Pesticides, BSE and border controls: EU Omnibus Law Endangers Consumers
- politics and law
- Transparency and food safety
A leaked draft of the regulatory proposal of the so-called Omnibus on food and feed safety shows that the European Commission is preparing a significant attack on EU food safety rules.
The leaked 94-page document of the proposal of the European Commission for the Omnibus on food and feed safety show that this initiative puts important food safety safeguards at risk and breaches fundamental democratic principles. Behind the intentions, mainly driven by competitiveness, lie very real risks for 450 Million European consumers, whose interests are absent from the proposal.
Last October, foodwatch replied to the European Commission’s call for evidence and was already highly critical of both the content and the form of this Omnibus on food and feed safety.
There are many measures which raise concern including the following:
The Commission is reinforcing a broken food system, in which people’s health and our environment bear the impacts of the activities of agrifood giants. We need our laws strengthened and better implemented, not dismantled.International Senior Campaigns Strategist
On pesticides
Under the guise of promoting easier market access for biocontrol substances (for which no harmonised definition is proposed), the Commission is pushing for fewer controls for all pesticide active substances. It suggests making unlimited authorisations the rule, extending grace periods to up to three years for banned substances, and removing the current requirement for authorities to consider the latest scientific and technical knowledge in their assessment.
Why this is dangerous: There will no longer be regular re-evaluations when authorisations expire, unless an administration decides to request one, and no automatic opportunity to integrate the latest scientific knowledge to question existing authorisations. While the current system already allows substances with harmful properties for health and/or the environment to stay on the market for way too long, this would make their bans even more difficult. By way of example, it is through recent renewal processes bringing out the latest scientific evidence that harmful pesticides authorised for decades – such as Chlorpyrifos (which is harmful for brain development and suspected of affecting DNA), or Mancozeb (which is toxic for reproduction and disrupts the functioning of our endocrine system) – could finally be banned in the last years.
On pesticides Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
While the Commission overdue commitment to act to protect consumers from residues of banned pesticides coming back on their plates via imports is welcome, other proposals are concerning.
In cases where MRLs have been lowered over time, the Commission suggests keeping the MRLs applicable at the time of production to avoid food loss and waste.
Why this is dangerous: This ignores the fact that MRLs get lowered over time due to health concerns in view of increasing consumer protection.
The Commission also wants to end the regular reviews of temporary MRLs based on monitoring data, arguing that a mandatory 10-year review appears disproportionate when considering the costs involved. This not only ignores that those reviews reflect the evolution of scientific knowledge on pesticides’ impacts, but also that the current 10-year review period is already rather long to effectively protect consumers.
On bovine sponginform encephalopathy (BSE)
The Commission argues that the rules that were put in place following the continent-wide scandal due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) contamination are ‘no longer proportionate to the current low risk to that disease in the EU’ because the epidemiological situation has drastically improved.
Why this is dangerous: It seems to ignore that the very reason why the situation has improved is indeed the setting up of a strong legal framework, tests and controls, and that undoing this could mean putting Europe at risk of new BSE outbreaks. The measure will allow the Commission to redefine the list of specified risk material (SRM), i.e. the tissues most likely to transmit BSE infectivity (such as spinal cord and brain). Gelatine — found in sweets, capsules, desserts, broths and processed foods — could increasingly come from cattle bones without prior restrictions related to BSE. Let’s not forget that the General Food Law and foodwatch itself came on the back of these food safety scandals, which should be prevented at all costs. foodwatch will be looking more closely into the proposal to analyse further its implications.
On feed additives:
The Commission suggests removing the 10-year renewal of authorisations for additives used for animal nutrition, considered ‘too resource-intensive for both operators and authorities, with limited added value for food safety, and as a too short period to justify investment costs, while resources could rather be allocated to the development of new and innovative products’, making existing authorizations less burdensome, and changing current labelling rules from physical requirements to digital options.
Why this is dangerous: This means less transparency in the feed chain. These products are used in livestock farming, factories, and in the food industry. Fewer controls increase greater risks over time.
On border controls
During border checks, the Commission suggests releasing parts of the consignments of goods faster than currently is the case, but it is not clear why this change is necessary and who will benefit from it.
Why this is dangerous: In a context where overworked control authorities are already lacking resources to do thorough checks and prevent cases of food frauds and scandals, the proposed change seems to rather add burden on them through additional paperwork when checking shipments. The pressure to move quickly could take precedence over the precautionary principle. At a time when trade is intensifying, controls should be stepped up, not relaxed.
Only a small minority of proposals in the leaked text stand up to a careful scrutiny test for consumer safety. Two measures seem to foodwatch to be a positive development: the first to facilitate the accreditation of laboratories responsible for controls, particularly at borders; and the second to prohibit the return of pesticides banned for their harmful properties (for instance carcinogens) onto Europeans’ plates via residues in imported food.