|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 47
Pour débat à la Commision permanente – Voir article 47 du Règlement
Doc. 8194
14 September 1998
Consumer safety and food quality
Report
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Mr Eisso Woltjer, Netherlands, Socialist Group
Summary
New agro-industrial technology has resulted in the arrival on the market of new varieties and new foods, which may present health risks. The increasing use of veterinary and plant health products and food additives also entails risks. As consumers grow more and more wary, they are also increasingly demanding about the food they eat.
Public authorities must take all necessary steps to ensure that food products are healthy and safe and to improve consumer information: research must be pursued, regulations tightened, consumer confidence restored and international co-operation developed.
The report includes proposals for drafting a European framework convention on food safety, setting up food safety agencies at national and European level, strengthening food legislation, improving health checks and making it easier to obtain information.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly refers:
i. to its previous work in the field of food quality and in particular to Recommendation 1142 (1991) on the labelling of quality food products and Recommendation 1244 (1994) on food and health. It further refers to the Seminar on the Use of Antibiotics in Food Production (London, 8 June 1998), organised by its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development;
ii. to the work undertaken by the Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field), especially with regard to the quality control of food products. In this context, it welcomes the new Committee of Experts on Nutrition, Food Safety and Consumer Health, but regrets that only sixteen member states, none of them from central or eastern Europe, are signatories to the Partial Agreement;
iii. to the work undertaken by other organisations, including in particular the European Union food legislation, the Codex Alimentarius food standards developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and the trade agreements concluded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) within the framework of the Uruguay Round negotiations.
2. The Assembly is concerned for consumer health, which is at risk from the rapid development of agri-food technologies, the market introduction of food products before all the necessary information has been made available, deficient statutory regulations and controls, and the lack at European level of adequate legislative and technical harmonisation. It considers that scientific and administrative structures and food safety legislation and controls must be updated.
3. It notes consumers’ growing alarm over their food, their increasing consciousness of the importance of a healthy, risk-free diet, and their improved organisation at national and European level. Given the possible health implications, it considers that consumers should be duly informed of all that concerns their diet so that they can make their own dietary decisions in full possession of the facts.
4. The Assembly recognises the very important role of the different players in the agri-food production process (farmers, manufacturers and distributors) and considers that they must be correctly informed and held fully responsible for introducing healthy and risk-free food products on the consumer market.
5. It also considers that both scientists and consumers must be involved in decision-making and control procedures so as to provide full guarantees of the safety and non-toxicity of food products, along with all necessary assurances to the consumer that the products being marketed are not damaging to health, even in the long term.
6. In view of the globalisation of the economy, trade deregulation and, within the European Union, the free movement of food products, international measures and agreements are necessary in order to guarantee food safety and forestall or resolve disputes, whether at international level (WTO, FAO, WHO) or in Europe (European Union, Council of Europe).
7. The Assembly will not compromise on the importance of food safety, the final responsibility for which lies with public authorities, which must guarantee it on the single criterion of public health without ever bowing to economic interests, however important.
8. Consequently, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. prepare a European framework convention on food safety which will establish general principles and a pan-European legislative framework drawing on existing international rules;
ii. invite the European Union and the competent international organisations to take part in drawing up such an instrument;
iii. involve the Assembly likewise and request it to give an opinion on the draft before final adoption.
