I thank you Chairman. I will start with a brief outline of the background to the proposals. In its White Paper on Food Safety of 12 January 2000, the European Commission set out its plans for a pro-active new food policy to modernise existing legislation into a more coherent and transparent set of rules, reinforcing controls from the farm to the table and increasing the capability of the scientific advice system, so as to guarantee a high level of human health and consumer protection in the area of food safety.
The strategic priorities of the White Paper were: to create a European food safety authority; to consistently implement a farm to table approach towards food legislation; to establish the principle that feed and food operators should have primary responsibility for food safety in that member states need to ensure surveillance and control of these operators and the Commission should test the performance of member states' control capabilities through audits and inspections.
In July 2000 the EU Commission published proposals to consolidate, update and simplify existing Community legislation on food hygiene. It is important to emphasise that for the most part, many of these proposals already exist in current EU legislation, which had evolved in a more fragmented sector-by-sector way over the past 30 years or so. In all, 17 directives, dating back to 1964, are being revised and reorganised under five new proposals, which will provide for: hygiene of foodstuffs, which for ease of reference we call H1; specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, H2; official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, H3; animal health rules governing the production, placing on the market and importation of products of animal origin intended for human consumption, H4; and a housekeeping type of proposal which will repeal and-or amend certain directives on food hygiene, H5.
There are a number of basic principles underlying the Commission's proposals as follows. The first is the introduction of a "farm to table" approach towards food hygiene policy. As I have mentioned, currently there is no systematic and all embracing hygiene regime covering all food in all sectors, but more of a patchwork of rules for specific sectors and types of produce with gaps notably at primary production level.
A second important principle underpinning these proposals is that food business operators will be given primary responsibility for the safety of the food they produce. This principle is facilitated by the development of hazard analysis and critical control point systems, HACCP systems, and is in line with internationally accepted procedures. HACCP systems can take into account the variety of different operations, both in terms of products those operations produce and the scale or size of those operations, and provide operators with the flexibility to adapt an "own checks" control system to the specific requirements of their operation or business.
A third key principle is the traceability of all food and food ingredients. To achieve this registration of all food businesses and appropriate record keeping is proposed. Producers should also have in place procedures for the withdrawal of product from the market in the event of it presenting a serious risk to consumer health.
A fourth principle is that the proposals recognise the need for flexibility in a number of areas. It is accepted that the implementation of hygiene rules has in the past proved difficult in the area of traditional food production and in food businesses in remote islands, mountain areas or geographically isolated regions. Accordingly, the proposals make provision for member states to adapt the rules to such local situations, since they are better placed to judge and find appropriate solutions, provided always that the basic principle of food hygiene safety is not compromised.
Even though HACCP systems are now widely implemented in food business operations, the proposals recognise that the implementation of a HACCP system involves specialised skills which some small and medium enterprises may not have readily available. Therefore, special arrangements to facilitate HACCP implementation are proposed, in particular by providing for the use of procedures set out in guides for the application of HACCP principles.
Excluded from the scope of the proposals is the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer. As a matter of subsidiarity, such activities can be addressed by individual member states.
The committee is essentially looking at the proposals contained in H1 and H2 and I will now outline the key provisions of those proposals. The proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs, H1, is a general proposal on food hygiene and will apply to all food business operators. It deals with the standards of premises, the suitability of equipment, personal hygiene of operatives and handling of foodstuffs. The key provisions of H1 are: all food business operators will be registered; all food business operators will have prime responsibility for the safety of the food they produce; it will require the implementation of HACCP systems by food business operators with the exception of primary producers, essentially farmers and hunters; the proposal provides for the establishment of guides to good practice by the food sectors so as to give to food business operators guidelines on food safety and implementation of HACCP; and flexibility for food businesses in remote areas, traditional methods of food production and implementation of HACCP is also provided for.
As food of animal origin can present a more serious risk to consumers, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, H2, provides for specific hygiene requirements for processed and unprocessed products of animal origin; for example, meat, poultry meat, milk, eggs, fish and molluscs, farmed and wild game, etc. Again, many of these proposals are contained in various pieces of current EU legislation and the purpose of the H2 proposal is to reiterate those requirements in a more focused and co-ordinated manner.
The key provisions of H2 are: food business operators covered by this proposal will be registered and, depending on the level of risk to public health, will be required to be inspected and approved by the competent authority; products of animal origin being placed on the market shall bear either an official health mark or an identification mark applied by the food business operator - the official health mark will be applied by an official veterinarian; member states may adapt some requirements to accommodate the requirements of establishments situated in regions suffering from geographic constraints and serving only the local market; measures covering the importation of food of animal origin from third countries and the proposal will not apply to retail unless specifically indicated to the contrary.
