17 Safety controls over food additives
| (27751)
12181/06
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(06) 428
| Draft Regulation on food additives
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 25 April 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxvii (2005-06), para 15 (11 October 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 The general principles governing the use of food additives
within the Community are currently set out in Council Directive
89/107/EEC and complemented by three further measures,[45]
which lay down the list of authorised additives and the conditions
for their use. In its White Paper on Food Safety,[46]
the Commission indicated that it intended to update and simplify
these measures, and in December 2006 it put forward this document
setting out its proposals for doing so.
17.2 This would involve a single instrument, which
would require food additives to be subject to a safety evaluation
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), leading to their
inclusion on a Community positive list. However, whereas changes
to that list currently have to be approved by the Council and
European Parliament, the Commission has proposed that it should
in future be delegated the power to make such changes. This would
be accompanied by a number of additional safeguards, and a requirement
that any additive containing a genetically modified organism (GMO)
would first need to be authorised under the Regulation on genetically
modified food and feed.[47]
Also, the EFSA would carry out a re-evaluation of all additives
(rather than, as at present, only if there is evidence of a risk
to public health), and it would review the technological aspects
of all current authorisations.
17.3 As we noted in our Report of 11 October 2006,
the Government has welcomed the proposal as a rationalisation
of the current complex legislation governing food additives, and
as beneficial to both industry and consumers. However, a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment, which formed the basis for its consultation
exercise on the proposal, said that industry had expressed concerns
about the EFSA carrying out a re-evaluation of all currently approved
additives, which it suggested could have major cost implications.
However, without knowing which additives might be affected, it
was not possible to identify the specific sectors most likely
to be affected.
17.4 We concluded that the steps proposed here —
including the delegation to the Commission of the power to amend
the list of approved additives — appeared to be sensible
in principle, and in line with the practice adopted in other comparable
areas. However, we noted the concerns which had arisen over the
potential cost (and other) implications of the proposal to re-evaluate
all currently approved additives, and we therefore thought it
sensible to await the outcome of the Government's consultation,
and any updated Regulatory Impact Assessment, before taking a
final view.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 25 April
2007
17.5 We have now received from the Minister of State
for Public Health at the Department of Health (Caroline Flint)
a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 25 April 2007 reporting
on the outcome of the Government's consultation. She says that
the consumer organisation which responded welcomed this review
of the legislation, but suggested that there were some areas where
the proposal needed to be strengthened to ensure adequate protection
for consumers. In particular, it felt that the delegation of powers
to the Commission could result in the authorisation process losing
some of its transparency and openness, and that there was a need
to ensure that the criteria by which decisions are taken are clear
and transparent. It also considered that there should be an automatic
review of additives every ten years (though the Minister says
that the Government considers that reviews should be based on
risk, and occur at any time where new information indicates this
may be necessary).
17.6 The Minister says that industry too generally
welcomes the proposals as simplifying existing legislation, but
that it did reiterate concerns over the costs of providing data
during a re-evaluation of a substance and over the clarity of
the labelling provisions. The Government considers that the Commission
already has the power under existing legislation to undertake
a re-evaluation and to call for data, and that what is now proposed
is therefore not new, but it has undertaken to pursue the point
raised about labelling. It will also take up an industry request
that the energy reduction required for a product to be classified
as an "energy-reduced food" under the Regulation should
be lowered from 30% to 25%.[48]
Conclusion
17.7 We are grateful to the Minister for this
update, and now clear the document.
45 Directives94/35/EConsweetenersforuseinfoodstuffs,94/36/EConcoloursforuseinfoodstuffs,and95/2/EConfoodadditivesotherthancoloursandsweeteners Back
46
(20875)5761/00COM(99)719;seeHC23-x(1999-2000),para2(1March2000). Back
47
Regulation(EC)No.1829/2003OJNo.L.268,18.10.03,p.1. Back
48
ThisisrelevantbecauseoneoftheconditionsintheRegulationpermittingasweetenertobeincludedontheCommunitylististhatitreplacessugarintheproductionofenergy-reducedfood. Back
|
