for Ireland during the upcoming discussion under the Finnish and German presidencies.
I thank Mr. Corcoran. Before I invite members to ask questions I apologise that the delegates' names were not on the nameplates due to a difficulty with the computer. I invite Deputy Naughten to commence.
I hope it was not one of the health board computers. I thank the officials for providing us with information on this area. Much of the time, this type of information goes over people's head. I am pleased the officials came before the committee. I especially welcome Dr. Evans. No more than myself, he did some of his tutoring under Deputy Upton. I hope she did as good a job on him as she did on me.
I plead guilty.
To return to the matter at hand. Much of the issue involving the alphabetic list and the numbers on the back of jars etc. goes over the heads of many people. In the past, some of the national newspapers did a series of articles to explain the letters and numbers to the public. I accept it is difficult to understand this information, as packages are only of a certain size and there are specifications about the size of the information and labelling that is put on them. Is there any mechanism by which we can get more clear information to the public on these additives, in a manner they can comprehend, rather than the situation that pertains at present that leads to confusion? Perhaps the difficulty is that by including too much information in the specified size, it becomes illegible.
My other question relates to rules and regulations that must be complied with in Ireland and throughout the European Union. What is the situation outside the European Union for products coming into Ireland? Monosodium glutamate is one of the most hotly debated issues in terms of additives. Would it be possible under these regulations for Ireland to decide to ban the use of this additive in all food products manufactured here or to ban products containing it coming into the country? The health effect of this additive is a source of current debate. I invite comment on this issue, given that we have experts in the field with us. There is great public concern on the impact of this additive and it would be useful if some light could be thrown on the issue.
My final point relates to GMOs. I presume we are talking about GMOs that produce an enzyme but also other products such as flavourings etc. When the products of an enclosed process are used as food additives, do they require labelling as GMO products, given that there is a GM food source?
I also welcome the delegation and thank the members for their presentation. I especially welcome Dr. Evans. I am delighted to see him back in Ireland.
I broadly welcome this development because one of the things it does is simplify the legislation for us. Up to now there has been great confusion around issues like natural, nature identical and synthetic. These terms do not make any sense to the average person trying to read them. I welcome anything that brings clarity and simplicity to the area of labelling.
It was stated that only those enzymes still active in the final product will be required to be labelled. Is it possible that one of those enzymes, active or inactive, might be allergenic? Perhaps there would be a requirement for it to be labelled on that basis.
Genetically modified rennin is already widely used in cheese production and it is not required to be labelled as such. People are not aware of that and they will not know unless we tell them about it. Why can we side-step that fact and not inform people that a product is genetically modified, albeit identical to the original?
What is the status and extent of the public consultation carried out by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland? Were consumers given an opportunity to comment on it or was that even perceived to be necessary? It was stated that the proposal does not seek to impose stricter rules on the use of additives in food although the process of re-evaluation of additives already on the list may result in some additives being removed. Are there any implications for the food industry, given that we have been using these additives quite happily for some time yet it may be decided, based on a re-evaluation, that it might be prudent to remove some of them for whatever reason? I invite a comment on that.
I also welcome the delegation and the detailed explanation that was provided. As a farmer from the Cavan-Monaghan area where much pig and poultry is produced, my main concern is the additives that are allowed in products with which we have to compete. How easily can products be tested for the marketplace?
As much as 25% of the poultry used here is imported. I have visited production units abroad, as have the Chairman and some other members, and we saw the product being produced in totally different environments to that in which we have to work. As a former chairman of the national livestock committee of the IFA and a former chairman of the European committee on beef and veal, I remember the whole debate about natural and synthetic hormones. Ultimately, it was decided not to use any such products here. We no longer use any hormones in the production of beef yet they are commonly used in the United States. Likewise, steroids are used in milk production elsewhere and we have to compete with this on the world market. I am worried about the competition but, equally, I am worried about the product that consumers are using here and whether sufficient testing has been carried out to ensure it is safe.
Poultry from abroad that is slightly processed can be sold as an Irish product and this has serious implications for the consumer. I recently spoke to members of a family in Cavan, discovered all their health problems and realised how strict their diet must be. They cannot use Irish cows' milk and must instead use goats' milk and certain products from health food shops. There is sensitivity and genuine anxiety among the public and we must therefore be absolutely clear about what is added to foods, and not about just flavourings. Given my background, I feel very strongly that we should have a means of testing for additives to ensure foods are safe and that we are working on a level playing field.
Mr. Corcoran
I will begin and then refer questions to my colleagues. On Deputy Naughten's remarks, one of the key principles in food labelling is that the consumer should not be misled. The EU labelling regime is currently under review and we have made observations to the Commission in this regard. We will obviously consider any proposals that emerge.
I agree with the Deputy that the information conveyed by much labelling is very dense. Many packages are quite small and there are limits to the information that can be conveyed. The consumer who is concerned about this issue has many sources of information available to him or her by way of publications or very reputable websites. The issue can be researched. Behind the issue of labelling is the overriding issue of food safety. The core function of our food safety legislation is to ensure that whatever goes into food is safe and wholesome. Labelling is therefore only one control. Material originating outside the European Union must conform to EU requirements if made available in the EU market. There is no back door in that sense.
Deputy Naughten asked what would happen if Ireland decided to ban monosodium glutamate. This option is not available to us. I want to talk generally rather than about a specific additive. If an additive is approved, it is approved and national authorities do not have the option to ban it.