9. The Assembly further recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite member states:
i. to accede to the Council of Europe’s Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field so as to participate in the activity and conclusions of the Public Health Committee, the body responsible for food safety issues, and its subsidiary bodies, especially the Committee of Experts on Nutrition, Food Safety and Consumer Health;
ii. in the case of states which are not members of the European Union or the Council of Europe’s Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field, to consider and take inspiration from the principles and food standards laid down by these two organisations to facilitate the trade in foodstuffs and guarantee their safety for health;
iii. to adopt food safety legislation based on scientific studies and findings and, where necessary, on precautionary principles, so as to guarantee that only healthy, risk-free products are introduced on the market, especially in cases of innovative products such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). All legislative measures should conform to the relevant standards of the competent European or international organisations;
iv. to encourage and promote the production and consumption of quality products which conform to stricter rules on identification and traceability (markings of origin, labelling etc);
v. to set up independent scientific committees empowered to give technical opinions on the toxicity or non-toxicity and the real or potential risks of foodstuffs, whether these are due to their composition and ingredients (especially food additives) or to techniques used in their processing, packaging and preservation;
vi. to form bodies on which government, the sectors concerned - in particular the scientific and production sectors (producers, distributors and importers) - and consumers will confer and exchange information. These will be consulted before any decisions bearing on foodstuffs are taken;
vii. to work for complete transparency concerning information on food safety, especially with regard to labelling, so as to ensure that consumers have access to all the facts they need to form an opinion as to the constitution of food products and as far as possible to minimise their concern as to the health risks;
viii. to this end, to inform producer and consumer organisations and the processing industry accordingly and to involve them in an open and transparent information policy;
ix. to improve health checks at every stage of agri-food production (including import networks) so as so ensure that existing legislation is fully complied with and to provide if necessary for severe sanctions in cases of breach or fraud. Such checks should be carried out in close co-operation with the competent services in other countries or the European or international organisations concerned;
x. to set up national food safety agencies combining powers which are frequently widely-dispersed among different ministries, as co-ordinating and advisory bodies in all areas bearing on food legislation, nutritional research, safety checks on foodstuffs and the import of food products;
xi. to co-ordinate their action and harmonise legislation on food safety, and to comply with and if necessary strengthen regulations and agreements adopted under the auspices of the competent international organisations.
10. The Assembly calls on the European Union:
i. to strengthen its food regulations by modelling them on the Commission Green Paper on the general principles of food law in the European Union and the relevant European Parliament proposals;
ii. to set up a European food safety agency modelled on the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, to be responsible for the scientific evaluation of the safety of food products produced or marketed in Europe, if necessary in co-operation with the corresponding national authorities. It would be compulsory to consult such a body before reaching any decisions on food safety.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Woltjer
Table of contents
1. Previous activities by the Assembly
2. Food quality and public health
a. Introduction of new technologies
b. Consumer concern
c. The role of the state and international organisations
3. Consumer safety
a. Transparency and consumer confidence
b. The importance of information
c. Training and education (farmers and consumers)
d. Role of consumer associations
4. Conclusions
1. Previous activities by the Assembly
For several years, the Assembly has taken an interest in questions of consumer safety and food quality. Accordingly, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development set up a sub-committee on food to address these matters. Recent activities in this sphere include:
a. Recommendation 1142 (1991) on the labelling of quality food products
The Assembly noted the increasing steps being taken to increase consumer awareness of food quality and stressed the importance of providing consumers with full information on all aspects of production, processing, quality and origin of foodstuffs.
Accordingly, the Assembly recommended better regulations concerning the labelling of food products and supported the promotion of quality natural food.
The Committee of Ministers replied to this Recommendation (Doc. 6482) considering “that the consumer is entitled to relevant information on all aspects of production, processing, quality and origin of foodstuffs, in particular on those aspects which have health implications” and indicating that “problems relating to foodstuffs and health control of food products occupy an important position in the programme of activities of the Public Health Committee of the partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field”. 1
b. Recommendation 1244 (1994) on food and health
The Assembly noted the serious health problems that arise from poor dietary habits. In order to change this situation, it was in favour of formulating a new nutritional policy that would include measures aimed at both producers and consumers.
The Assembly emphasised the importance of providing more information about food and improving nutritional and health education.
