Brussels, 23/07/2014 (Agence Europe) - Practice makes perfect. That could be the EU motto for the draft amendment to the novel food legislation submitted to the EP's environment committee, now chaired by Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), for examination on Wednesday 23 July. The presentation of the additional draft impact assessment by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services/ADAS UK and the exchange of views between MEPs, EFSA, Commission representatives and the Italian Presidency of the Council of the EU cleared the ground on the December 2013 proposal to amend the novel food regulation, 258/97, by simplifying authorisation procedures (see EUROPE 10988).
James Nicholson (ECR, United Kingdom), rapporteur, said that the improvements to bring to this text could be summed up in just a few points: - the lack of consensus on the definition of novel foods could cause problems to the industry and bring legal uncertainty: flexibility is required in order to avoid loopholes in the definition and it would be useful to reintroduce the categories of foods in a more intelligent way; - innovation is an essential objective and it is a good thing that the European Commission recognises it in its impact study but it is still necessary to see what the concerns of the industry are; - EFSA should not waste resources by devoting too much work to this area or by providing free services to those requesting authorisation; - the confidential nature of data must be a concern and cooperation between industry and the academic community must be ensured; - timetables for assessment stages must be clarified and the deadline set for EFSA to deliver an opinion must be less than nine months if a more rapid authorisation process is to be achieved.
Pilar Ayuso (EPP, Spain), the shadow rapporteur, pointed out that this dossier is being examined by a third consecutive Parliament with the same rapporteurs, this being a redrafting of the text that was already the subject of an agreement between Parliament and the Council in 2011, before divergences arose on cloning, which led to the stalling of the dossier. Like the rapporteur, she considers that there is a problem of definition that could create a lot of legal uncertainty. She is calling for clarity of procedure, for agreements to be signed between the agri-foods industry and the academic institutions, for EFSA to prepare guidelines on health claims, and for the exclusion of cloning from the scope of application. She is also concerned by the European Commission's intention to use the nano-materials definition for novel foods, but which was exclusively devised for labelling purposes. She is afraid that foods that have already been authorised will not be covered by the regulation in the future.
The Greens/EFA Group considers that the impact assessment has unduly put the interests of the companies above those of consumers and this imbalance needs to be corrected.
The Italian Presidency of the Council is hoping that an agreement will be obtained as swiftly as possible on the text. Its representative indicated that it would identify all questions that required further scrutiny, namely: - the list of novel foods and the obsolete role of this list; - nano-materials. The European Commission representative provided assurances that the Commission did not intend to include in novel foods foods that previously were not regarded as such but that it did intend to clarify the definition of novel foods so that this was “more practical” for consumers and industry and to bring greater legal clarity. There will be a single list of novel foods and cloning will not be covered by the proposal because separate legislation is planned in this respect (see EUROPE 11024). Nonetheless, cloned foods will have to be to be covered until such time as the directive on cloning and derived products has been adopted, stated the Commission. (AN)