Council greenlights dangerous omnibus proposal on food safety

The position covers positions about the European Commission proposals to introduce changes to ten regulations.  Most of the discussions revolved around rules for the authorisation of pesticides and the monitoring of residues of pesticides not allowed on the EU market. 

Overall, the Council validated the approach of the European Commission and agreed on the following: 

• Unlimited approvals limited to low-risk substances: This is a narrower list than originally proposed by the Commission. However, this is not acceptable as low-risk substances can actually cover a wide array of substances that do not fall in the regulation’s exclusion criteria. 
• Longer approval periods for all pesticides at first authorisation and renewal stages: this was a trade-off between Member States to obtain support for the proposal of unlimited approvals to low-risk substances. This is not acceptable as this will mean longer approval periods for substances that can harm health and the environment – up to 15 years for first authorisations and 25 years for renewals. 
• Longer grace periods once pesticides are banned: The council greenlighted the extension of grace periods to up to 3 years. 
• Larger grounds for derogations: The Council also greenlighted the extension of derogation criteria for harmful substances, which will make it even more difficult to protect citizens from harmful exposures. 
• Other proposals from the Commission such as limiting the ability of taking into account the latest independent scientific evidence base in assessments of both active substances at EU level and formulations at national level also seem to have been validated. 

• Larger scope of substances covered than the Commission: the council agreed to also include substances that would lead to unacceptable risks to honeybees or groundwater. foodwatch still advocates for action on ALL substances that are currently not approved in the EU, whatever their hazard profile and the reason for their non-approval. 
• Validation of the Commission’s approach to bring in socio-economic considerations before action can be taken on MRLs: the Council agreed on the requirement for an individual impact assessment before any adaptation of an MRL can be done for non-approved substances. This means case-by-case assessments of each individual substances that brings in socio-economic and trade considerations and could lead to very long discussions. This is not acceptable We demand automatic lowering of MRLs to technical zero for any non-approved pesticides.  

On pesticides, they agreed on a dangerous change of logic in the regulation, shifting the burden of proof away from companies towards authorities and weakening the science base that should underline decision-making. The proposal to handle residue levels for pesticides that are not approved in the EU is neither protective nor practical. 

Overall, our governments showed that they are ready to keepwell-known harmful substances on the market for longer at the expense of citizens' health and environment protection.

Together with other civil society groups all over Europe, foodwatch and its supporters remain mobilised, especially in the light of the upcoming discussions in the European Parliament. Over 160,000 consumers have already called on Members of the European Parliament calling for a halt to this omnibus package and the numbers keep rising every week. 

• Council press release, 30th September, Council agrees negotiating stance to simplify and streamline food and feed safety requirements.
• Legal mandate agreed by the Council, 30th September
• foodwatch, press release, Food safety omnibus package: foodwatch reveals documents on Member States’ Positions. 
• foodwatch email action: Stand for food safety: stop the omnibus