The Committee of Ministers replied in September 1995 (Doc. 7387) recalling the work pursued by the Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) in food quality control to which this Recommendation was referred. The Committee of Ministers was also in favour of “strengthening co-operation between member States who are at present party to the Partial Agreement in the social and public health field, and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe” and not duplicating the efforts of other international organisations having responsibilities in this field.
c. Hearing on Consumer Safety and Food Quality (Paris, 18 March 1997)
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development held a hearing on this subject with the participation of different experts (cf. AS/Agr (1997) 12). It dealt in particular with topical problems in this field (BSE, GMOs, etc.), lessons to be drawn for the future (better co-ordination, more transparency, better risks’ assessment and management, etc.). Other questions were also mentioned, such as food safety, information transparency, quality of foodstuffs and new technologies.
d. Seminar on the use of antibiotics in food production (London, 8-9 June 1998)
This seminar (cf AS/Agr (1998) 10 rev. 3) was organised by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The themes discussed were food safety in the United Kingdom, the extent of and rationale behind the use of antibiotics in food production and the potential risks to public health.
The British Government was represented at the seminar by Mr Jeff Rooker, Minister of State, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Ms Tessa Jowell, Minister for Public Health. Other participants included representatives from the European Commission, the World Health Organisation and other international and non-governmental organisations, including consumer associations.
The seminar focused on consumer safety and health as the public are in danger of suffering the consequences of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as a result of their use in food production. That is why it was proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics exclusively to veterinary purposes (treatment and prevention of cattle diseases) and not to use them as growth promoters.
2. Food quality and public health
a. Introduction of new technologies (in agriculture and the food industry)
Over the past few years, new techniques have been developed for the selection, production and marketing (preservation, food processing and packaging) of agricultural and food products. Whether these affect agriculture (increased use of fertilisers, pesticides and other plant health products, biotechnology, the introduction of genetically modified organisms, etc), livestock rearing (animal foods, use of hormones and antibiotics, cloning, etc) or marketing (processing of foodstuffs, use of additives, different nutritional supplements, new preservation methods such as irradiation, new packaging, etc), new or altered foods are entering the market without the consumer being aware of their exact composition, advantages or potential risks.
Agriculture has experienced unprecedented growth since the 1950s, especially in Europe. Although its relative economic and social importance has fallen steadily, the sector retains a considerable strategic role in most of our countries, if only because it feeds our populations and is the basis for economic development of the countryside and maintenance of the landscape. It is no coincidence that agriculture has been one of the cornerstones and key policy areas in the construction of the European Union, and that it continues to absorb the greatest proportion of its budget.
These changes in agriculture must be placed in the context of the goal of increasing agricultural productivity in a context of population growth. A rapid increase in production was needed to assure the availability of supplies, and to meet the demands for fair agricultural incomes and reasonable consumer prices. Scientific and technical progress (chemical and biological developments and mechanisation) allowed unprecedented increases in yields and production.
It is against this background that we must consider this agricultural growth, which probably reached the point of diminishing returns in the 1990s, as much a result of its own success as, occasionally, of excesses that required correction. Thus, we have moved from a predominantly production-oriented agriculture to an agricultural sector that is also concerned with other roles, more in keeping with nature and the environment.
Until recently, priority was given to intensive agriculture which used increasing quantities of manure and chemical fertilisers to boost yields: the cost of this has been contamination, not only of the soil, but also of waters, which are becoming unfit for consumption. As a result, several countries have taken steps to reduce the fertiliser use. For example, Denmark has set itself the target of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous discharges by 50% and 80% respectively between 1987 and 2000, and Germany has taken measures to reduce the amount of fertilisers used, as is done by other countries.
Water pollution by nitrate is especially serious, and in 1991 the Council of the European Union adopted a directive (91/676 CEE) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (the maximum acceptable concentration of nitrates being 50 mg/l). However, the implementation of this directive leaves something to be desired in most member States, and the Commission intends to adopt more coercive measures.
These measures are important in so far as public health is at risk. Among other effects, nitrates in drinking water oxidise haemoglobin, making it incapable of transporting oxygen, and cause the formation of carcinogenic substances in the digestive system.
There are also dangers in the growing use of pesticides and other plant health products (insecticides, fungicides, weed-killers, etc), used to increase harvests while minimising plant diseases. All these products are toxic and give rise to risks (carcinogenics, neurological problems) for human consumption.
