One of the boldest steps to date in the drive to improve food safety standards across the EU is being taken by the Commission, with the publication of a major new proposal to develop a Community framework for national food control systems. The proposal, which takes the form of a draft regulation on official feed and food controls will, once adopted, mean that businesses and consumers across the EU will be entitled to expect the same high standards of food law enforcement. The Commission will be actively monitoring compliance with the new EU regime and any member state found wanting will be called to account.

In its explanatory memorandum to the proposal, the Commission reviews all the existing EU controls and states why it feels justified in proposing further harmonisation. One recurring theme is that the various food and feed emergencies that have occurred in the EU in recent years have highlighted deficiencies in some member states' control systems that need to be rectified. Another recurring theme is that the Commission itself is struggling to ensure that EU food law is properly implemented and applied, and that it needs to properly define its own role to ensure the most efficient use of its available resources.

In addition, the developing complexity of the food chain and the growing need to apply controls throughout the chain, along with the increasing number of member states creating national food safety agencies and the imminent enlargement of the EU, all mean that a new approach is needed to ensure that control systems work together effectively and efficiently to create an ever higher standard of food protection across the Community.

One objective of the new regime will be to make the process of monitoring third countries wishing to export products to the EU easier and to introduce harmonised Community rules on imports of products of non-animal origin. The EU now imports food and feed products from around 13,500 approved establishments in over 200 countries. It is impossible for the Commission to inspect all these plants but it needs to know that controls are as effective as those applied in the EU.

The proposal sets out a new scheme by which third countries will be required to adopt and provide to the Commission a national control plan similar to those operating in the EU. They will have to keep written records on the implementation of their plans, including records of the domestic controls they conduct. EU approval lists for third countries will continue to be applied and the criteria for being allowed to appear on the list are set out. For those less developed countries which struggle to maintain effective controls, the EU will provide assistance through aid and training programmes with guidance on how best to achieve Community standards. Among the elements of the new EU regime will be the following:

• a requirement for national food control plans;
• rules on competent authorities and the training of enforcement officials;
• rules on the sanctions to be applied for non-compliance;
• the establishment of contingency plans to deal with emergencies; and
• rules on the financing of controls.

NATIONAL FOOD CONTROL PLANS

Under the regulation, each member state would have to prepare and submit to the Commission, upon request, an integrated multi-annual national control plan. These plans would contain information on the structure and organisation of their food and feed controls, and animal health and welfare systems. In addition, certain other information would be required - such as the designation of their competent authorities and their tasks and resources, the training of their control officials, and their documented procedures. Guidelines for these control plans would be drafted to try and promote a uniform, comprehensive and integrated approach to controls across the food chain. Among other things, the guidelines would seek to identify risk-based priorities and the most effective control procedures, so as to ensure the adoption of best practice at all levels of the system. They would also contain advice on systems to record the performance and results of control actions. As at present, member states would have to provide annual reports on their control activities to the Commission.

COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

The new regulation would continue the current obligation on member states to organise official controls on a regular basis and to designate competent authorities to run the system. These authorities would have to meet certain criteria such as being impartial and free from conflicts of interest, having access to an adequate laboratory capacity and a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff, and possessing appropriate and properly maintained facilities and equipment.

Where functions were assigned to competent authorities at different levels, or to different units within an authority, there would have to be efficient co-operation and co-ordination. Audits must be carried out, details of which would be contained in the control plan guidelines mentioned above. Any control bodies to whom the competent authority delegated work must be accredited in accordance with European Standard EN 45004 General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection.

TRAINING OF STAFF

Staff performing control functions would have to receive appropriate training in their area of competence. The proposal lays down, in an annex, the areas of training that the Commission is suggesting should be covered. For example, different control techniques, the legislation and its application, official certification systems, Haccp procedures and techniques for their assessment etc. Staff must be kept up-to-date on all issues in their area of competence and receive additional training as necessary.

In a new move, the regulation would allow the Commission to organise training courses for national control staff to try and encourage greater harmonisation of controls. These may cover areas such as EU law, control methods and techniques, imported food and feed controls and courses on food and feed production, processing and marketing methods, and techniques. The courses may also be open to participants from third countries, particularly developing countries.

CONTROL PROCEDURES

The regulation would require documented control procedures to be drafted and a list of subject matters for these is given in an annex. Specific control procedures and guidelines for controls in areas such as Haccp may be drawn up at EU level later. Also required would be procedures for the competent authority to verify the efficiency and efficacy of its control systems and for taking corrective action when needed. Reports of the official controls conducted would need to be produced, covering a description of the purpose of the official control, the control methods applied, the results and, where appropriate, the corrective action to be taken by the feed or food business concerned. The types of control activities, methods and techniques to be used by inspectors are listed.

SANCTIONS

The proposal lists the sanctions that may be taken to address food offences, eg marketing restrictions, suspension of operations etc. It states that in deciding which sanctions to apply, account must be taken of the business operator's compliance record. Any sanctions must be communicated in writing. Member states would retain the right to lay down their own penalties for offences but under the new regulation certain activities would be deemed criminal offences when committed intentionally or through serious negligence. These are listed in an annex and include offences such as the contamination and marketing of food with substances that may seriously affect health, the marketing of meat that has not been submitted to official controls or which has been declared unfit at post-mortem inspection, as well as various BSE and pesticide-related offences. Certain feedstuff and animal health-related activities would also be deemed to be criminal offences.

CONTINGENCY PLANS

Each member state would be required to draft contingency operational plans to deal with food and feed emergencies. These plans would have to lay down the measures to be implemented and specify the authorities to be involved and their powers/ responsibilities, as well as channels and procedures for transmitting information among the relevant actors.

FINANCING OF CONTROLS

Member states would be obliged to ensure that adequate financial resources were made available for official controls. Where the detection of non-compliance with feed and food law resulted in control activities that exceeded the normal monitoring activity of the competent authority, member states would be able to charge the expenses caused by these activities to the feed and food business operators concerned.

The method and data used for calculating the expenses would have to be published. In addition, member states would have to adopt and publish in advance the criteria for defining control activities that exceed normal monitoring and for identifying the operators concerned by the expenses linked thereto. Expenses eligible for calculating fees would be staff salaries, travel and associated costs, and laboratory and sampling costs. Account would have to be taken of businesses with a small turnover and the level of official controls required, in relation to the quality and intensity of the own checks already carried out by feed and food businesses.

COM 2003 (52). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls. http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0052en01.pdf

Further details of the proposal, including the proposed new rules on products of non-animal origin and the new Community enforcement measures can be found in a current Food Standards Agency consultation document at: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/ukwideconsults/113588