EU Commissioner snubs nutrition

Categories

Legislation

26 September 2003 - Kinsale, West Cork, Ireland

The Consumer and Health Commissioner of the European Union, David Byrne, in a recent address to a group of business leaders in his home country, Ireland, has spent ample time and many words talking about food quality and food safety but strangely, the word nutrition did not cross his lips.

How can we assert food to be "safe" or of "high quality" if we do not address the issue of what it contains - how nutritious it is? Food is one of the major determinants of health, a fact that has been amply demonstrated and is recognized by the EU Commission. So what interests is Byrne afraid of crossing? Possibly the interests of the pharmaceutical business with our diseases? Could they have so much clout as to be able to ban the concept of nutrition from official discussions of food?

A friend in the UK has commented on Byrne's speech as follows:

Fascinating! Two thousand two hundred and nine words on the subject of quality and safety of food spoken by our venerable European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, and not one mention of the word 'nutrition.'  

In Byrne's world, it would seem, the word 'quality', when applied to food, has nothing at all to do with its' nutritional value. Explains a lot really, doesn't it? Byrne's speech also goes a long way towards explaining the remarkable claim made recently by the Commission in the press-release on the draft EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on food which states that "the basic principle in nutrition is that there are no 'good foods' and 'bad foods' but rather 'good diets' and 'bad diets'. Reassuring for producers of fast-food and their customers, but yet another example (and a particularly pernicious one, at that) of the Commission's tendency to spread misinformation on the subject of health.

Interesting also to see his statement that "in order to serve consumers and also the needs of small-scale producers, I sought to ensure that my proposals would not inadvertently stifle small, local, traditional food producers." This simply begs the question why were small-scale producers of food supplements not afforded similar protection from the EU Food Supplements Directive?

Far from being a protector of our health, Byrne and his colleagues now appear to be one of the biggest risks to it.

Paul

I have to agree with Paul here, but then - when Byrne talks about food safety and quality, he is concerned with markets, rather than our health - at least that is the feeling one gets when reading the concluding remarks of his speech:

"As I have said, the future success of food producers will become ever more dependent on quality underpinned by safety.  But these elements are not enough to guarantee success.   Markets have to be won.

You are ideally placed to profit from the excellence of the food you produce by furthering the standing of the West Cork brand  locally, nationally, within the European market, and indeed the world market."

SPEECH/03/435 - David BYRNE

European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection

"Local production in a globalised market"

West Cork Leader Seminar

Kinsale, 26 September 2003 Ladies and Gentlemen,

First may I say what a pleasure it is for me to be here in Kinsale to address your seminar.

As you can imagine, I am asked to speak at many events, most of which are held in cities.  So it is a breath of fresh air  in more ways than one  to venture further afield, and in particular into the Irish countryside.

Of course, having spent a very hot summer here, I have been able to taste and sample the excellence of locally produced foods and experience at first hand the expanding range of such produce in the local markets.

Furthermore, I welcome the opportunity to address an audience with a large contingent of small and medium sized food producers  to speak to you directly about some of the obligations, but more especially the great
opportunities that arise from the changing face of food production in Europe.

And that change is nothing short of fundamental.

In particular, the concept of quality has risen steadily up the agenda in recent years and this trend will undoubtedly continue.

No cap on quality

The milestone agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, achieved in June of this year, marks the dawn of a radically different model for agricultural support.  It confirms the shift in emphasis away from quantity and towards the promotion of quality production.

Quality is a complex concept  difficult to define in a simple, all-embracing manner.  In addition to the long-established concepts of taste, appearance and texture it covers additional aspects such as the method of production, and environmental or animal welfare considerations.

In effect, quality is largely defined by the consumer  by what he or she chooses to buy.  In this broad sense it is not defined by law.

This was the clear message coming from the year-long European Round Table on Food Quality that I conducted in close collaboration with my Commission colleague, Franz Fischler.

We were forcibly struck in our visits around all of the Member States, including here in Ireland, that consumers were demanding ever-higher standards of quality in foodstuffs.  They were also demanding greater diversity.

And local and traditional food production was coming to the fore of consumer's agenda.

I am sure that you will be glad to learn that the European Commission does not intend to create European-wide standards for food quality.  Such an approach would be counter-productive.  This is an area in which a "one size
fits all" approach would be wholly inappropriate.  It would force the hand of producers rather than leaving them free to innovate and excel, and genuinely respond to consumer demand.

Europe has a rich diversity of cultures which gives rise to a wide and wonderful range of foods.  Uniformity of quality would nullify this variety to the detriment of all.

That is why West Cork Leader has such an important role in fostering and promoting local excellence, encouraging people to exploit their skills and the superb local, raw materials.

Food safety

But before we can address food quality, we first have to consider food safety.   This is the starting point  the essential pre-condition from which quality can follow and thrive.  Without safety, quality is a non-starter.

I have devoted considerable time and energy to food safety in the four years since my appointment as Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

I need hardly remind you that at the end of the last decade the image of the food industry in the eyes of consumers was perhaps at its lowest ebb following a succession of damaging food crises.  Trust in the food industry to deliver safe food to consumers had dipped to an all time low.

And although those crises only directly affected certain sectors, the industry as a whole suffered as a result.

Against this backdrop, the time was ripe to crystallise a new vision for food safety aimed firmly and squarely at putting the consumer first and regaining consumer confidence.

That vision was set out in my White Paper on Food Safety of January 2000, which provided a list of actions to establish a new system fit for the new millennium.

Nearly four years later I am pleased to be able to say that we are well on course to complete this ambitious task.

The landmark Regulation laying down the general principles of food law, encompassing the farm to fork approach, has now been in force for nearly two years.

The European Food Safety Authority is up and running, and poised to provide assurance to consumers that scientific advice on food safety issues will be made objectively and independently  visibly free from political influence or industry persuasion.

And, crucially, EFSA will publish its scientific advice, so that consumers and industry alike can see the scientific basis for the risk management decisions taken by the Commission.

In addition to the general food law, new carefully targeted legislation is now in force, or coming into force soon, covering a whole range of food safety issues.

New, tough rules on GM food and feed were recently adopted.  Measures on TSEs; animal by-products; labelling of feed, undesirable substances in feed; pesticides; and the withdrawal of antibiotics have all been introduced.

And a number of important proposals are currently before the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which I hope will be agreed in the near future.  A proposal on feed hygiene and one for a revised system of official controls have started their passage through the legislative process.

Food hygiene package

Another major initiative under the food safety umbrella is the food hygiene package, proposed in July 2000, which will be of particular interest and relevance to many of you here today.

This package of four legislative acts will merge, harmonise and simplify EU hygiene legislation currently covered in 17 separate Directives.  We are hoping for final adoption of the complete package in May of next year.

You may well ask  "What will it mean for me and my business?"   A fair question.

The key point is that food operators will bear full and prime responsibility for the food they produce.  This principle of responsibility is the underlying thread running through the entire food hygiene package  from the primary producer, right through the supply chain and right up to delivery or purchase by the final consumer.

Safety must be ensured by the implementation of hazard analysis and control principles (or HACCP principles as they are commonly known).  Many of you will already be using HACCP, or variants thereof, as part of your own
production system.

Flexibility

In making the proposals for food hygiene the need to protect diversity was utmost in my mind.

As I have said, European consumers demand not only safe foods, but also increasingly seek out a wide variety of high quality products.  Real variation often stems from local, regional or geographic considerations.  Europe has an unrivalled variety and diversity of such products - a strength that I was determined needed to be nu