Here again, however, one is confronted with an endless cycle: it is well known that insects, bacteria and weeds eventually develop resistance to these products, necessitating a constant increase in doses or the use of more powerful products. Again, all this is to the detriment of the end consumer, who is offered natural or processed foods containing excessive doses of health-threatening materials.
At the same time, and as part of the same drive for increased productivity, tremendous strides have been made in biology: it has progressed from improving and selecting species in the quest for more productive or more resistant varieties to the use of genetic manipulation. Thus, the products known as GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are now appearing on the market.
These new varieties of plants (corn, soya, rape-seed, tomatoes, etc) have been created to respond to an increased use of fertilisers and to the development of resistance to pesticides and other chemical products. Without such varieties, further recourse to such products would have been difficult.. By creating more resistant varieties, able to tolerate even greater doses of chemical products or resist certain diseases, these GMOs meet the need for constant increases in productivity. Yet these “artificial” varieties are obtained in laboratories, by transferring suitable genes from certain species to others.
The potential dangers of these new plants for human health are not imaginary. There are doubts about the use of these new species. Will traditional crops be affect by their cultivation through crossing? What are the consequences for humans if they are used as foodstuffs, or even as animal feed? Could these modified genes be transferred to humans and thus affect their genotype?
Even if these dangers currently seem distant, given that the number of GMOs is still limited and may be subject to very strict controls, what will happen in the future, when these genetically modified species become common on the market? Furthermore, what can be done to avoid the risks inherent in different national legislative systems, some of which would permit the commercialisation of genetically modified species, while others would be much stricter and could ban them? What effect will that have on trade, and what repercussions will it have for the consumer? A consumer who is already expressing doubts, even fears, about the long-term effects of these new varieties, which are rapidly appearing in many processed foods.
In animal rearing too, many new techniques have been used to speed up the growth of cattle and thus to obtain better yields, without necessarily considering the consequences for human health. These techniques are primarily in the area of animal feeding (supplemented and protein-enriched feeds, the use of hormones or antibiotics), with the excesses known to us, and which were revealed by the recent Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis.
On the subject of risks, the recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis has revealed the dangers for the consumer and public health entailed in the manipulation of the food chain. On the one hand, this crisis has made the consumer aware of the seriousness of certain careless practices, in the production process as well as in food regulations or control procedures. At the same time, it has led to a tightening of the legislative and control procedures at national and European level.
As is now well known, the inclusion of (inadequately heated) animal protein in cattle feed resulted in the transmission of prion particles (the agent associated with BSE) and to the development of BSE, which led to the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle and a ban on any exportation of potentially affected meat. In addition, there are serious fears about whether this disease can be transmitted to humans in the form of Creutzfeld Jacob disease through the consumption of contaminated meat.
We are all aware of the alarm that this crisis caused among European consumers, which has perhaps had the positive effect of increasing awareness of the risks at European level, and led to an effective reaction on the part of national and European authorities, whose preventative measures and initial response to the crisis had been found lacking.
The crisis increased consumer awareness so much that consumers are now much more demanding in respect of other food supplements used in cattle rearing, such as hormones or antibiotics. These growth hormones have been banned in the European Union for several years, in spite of some cheating, but are still authorised in other areas (particularly the United States and certain east European countries). This has given rise to some serious trade disputes, which have been referred to the WTO and are being dealt with in the context of liberalisation of trade. The United States won its fight to have a maximum level of hormones authorised by the Codex Alimentarius (the international code which regulates the health standard of food products and their trade): this could open the way for meat treated with natural hormones to come onto the European market, with the health risks that consumption of this meat could entail.
The same thing could also occur for the use of antibiotics: once again, there are potential dangers involved in human assimilation of these products through food. Hormones can have metabolic or carcinogenic effects, and the use of antibiotics may lead to humans developing resistance2. Be that as it may, humans are always at the end of the food chain, and will experience the eventual consequences of these new rearing techniques.
