3. ADDITIVES IN ANIMAL NUTRITION
(a)
(23385)
7505/02
COM(02) 153
|
Draft Regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition.
|
(b)
(24171)
5028/03
COM(02) 771
|
Amended draft Regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition.
|
| Legal base: | Articles 37 and 152 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | (b) 18 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | (b) 14 January 2003
|
| Department: | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration: | Second SEM of 5 March 2003
|
| Previous Committee Reports: | (a) HC 152-xxxii (2001-02), paragraph 5 (12 June 2002), HC 63-iv (2002-03), paragraph 5 (11 December 2002) and HC 63-vii (2002-03), paragraph 8 (15 January 2003)
|
| Discussed in Council: | 16 December 2002
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | (a) For debate in European Standing Committee C
(b) Cleared
|
Background
3.1 Feed additives are currently controlled by Council
Directive 70/524/EEC,[5]
which provides that only those on an authorised list after having
been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy may be used in
animal feeds and only according to specific conditions of use.
The Commission considers that certain changes are needed to rationalise
and consolidate the existing arrangements, and to clarify the
procedural aspects of authorisations. It therefore proposed in
March 2002 that the Directive should be repealed, and replaced
by a new Regulation, though the latter would retain a number of
the essential features of the Directive, including the provisions
on labelling and the fundamental principle that only additives
on an authorised list may be used or marketed.
3.2 The main changes proposed, and the Government's reactions
to these, were set out in our Report of 12 June 2002. In particular,
we noted the UK's general support for the proposals, but that
there were a number of aspects where the practical implications
need to be explored further. Also, a more precise assessment of
the costs than those provided in the Government's preliminary
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was required. Consequently,
pending receipt of this further information, we said that we were
holding the document under scrutiny.
3.3 In a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (SEM) of
21 November 2002, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department of Health (Ms Hazel Blears) outlined the latest
position in the light of the further discussions in Brussels,
and of the consultations carried out within the UK, which had
resulted in the provision of an updated RIA. In particular, the
latter suggested that, over a ten year period and at a discount
rate of 6%, the costs would amount to just under £600 million,
whereas the discounted benefits (arising principally from a reduction
in antibiotic-resistant infections) could range between £460
million and £921 million, depending on the assumption made
as to the proportion of existing costs which might be saved as
a result of the proposal. The Minister said that, as a result,
the Government continued to support the main thrust of the proposal.
However, a corrigendum to the Minister's SEM subsequently indicated
that the Government was reconsidering the information it had provided
on the possible benefits of the proposal, and that the issue would
be re-examined and further views sought from consultees before
the RIA was finalised.
3.4 On 11 December 2002 we said that, until the uncertainties
over the potential benefits from the proposal had been resolved,
we were unable to clear the document. We added that, notwithstanding
the Minister's statement that the Danish Presidency had indicated
a wish to obtain political agreement by the end of the year, we
assumed that the Government would reserve its position until it
was clear whether, and to what extent, the benefits of the proposal
outweighed the likely costs. However, in a letter of 24 December,
the Minister said that, at the Council on 16 December, the UK
had voted in favour of the proposal. She added that, even though
it had not been possible to be certain of the benefits at that
stage, particularly in relation to the phasing out of antibiotic
growth promoters, it had done so on a precautionary basis in view
of the implications for human health. A further consideration
was the fact that the proposal formed part of a wider package
of measures designed to strengthen food safety. The Minister also
said that the Government intended to examine the cost estimates
further, and would provide us with an updated RIA.
3.5 In expressing our surprise that the Minister should
have agreed to the proposal without any further light having been
shed on the relative costs and benefits, we noted in our Report
of 15 January 2003 the Minister's intention to provide us with
a further Regulatory Impact Assessment, and added that we would
consider the matter further when we had received this.
Second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 5 March 2003
3.6 The Minister has enclosed with her Second Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 5 March 2003 a revised Regulatory Impact
Assessment, which re-examines the earlier estimates provided by
the Government, particularly as regards the benefits associated
with the withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters. She points
out that the proportion of accidental deaths which might now be
avoided is less than previously thought, and that, although it
is difficult to provide definitive values, the costs involved
now look likely to outweigh the benefits. Thus, in the case of
the original Commission proposal, the benefits would now be around
£520 million in net present value terms, as compared with
costs of some £676 million, and that, even after allowing
for a number of improvements which the Council had made to the
original proposal, there would still be a net discounted cost
of nearly £112 million. Despite this, the Minister says that
she stands by the recommendation that the proposal should be supported,
since it contains a package of provisions to strengthen food and
feed safety. She adds that the next step is for the Council formally
to adopt the revised text as a Common Position, following which
it will be referred to the European Parliament for a second reading.
3.7 The Minister also points out that these developments
overtake the revised proposal (document (b)) which the Commission
had produced in response to the amendments to the original proposal
proposed by the European Parliament at its first reading.
Conclusion
3.8 We have noted the Minister's comments, and in
particular the revised Regulatory Impact Assessment which suggests
that, in so far as these elements can be assessed with any accuracy,
the costs of the proposal, both in its original form and as amended
by the Council, outweigh the likely benefits. In view of this,
and notwithstanding the Government's support for the proposal,
we think it would be right for the issues raised to be debated,
particularly as the use of additives is a matter on which there
is public interest and concern. We therefore recommend document
(a) for debate in European Standing Committee C. We are,
however, clearing the amended proposal (document (b)), on the
grounds that it has been overtaken by events.
5
OJ No. L.270, 14.12.70, p.1. Back
|
