Brussels, 16/02/2011 (Agence Europe) - In Strasbourg on Tuesday 15 February, the European Parliament (EP) voted to beef up health protection measures in the event of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs or animal feeds. It also called for the legal basis of the regulation to be changed to give the EP a decision-making role. However, in view of the “legal restrictions”, the European Commission rejected the EP amendments to the draft regulation setting maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs or feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency.
The aim of the regulation is to set maximum acceptable radioactive contamination levels in foods and feeds after a nuclear accident or emergency. In adopting the report by Ivo Belet (EPP, Belgium) by 555 votes to 62, with 40 abstentions, the EP took the view that reference to the Euratom Treaty as the legal basis is inappropriate, as the regulation seeks principally to protect public health, an area governed by Article 168 of the Treaty. MEPs, therefore, were of the opinion that this latter should form the legal basis.
On behalf of the Commission, Michel Barnier stated that the Commission's proposal seeks essentially to recast existing provisions. “The Commission is unable to accept the amendments put forward in the Belet report for two reasons.” The first is that there has to be strict adherence to the agreement between the EP, Commission and Council on use of the recast procedure. Given this inter-institutional agreement and the very logic of the recast, the codified sections of a recast proposal “cannot be subject to amendment, except in the most exceptional circumstances”, the commissioner said.
The second reason refers to the substance, that is, to the legal basis. If the EP had its way, Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would replace Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty as the legal basis. “The Commission believes that this amendment of the legal basis cannot be justified. It would, indeed, run counter to the principle enshrined in Article 106(b) of the Euratom Treaty”, which states that, when that treaty contains specific provisions governing a specific matter, it takes precedence over the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Furthermore, the validity of Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty was confirmed by the Court in ruling C-70/88.
Compensation for farmers. The EP passed an oral amendment calling on the Commission to bring forward a report by March 2012, on the appropriateness of a mechanism for compensating farmers whose foodstuffs have been contaminated above the maximum permitted levels and cannot, therefore, be put on the market. The EP says this mechanism should be based on the polluter pays principle. The report should, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal setting up such a mechanism, MEPs say.
Greens protest. In a press release, the Greens/EFA Group “bitterly” regrets the Commission stance “refusing to allow the Parliament to be involved in reviewing these standards and not wishing to have the supremacy of Euratom Treaty experts challenged”. The maximum contamination levels proposed by the Commission and in force since 1987 “are far too high”, argued Michèle Rivasi, (France) after the vote. “They are even higher than those put in place temporarily for contaminated products from non-EU countries after the Chernobyl disaster. If the Council were to uphold these levels, the European Union would be showing that it had not learned the lessons of Chernobyl. The most recent available studies demonstrate that, even after low doses, children present serious cardiovascular and endocrinal problems. If care is not taken, the maximum levels proposed will result in an unacceptable increase in the number of cancers”, she said.
The Parliament, therefore, is calling on the Commission to submit new proposals on protection levels by March 2012, taking due account of the latest scientific information on the effects of food contamination and the most effective and sure principles of risk management. What is needed, the Greens/EFA Group claims, is “a single level based on protection of the most vulnerable section of the population, that is, infants and children, as is currently being recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration”.
Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) welcomed the vote in changing the legal basis so that the EP would become the joint-legislator, but felt that the maximum permissible levels of radioactive contamination “are much too high and will leave the people of Europe and, in particular, the least well-off and most vulnerable, exposed to abnormally high levels of radioactive contamination. Although there are good points in this legislative review, ultimately it doesn't go far enough”. (L.C./transl.rt)