However, whether as a response to the BSE crisis or to the entry of genetically modified organisms into the European market, national and European legislators have quickly introduced new rules in order to regulate food safety more strictly. The European Union’s decision to ban the production and import of meat treated with hormones, or the measures taken by certain countries (such as Sweden) against the use of antibiotics in livestock rearing, are no doubt indicative of this precautionary reaction.
New risks have also appeared due to the development of the agri-foodstuffs sector and to new methods for food processing and packaging. All sorts of additives are increasingly being used to simplify the preservation, presentation and marketing of foodstuffs. However, these additives, which are supposed to ensure that food is safe, are themselves sometimes harmful (inter alia, carcinogenic), if the amount used exceeds a certain level. While this level may be respected for individual products, the acceptable doses are possibly exceeded as toxic products accumulate through regular food consumption, since, whether we speak of colorants, preserving agents or other additives, there are now very few foodstuffs that do not contain them.
Other risks, which are only just beginning to be analysed, concern both the processing and packaging of food products. This is true at the beginning of the food chain, when crates are treated with powerful (carcinogenic) insecticides and fungicides, later found in the fruit and vegetables that have been transported, through to the end of the chain, in the widespread use of plastic packaging, which also appears to be carcinogenic or to cause hormonal problems in humans.
Mention should also be made of new preservation methods currently being used and researched, such as irradiation of food: the consequences for health are not yet entirely known.
In short, we are facing an unprecedented development of agricultural and agribusiness methods which have certainly been of great value in ensuring the supply of sufficient quantities of good-quality nutritional food at reasonable prices. However, we should not push our luck too far. We have doubtless reached a point beyond which we should not go - or at least a point where we need to increase precautions if we are to avoid potentially serious health problems, as was the case with BSE. Salmonella and microbial resistance could also be mentioned.
b. Consumer concern
This reaction by the authorities to food issues is partly due to the consumer alarm and mobilisation provoked by the BSE crisis, which marked a shift in consumer awareness towards food and the risks to health. The progress in food production techniques has been paralleled by increased consumer concern and interest in food and health.
Whether individually or collectively (in consumer organisations), citizens feel concerned by food safety questions and are now demanding healthy food products of better quality. At the same time, this positive consumer reaction has in several European countries gone beyond considerations of food quality and health. In some cases, it can even take an emotional or moral tone, linked to the protection of the environment or nature or the treatment of livestock (stalling, feeding and slaughter), resulting in a refusal to eat certain products, or a preference for certain types of product (biological, high-quality, etc).
Consumers are therefore entitled to demand food that will not endanger their health, and to do this, they must be given sufficient guarantees to ensure that they are eating safe and healthy food. Yet however much a consumer is aware of the problem on an individual level, he or she cannot merely act alone and expect to have an influence on the market and on the decisions taken regarding food or health issues. On the contrary, it is vital that consumers organise themselves (both at national and European level) into powerful representative associations, capable of defending their interests, not only with regard to public authorities, but also to the powerful agri-foodstuffs sector, so that their interests are taken into account, especially concerning dietary and health risks.
Yet at present, and in spite of considerable progress both at national and European level (better labelling, quality products, labels of origin, etc), consumers are still poorly informed when faced with the arrival of new products and foods on the market: they are often unable to determine the precise contents, and therefore the potential risks involved.
Thus, progress remains to be made in the production, processing and marketing of healthy food products, in adequate labelling of these products and in tracing food products from the point of production through to the consumer, in order to guarantee their origin and the conditions in which they have been produced and, if appropriate, processed.
c. The role of the state and international organisations
Governments are the guarantors of public health, and as such are ultimately answerable for food safety. They are responsible for health and food regulation, and it has become evident that, faced with the rapid progress in food technologies, our legal provisions have fallen behind and require urgent updating. Measures are being taken to correct the situation, but these require considerable research and preliminary assessment, and therefore take time, while society is demanding rapid reactions.