I will ask Dr. Evans to answer the question on GMO-derived enzyme in an enclosed process.
Dr. Rhodri Evans
Certain GMO-derived additives, flavours or enzymes will require labelling under the terms of the genetically modified food and feed regulations. The explanation we have received is that if the product has active genetic material remaining from the product of origin or is directly from a genetically modified organism or plant, it will be required to be labelled as an additive, enzyme or flavouring and must also be labelled as GMO-derived. The Deputy referred to the example of an enzyme excreted by a bacterium. If there is no element of the genetically modified material remaining but the enzyme has a function in the final product, it must be labelled as an enzyme flavouring or additive, but not as a GMO-derived organism. Labelling is not proposed in any instance where the substance is not functioning in the final product and is a processing aid. If genetic material from the organism from which the substance is produced remains in the final product, labelling will be required.
Mr. Corcoran
Deputy Upton raised the issue of the consultation process. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has wide experience in consulting on proposals as they arise and the procedure in this regard is quite robust. A newsletter is produced quarterly and is made available in hard copy to more than 4,500 subscribers. It also appears on the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's website. There is a separate website entry for each consultation.
Opinions are welcomed from all sources, including members of the public, but members of the public do not comprise one of the more significant groups given the nature of some of the rather complex and scientifically based proposals. The respondents tend to have a specialist interest in the area. Some of the advocacy groups are quite energetic in responding on particular issues, mainly in respect of additives.
There is always a difficulty with issues such as these. There is always a desire to canvas widely and obtain opinions but the issues are such that they attract a quite specialist and small audience.
I wish to follow up on that. What level of response is received from the specialist groups?
Mr. Corcoran
It can be surprisingly low. Many of them work through various umbrella groups, particularly in industry. We are therefore not in a position to know what their process is, but industry is very supportive of the Commission's four proposals, particularly in respect of the enzymes, flavourings and additives. Industry does not have a great interest in the comitology aspects, as one might expect.
In Mr. Corcoran's response, he stated it is impossible to include all the relevant information on extremely small packages. I accept this. He made the point that there are quite a few reputable websites, which I accept, but the difficulty is trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sadly, there is so much information on the Internet that one site will state a particular additive is good for one's health while another will state it is carcinogenic and will kill one within six days. Is there provision within the Department or Food Safety Authority of Ireland to form links with some reputable websites so people can obtain clear, scientifically-based and peer-reviewed information? In that way people could get clear science-based and peer-reviewed information because some of the information in the public domain is nothing short of criminal. I know this from an e-mail I received last week which told me that consuming genetically modified organisms has been scientifically proven to cause death. When one delves into the claim there is nothing to substantiate it. It is easy to publish any type of allegation on the Internet without it being reviewed by anyone, good, bad or indifferent. Is there a mechanism to enable the public to get access to reputable websites, without having to know them in advance, via links from reputable organisations here?
Mr. Corcoran
Yes, the Department's website has links to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland website, the European Food Safety Authority website or other EU Commission websites. I take the Deputy's point that there are many sites available but people who are interested in these issues get used to separating the wheat from the chaff, for example, there is the Food Standard Agency website in the United Kingdom and the US Food and Drug Administration site. It imposes a burden on the individual to discriminate but if people are interested and concerned enough about the additives in food they will know how to pick their way through the system.
There will be a review of the EU labelling regime which could address the problem of information overload. It is not possible, for example, to give a great deal of information on a small can of processed peas. That problem will always exist.
It is critically important from a health perspective that people know, by going either to the Department website or to the FSAI website that they can link directly to a website providing that information. With all due respect, however, the DG websites are like double Dutch. I would not like the general public to have to rely on them. I have not visited the EFSA site so cannot comment on that but it is important to have a reputable organisation here whose site people can access and which has direct links to the information.
While many of us accept the US Food and Drug Administration as a reputable organisation, the public would be concerned about taking information from that source rather than from a European source. We must have some mechanism to ensure that unbiased information is easily accessible to the general public.
Mr. Corcoran
I take the Deputy's point and my colleagues at the FSAI and I will reflect on it to see how robust the present arrangements are. I have not considered that aspect of the information in detail. After a few years in a job like mine one forgets how much one knows as an ordinary citizen and how much as a result of the job.
What are the implications, if any, of the process of re-evaluation?
Dr. Evans
The proposed legislation tasks the European Food Safety Authority with evaluating the safety of all the permitted additives. It is taking this upon itself, without being required to do so through legislation because some have been approved for several years and it is timely and prudent to evaluate any new information and take that into consideration. If that shows there is a need to limit the intake of certain additives that can be done through the proposed legislation. It is a timely exercise to determine whether such information has come to light since the additives were evaluated.
There are mechanisms in place whereby if information is made available the authorisations can be amended immediately under the legislation. This regulation merely formalises this exercise.
Have any of these additives been recently removed or has there been any significant development to the effect that something has been banned?
Dr. Evans
There has been no major development. An antioxidant was recently removed from the list in light of a new study. Questions were raised about whether it posed any potential risks when new information came to light. There is a great deal of ongoing work on the safety of these substances. EFSA's advisory panels and scientific committee are responsible for evaluating that in the light of various studies. The information is passed to member states and the Commission to take action. That has been done in one or two isolated cases recently.
I thank Mr. Corcoran, Ms Cahillane, Dr. Evans and Mr. Burke for attending the meeting today and responding to members' questions. The clerk to the committee will prepare a draft report on our discussion for the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.