In a debate in Strasbourg on Tuesday 12 September, included on the agenda at the request of the Greens/EFA Group, on how to improve the EU’s rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF), that is managed by the Commission (see EUROPE 11857), MEPs were unanimous in placing responsibility in the Fipronil-tainted eggs scandal on the member states.
Most MEPs were of the opinion that the RASFF is a good system so long as it is used correctly but that the way it operates could be improved because, apart from the primary responsibility of the criminals who knowingly engaged in food fraud, it was Belgium’s and the Netherlands’ failure to react that was to blame.
Greater honesty, transparency and monitoring by national authorities and at EU level, increased cooperation among food safety authorities, linking national administrative cooperation systems and the RASFF, and penalties for those who committed the fraud were among the main suggested avenues for improvement and the watchwords of the debate.
Speaking on behalf of the Council of the EU, Estonian Deputy European Affairs Minister Matti Maasikas gave assurances that the Estonian Presidency had carefully monitored the situation – stock was taken at the informal Agriculture Council in Tallinn on 5 September (see EUROPE 11855). Improving the effective flow of information, improving data exchange in order to be able better to address this kind of crisis and resolving any possible weaknesses in the RASFF will be the goal of the high-level meeting on 26 September, the results of which will be presented at the Agriculture Council on 9 and 10 October. When the outcome of the on-going criminal investigations is known, a full picture will be available, Maasikas said. “The Council has always recognised the importance of food safety, a high level of protection for consumers and tackling fraud. It encourages the Commission to continue its efforts against fraud”, he stated, noting that the regulation that came into force on 26 April offers the possibility of setting up a European centre to monitor the trustworthiness and reliability of the food supply chain.
Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis again stated that the Commission had only been informed of the contaminated eggs scandal on 20 July since the information sought by Belgium and the Netherlands was exchanged through bilateral contacts and not through the RASFF.
RASFF system wrongly accused, says Commission. “The RASFF has been unjustly criticised. It was set up in 1979, following the import of oranges spiked with mercury and has made it possible to react effectively to many crises. If it is used properly and if it receives clear, reliable information, it works”, the commissioner said.
With the Fipronil-tainted eggs, notification led to 600 follow-up alerts, eggs suspected of being contaminated being quickly destroyed and farms blocked. The commissioner again stated that the risk to health is minimal. French Green MEP Michèle Rivasi pointedly asked him how he could possibly know that.
“Setting up a network among the member states is being considered. We have new legislation on official checks. Cooperation and the constant flow of information is essential. We have a system to tackle fraud that we have to make work to best effect”, he stated.
The lessons to be learned from this crisis will be discussed by chief veterinary officers on 13 and 14 September. The high-level meeting on 26 September will afford an opportunity to consider how to improve cooperation between administrative assistance and cooperation and the RASFF system, Andriukaitis said, assuring MEPs that their suggestions would be taken into account.
“We wasted months before the information was passed from one agency to another. To be faster, national alert systems have to be linked to the RASFF”, argued Belgian MEP Ivo Belet on behalf of the EPP.
“Given the number of member states affected (26 plus 23 third countries), fortunately the risk to health is slight! But there could have been serious consequences”, stated Miriam Dalli (Malta) for the S&D Group. She stressed the need to find ways to transform national alert systems into a European platform that would allow information to be disseminated swiftly.
Speaking of a “clear case of fraud motivated by greed”, Mark Demesmaeker (ECR, Belgium) argued that the fraudsters should “bear the whole cost of the fraud” and he called for swift, effective communication among the member states.
Better legislation will not prevent fraud. “Even the best legislation cannot prevent criminal behaviour”, pointed out Ulrike Müller (Germany), speaking for the ALDE Group. However, in her view, “the RASSF is not effective enough because it is a system that must be able to quickly alert the whole of Europe”. She said she was “appalled that a country had been aware of the situation for a year and a half”.
Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) said that there had to be a review of intensive production and an end brought to the use of Fipronil in agriculture. “The RASFF is a good, effective instrument. But everything depends on the provision of information!” exclaimed Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium). Making the point that Fipronil was not a new product, he argued for a draft amendment to the regulation on foodstuffs that would make it possible to impose financial penalties on fraudsters. Mireille d'Ornano (ENF, France) expressed her “astonishment” that the Commission knew nothing before 20 July and suggested that it “could have carried out inspections or asked for closer monitoring”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)