It is for this reason that joint research and the drafting of suitable legislation at European or international level would doubtless save valuable time, particularly where public health is concerned. And indeed, this is what is happening, chiefly within the European Union. Various questions, ranging from the new regulations, criteria and standards on food to the sanctions for infringement, and the testing of new products or quality control, must be addressed.
Public authorities should introduce all necessary measures for this purpose. Thus, it is particularly necessary to improve and speed up, as much as possible, scientific research on the implications for health of newly commercialised products (GMOs, etc), on their components (additives, packaging, etc) and on the new techniques in food and agri-foodstuff production.
There is also a need to improve the traceability of products, both for the purpose of guaranteeing their origin and respect for production standards, and also to monitor their circulation within our frontiers (this is especially important within the European Union, against the background of the single market). It would also allow quicker and more efficient tracing of malpractice, whether in production or importation. Progress is also required in customer information, particularly labelling. At the same time, the relations between public authorities and consumer organisations should be strengthened.
At international level, as long ago as the 1960s, the FAO and WHO decided to launch an international campaign on food products, aimed at simplifying exchanges and international trade as well as protecting the health of consumers. It was in this context that a joint committee was established to draw up the food standards that are compiled in a “Codex Alimentarius”. This committee meets periodically to adopt international quality standards of the different categories of food products. Most of the Council of Europe’s member states are also members of this committee and recognise this Code.
This consumer concern should also play a role and be taken into account as an important element for the international negotiations on free trade. The OECD and the WTO should take it into consideration in this framework.
However, it does appear that vigilance is required to ensure that food standards are not wrongly used to prevent the free circulation of food products, which could in particular lead to conflict with the WTO. Any potential restrictions should be based on scientific criteria for public health.
For its part, the European Union has developed a considerable body of legislation in the area of food and consumer protection, and it is conceivable that the principles underlying this could be extended to other, non-EU, countries in Europe, particularly to the central and east European countries, and especially those who have applied for EU membership.
In April 1997, the European Commission published its Green Paper on “the General Principles of Food Law in the European Union”. This document, amongst other things, is aimed at examining Community foodstuffs legislation from the point of view of consumers and producers, studying the effectiveness of control systems and identifying new measures where necessary.
The aim is to simplify and rationalise Community foodstuffs legislation while maintaining a high level of protection (scientific evidence, risk assessment, safe and wholesome food) and ensuring the effective implementation of internal market rules (free movement of goods and controls on foodstuffs) and international obligations (imports, exports and international agreements).
On 10 March 1998, the European Parliament also discussed a report and adopted a resolution in which, amongst other things, it calls on the Commission to structure a food policy at European level, to simplify existing legislation, to maintain a high level of protection based on scientific criteria and to clarify the concept of liability for food safety. It also advocates an integrated approach to food production (the “farm-to-table” concept), the introduction of strict regulations, more stringent controls and improved consumer information. Lastly it makes a number of proposals with regard to the external dimension (WTO, Codex Alimentarius) and insists that priority must be given to the safety, protection and health of the consumer.
In this context, the Council of Europe, as a pan-European organisation, may have a role to play. Moreover, the Council of Europe has for several years given consideration to these questions, particularly through its Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field, especially in matters concerning food and food hygiene (additives, pesticides, etc.). Unfortunately, this Partial Agreement only brings together a limited number of member States (16 in total, none of which are from central or eastern Europe). Consideration should therefore be given to widening membership of this Partial Agreement, which deals with current issues of importance to Europe’s citizens, to make it is more representative.
The recent decision (17 March 1998) by these 16 countries’ representatives to the Committee of Ministers to create a new Committee of Experts on food, food security and consumer health, under the auspices of the Public Health Committee, is therefore significant.
For the Council of Europe, this role could go beyond the work of these committees, and take concrete expression in the preparation of a European convention on health and food quality. Such a convention could establish general pan-European regulations, and thus, in a way, provide an intermediary point between the international standards laid down in the Codex Alimentarius and the more specific and stringent norms adopted by the European Union, which concern only that organisation’s member States.
