On Tuesday 5 May, European Parliament’s Agriculture and Environment Committees began negotiations, which are sure to be difficult, regarding the package to simplify food safety rules (see EUROPE 13862/16).
Paolo Inselvini (ECR, Italian), speaking on behalf of the co-rapporteur on the dossier, Michele Picaro, welcomed the simplification proposals currently on the table, saying that our “common objectives must above all be to simplify and speed up authorisation procedures, particularly for plant protection products and biocontrol solutions”.
He emphasised the issue of standards reciprocity: “We cannot allow products that don’t comply with our rules to enter Europe, as we want to preserve European food quality and safety”, he declared. Impact assessments on import tolerances are therefore welcome; however, in his view, there must be no compromise on the high standards that characterise the EU model.
The other co-rapporteur, Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italian), argued that it would be reasonable to stop systematically re-authorising active substances, except for those requiring special attention.
However, he noted that 200 of the 450 active substances are currently undergoing re-authorisation. If no solution is found for these cases, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will remain gridlocked for years and no room for manoeuvre will be created, he lamented.
He also argued that active substances should not be eliminated if no viable alternatives exist. He proposed taking this reality into account in EFSA’s assessment criteria.
Regarding product authorisation at Member State level, Mr Dorfmann advocated for simpler solutions based on mutual recognition, in order to avoid having all 27 Member States conduct the same assessments in parallel.
Finally, he supported the use of drones for applying plant protection products where appropriate (sloping, difficult-to-access or high-risk areas), while noting that in flat areas their usefulness was probably more limited.
No to deregulation. “This is not simplification, it’s deregulation”, declared Biljana Borzan (S&D, Croatian), arguing that the proposals run counter to the fundamental principles of EU food policy: the precautionary principle, a high level of protection for human health and decisions based on independent, up-to-date science.
With regard to pesticides and biocides, she pointed out that regular assessments already exist to ensure substances remain safe as science evolves. “Eliminating or weakening these assessments would mean moving from a prevention system to a reaction system. We would only act once the damage had already occurred”, Ms Borzan deplored.
She argued that the current backlog in EFSA evaluations should not be resolved by granting indefinite authorisations. The solution, in her view, lies in addressing the root cause: insufficient resources and capacity to carry out scientific assessments in a timely manner.
At the same time, safety standards, such as maximum residue levels, must not be weakened, Ms Borzan insisted.
Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, German) opposed the idea of indefinite or excessively long authorisations (up to ten years without re-evaluation), which he deemed absurd. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)