These proposals are relevant to all food business operators from primary production up to the point of sale to the consumer. On their entry into force all food business operators will require to be registered and, depending on the level of risk, posed by a food business, it will require to be approved by the competent authority. Food business operators, apart from primary producers, will be required to implement HACCP systems and maintain a record for traceability purposes. Slaughterhouses will be required to maintain food chain information. Primary producers will be required to implement guides to good hygiene practice aimed at controlling hazards likely to be encountered in primary production and associated activities. As previously stated, most of these requirements are already part of existing legislation.
On balance, it is considered that the proposals contained in H1 and H2 will not have an adverse impact on food businesses for the following reasons. The need to ensure food safety and guarantee consumer protection has long been recognised by legitimate food business operators as an absolute priority and, accordingly, many food business operators are already implementing measures along the lines envisaged in these proposals. Many of the proposals contained in the Commission's food hygiene package already exist in current food hygiene legislation. The objective of this recast is to bring about a more harmonised set of regulations, where the emphasis is on achieving food safety objectives rather than concentrating, as heretofore, on a detailed prescriptive set of measures to achieve those objectives.
The implementation of HACCP systems will make for simpler legislation limited to setting of food safety objectives. HACCP is already a compulsory element in many food business operations. Therefore, it is hoped that food business operators - both large and small - will find this simplified and transparent set of proposals easier to apply. While operators will have a clear responsibility to ensure the food they produce is safe, the proposals afford them more freedom and flexibility in deciding how best to achieve that objective in respect of their own premises.
Both proposals provide for exemptions and flexibility. While H1 will require all food businesses to be registered it will not apply to the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer.
While H2 will generally apply to producers of products of animal origin, it will not apply, inter alia, to: the direct supply, by the producer, of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer; the direct supply, by the producer, of small quantities of meat from poultry and lagomorphs, which my veterinary colleagues tell me are rabbits and hares, slaughtered on the farm to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying such meat to the final consumer as fresh meat; hunters who supply small quantities of wild game or wild game meat directly to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer; and, unless expressly indicated to the contrary, H2 will not apply to retail activities.
Both H1 and H2 proposals provide flexibility for member states to introduce national rules to adapt certain requirements of the proposals. The national measures shall have the aim of enabling the continued use of traditional methods, at any of the stages of production, processing or distribution of food, and accommodating the needs of food businesses situated in regions that are subject to special geographical constraints. In other cases, national measures shall apply only to the construction, layout and equipment of establishments. Similarly, given that HACCP is already operated by most food businesses and that the proposal is consolidating and amending existing legislation, it is not expected that the proposals will create extra investment requirements to bring businesses up to the required standard.
Four of the proposals, including H1 and H2, in the Commission's food hygiene package fall under the co-decision procedure. The European Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on H1 and H2 in May 2002. The Agriculture Council, under the Spanish Presidency, reached political agreement on H1 in June 2002. Political agreement on H2 was reached under the Danish Presidency in December 2002.
It is now expected that a common position on the four proposals, H1, H2, H3 and H5 will be adopted by the Council on or by the middle of November 2003 and will then be referred to the European Parliament so as to permit a second reading of the proposals. The new regulations will be applicable 18 months after the date on which they entered into force but not earlier than 1 January 2006. Following publication of its White Paper the EU Commission undertook extensive consultation. It received comments from more than 100 interested parties, including other EU institutions, EU member states, including Ireland, third countries, representatives of the food and drinks industry and representatives of agriculture, retail distribution and consumer groups. These views were taken into account in drawing up the Commission's proposals.
The Departments of Agriculture and Food, Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources have been involved in discussions on the proposals at EU level. Co-ordination of Ireland's position on these proposals has also taken place between these agencies. Similarly, the FSAI has held consultations with interested groups. The artisan food group met to consider the implications of these proposals and has also had consultations within its mollusc and shellfish safety committee. The members of the Food Agency Co-operative Council have recently been circulated with the text of these proposals. While the main thrust of the proposals is to provide consumers with the best possible guarantees of food safety they do contain provision for flexibility and implementation of national rules in a transparent manner. During the negotiation of these proposals Ireland pressed for flexibility and intends to avail fully of these provisions.
Accordingly, we will consult with all interested parties with a view to assessing where possibilities for such flexibility exist.