3. Consumer safety
a. Transparency and consumer confidence
It is clear that this increased consumer concern and their more active role requires greater openness and transparency from those in positions of responsibility (politicians and scientists). This is the only way to restore consumer confidence in the safety of food products, which has been seriously shaken by the recent crises and scandals. However, the opposite extreme - providing too much information, which cannot be properly grasped and could lead to misunderstanding or rejection - must also be avoided. What is required is clear, adequate and full and controlled information.
For this reason, management of the whole food production chain should be monitored in order to allow that information to be provided and allow ways for consumers to carry out checks and obtain information at all stages of the production chain, and not only with regard to a completed processed product at the end of the cycle. The agri-business sector itself has an important role to play in this respect, by displaying greater transparency about commercialised products, their different components, the preparation processes used, etc.
Equally, and even although this is not their primary role, experts and scientific committees should show greater openness about their research into food issues and its findings. In fields such as public health, and in the current atmosphere of anxiety about the entire food chain, scientific results and information, required to re-establish consumer confidence or warn the public about certain risks, should not be kept secret or for the sole use of the relevant authorities. Ways must be found to bring the world of science closer to the citizen in matters of general public concern, such as food health.
Public authorities must also allay unease, by providing the public with full and timely information. However, this role is tied in with the various institutional bodies. Governments are not alone in having a responsibility to guarantee public health and inform citizens. As direct representatives of the people, elected representatives also have an important role to play. Whether parliamentarians or local and regional representatives, closer to the grassroots, they should become more involved in on-the-ground activities to contact electors and increase information flow.
b. The importance of information
Various methods can be considered to improve information. Consumers and their representative organisations should agree to the process, as should the media, which can play a very important role.
A long-term information campaign, using all the methods available, is required to restore consumer confidence, which has been shaken with regard to food products. Consumers are currently in a frequently overwhelming situation, in which they no longer know whom to trust: the public authorities have been found lacking in vigilance, the agri-foodstuffs sector usually operates only on the basis of productivity and profitability criteria, and the media contributes, however unwittingly, to this state of consumer anxiety.
Equally, there is much that could be done with regard to product packaging, in order to inform the end consumer about the exact contents of foodstuffs.
A considerable effort is therefore required from all interested parties, in order to decentralise, disseminate and spread information as widely as possible. In today’s information society, information cannot be kept back, especially when public health is at stake. This is neither morally nor politically acceptable on the part of public authorities. Nor is it understood or accepted by the citizen-consumer. Otherwise, in the absence of proper and full information, the void will be filled by half-truths, snippets of information and assumptions, which will only serve to increase confusion and worsen consumer anxiety.
c. Training and education (farmers and consumers)
If consumers are to make educated decisions, they must have the necessary tools. This requires that every effort be made in advance to provide training and education. Whether this is done in school, or through the media or consumer associations, preparatory and on-going information work must be carried out with this in mind.
At the same time, every effort must be made to give farmers and food processors the opportunity to learn about the production of new food products or new cultivation, rearing or food processing methods, and the risks that they involve. Here, professional farmers associations have a very important role to play. Steps must be taken to ensure that these new techniques or products meet the statutory food safety criteria demanded by our modern societies.
d. Role of consumer associations
Consumption is a key factor in our market economies just as protection of the individual and the defence of personal rights (particularly in health matters) are key factors in our European societies. These factors, together with social and cultural progress, have made individual consumers more aware of their rights which they are increasingly striving to see upheld, particularly in cases where such rights affect their health. This applies in particular to the food sector, especially where there are potential health risks.
While initial reactions from consumers tended to be sporadic and disorganised, in recent years there has been growing awareness of the role of consumers in contemporary society. They have become more organised and formed active and increasingly better structured associations, both nationally and at European level. In addition, more attention is now being paid to these consumer associations; indeed they are often consulted by official or professional authorities. One such association is the European Consumers’ Organisation which is very active in the European Union.
As a result, consumers are in a strong economic position and have developed a degree of political power. Whether by influencing legislation, monitoring its application or taking direct action on the market by boycotting or endorsing certain products, consumers are able to alter behaviour or influence production.
