Impact of EU enlargement on food safety

Steps towards an improved food safety system in the European Union are being made almost on a weekly basis. It is natural that consumers in the 15 Member States may be concerned about the impact EU enlargement will have on current food security systems. The Commission admitted in a statement this week that this is a significant challenge and in a document published on Monday it laid out a series of questions and answers relating to this issue. Below we present certain extracts from the document.

What is covered in the EU enlargement negotiations as regards food safety?​ Food safety issues are spread over two areas of the accession negotiations: Chapter 1 " Free Movement of Goods" covers food legislation; Chapter 7 "Agriculture" covers veterinary and phytosanitary issues, and animal nutrition.

Food legislation includes general rules for hygiene and control, food labelling, food additives, food packaging and genetically modified foods.

Phytosanitary legislation includes plant health (harmful organisms, pesticides), seeds and propagating material, and plant hygiene.

Animal feed legislation includes the safety of feed materials and additives, labelling, contaminants in feed, controls and inspections.

What is the basic approach of the European Commission to negotiations on food safety?​ The existing body of EU law ("acquis") related to food safety covers a large number of legislative acts, many of which are broad in scope and demanding in terms of transposition, implementation and enforcement. It is vitally important to ensure that the "acquis" is fully transposed into the national legislation of each candidate country and that administrative structures and procedures are strengthened and reformed in good time prior to accession.

The Commission will however consider properly justified requests for transitional arrangements, provided these do not undermine the principles already set out by the Union.

What is the state of play of negotiations for each candidate country?​ Negotiations on Chapter 1 (Free Movement of Goods) are already provisionally closed for 10 candidate countries. Negotiations with Bulgaria are in progress, and it is expected that Chapter 1 negotiations will soon be opened with Romania. None of the candidate countries have requested transitional periods in relation to food legislation.

Negotiations on Chapter 7 (Agriculture) are currently ongoing with 11 candidate countries. For those countries which are ready, the chapter should be closed by the end of the Spanish Presidency.

An agreement on the veterinary, phytosanitary and animal feed part of Chapter 7 was reached in December 2001 with Slovenia. This included the granting of a transitional period for animal welfare rules concerning cages of laying hens. Draft Common Positions for Estonia and Hungary could possibly lead to a EU position within the next few weeks.

What are the main outstanding issues in the ongoing negotiations on food safety with the candidate countries?​ Current key issues are: - the capacity of the candidate countries to guarantee sufficient external border controls; - compliance with the high level of EU health protection rules regarding BSE, - bringing food processing establishments up to EU standards, - respect of the EU's Animal Welfare rules.

What is the problem with upgrading food processing establishments?​ Nearly all candidate countries have requested transitional periods, for an average period of 3 years after accession, for upgrading food processing plants. Cyprus and Estonia withdrew their requests recently. The European Commission requires candidate countries to present detailed information on the situation of the food processing establishments and for those which request a transitional period a binding plan for upgrading has to be provided for each of them. The Commission is at this stage evaluating this material with some of the candidates whereas others have still not provided this information.

In any case, if the EU accepts transitional periods, products coming from establishments in transition must stay on the domestic market of the candidate countries and cannot be sold within the EU. Therefore these products will have to be clearly marked so as to distinguish them from those that can be traded within the internal market.

Examples of standards to be met by slaughterhouses, food processing plants and laboratories?​ EU food safety and veterinary/phytosanitary legislation sets high standards. Therefore most candidate countries need to make major efforts in organising effective lines of responsibility for food safety, in upgrading plants, getting analytical and laboratory capacity up and running and training personnel for inspection services, laboratory staff etc.

In food factories, implementation of EU rules may mean rebuilding part of the factory and re-training staff. To implement effective pesticide monitoring, for example, candidate countries need to set up a sampling programme, an analytical programme, have the necessary laboratory infrastructure and equipment and have properly qualified staff. They also must put in place effective procedures for identifying lots, reporting results of analysis and for taking appropriate action should problems arise.

Laboratories need to be accredited according norms on good laboratory practice, such as ISO. Similar requirements apply to the monitoring of residues such as hormones, antibiotics and contaminants, and also testing for the presence of diseases, such as BSE.

What has the Commission done to ensure a "farm to table" approach in the candidate countries and to enhance food safety?​ In addition to the normal negotiation process, David Byrne has visited some of the candidate countries to emphasise the importance of food safety. He has asked each country to prepare a food safety strategy, outlining the plans for transposition and implementation as well as for co-ordination between the administrative and enforcement services responsible for food safety. The objective of such a strategy is to make candidate countries focus on this essential part of EU legislation in the broadest sense, thus involving all departments concerning food legislation in the accession countries.

All candidate countries have responded positively and prepared a food safety strategy document. The Food and Veterinary office is now checking the situation on the ground.

What financial help is provided to the candidate countries to upgrade their food safety systems?​ The main instruments arePHARE and SAPARD.

Investment for upgrading Border Inspection Posts are in many cases assisted through funding from the PHARE programme. Financing for upgrading (adapting, rebuilding or creating) plants processing and marketing meat, dairy, fish and other agricultural products is provided through SAPARD programmes. Almost a billion euroshave been earmarked for this. BSE testing in the candidate countries will, in future, also be co-financed under the PHARE programme. So far, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria have submitted applications for this assisstance.

Will the candidate countries manage to meet food safety standards before accession?​ It is too early to say. Clearly there is still a lot of work to be done. However, all candidate countries are working hard towards meeting the required standards. They will give progress reports at the March Agriculture Council. The Commission will keep up the pressure to make improvements but time is now short. In any event, the EU will not compromise its standards.