Consequently, consumers need to be properly informed in order to be able to make the right decisions, especially as far as health matters are concerned. Consumer associations have a very important role to play here. To a certain extent they are the link between the individual consumer, the production sector and the authorities. They not only have to make those responsible for taking economic and policy decisions aware of consumers’ interests and concerns, but must also keep the latter informed as best they can, through all available means (public campaigns, the media, etc) by making available to them in a comprehensible form as much relevant information (scientific, economic or regulatory) as possible.
4. Conclusions
1. Food security, food safety and food quality are essential elements in our human existence and are to be considered as fundamental human rights.
2. Food safety and food quality are issues with which the consumer is more and more concerned notwithstanding our increasing knowledge. A scientific approach is no longer sufficient to reassure the consumer.
3. Because of the globalisation of our economy, international agreements are essential. The existing rules, as established by the GATT Uruguay Round, no longer suffice, as is shown by the many trade conflicts in this field.
4. Technological developments in primary production as well as in processing, storage, transport and trade are enormous. Because production is being concentrated, the risk of errors in the production chain is increasing considerably.
5. Although developments such as genetic manipulation, the use of hormones and radiation of food have raised considerable concern among the public at large and have met with strong opposition, other aspects of food safety are at least equally important, as has been shown clearly by the BSE problem.
6. Even if scientific research has demonstrated that food safety is not threatened by these developments, the concern of the consumer has by no means been alleviated because it goes far beyond the direct and simple question of whether his health is, or is not, at stake: the consumer is increasingly worried about the environment and the future.
7. The growing demand for more “craft” foods, such as local products, biological food and/or food bought directly at the farm, show clearly that the discerning consumer in the developed countries is no longer satisfied with the guarantees given to him by the public authorities, but, on the basis of clear and complete information, wants to make his own choices.
8. International co-operation is required to meet this “consumer concern”. The Council of Europe can make an important contribution to this, eg by drawing up a European convention on food safety and food quality. In this convention the participating countries would commit themselves to follow a common line, eg regarding labelling and the development of better management systems, control, etc. Moreover, rules could be established on training and information of both the producer and consumer.
9. It is essential, also for food security in the future, that the consumer’s confidence in food safety is re-established and that on the basis of supervised and therefore reliable information he can assume responsibility for his own life.
10. Next to this, the European Union should establish a Europe-wide independent agency along the lines of the Food and Drugs Administration of the United States. The applicant countries as well as the other central and eastern European countries should also participate.
***
Reporting committee: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Committee for opinion: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none
Reference to committee: Doc. 7602 and Reference No. 2112 of 7 November 1996
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 23 June 1998.
Members of the committee: Mrs Johansson (Chairperson), MM. Seiler (Vice-Chairman), Figel (Vice-Chairman), MM. Aliko, Anton, Aylward (Alternate: Connor), Bernardini, de Carolis, Carvalho, Chulakov, Čiupaila, Collavini (Alternate: Rizzi), Eltz, Etherington, Mrs Faldet (Alternate: Mr Myrvoll), MM. Ghesquière, Hadjidemetriou, Haraldsson, Hornung, Janowski, Jeambrun (Alternate: Lesein), Kharitonov, Kiratlioglu, Kitov, Kofod-Svendsen, Korkeaoja, van der Linden (Alternate: Woltjer), Linzer, Mrs Loule, MM. Malvy, Pesek, Pokol, Prusak, Regenwetter, Mrs Rugate, MM. Rupar, Sainz Garcia (Alternate: Gonzalez Laxe), Scheer, Steolea, Taylor John D., Telgmaa, Tripunovski, Vella.
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretary to the committee: Mr Sixto.
1 Member States of this Partial Agreement: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. On 17 March 1998, the Representatives of those countries in the Committee of Ministers took note of the specific terms of reference of a new Committee of experts on nutrition, food safety and consumer health, subordinated to the Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement).
2 Seminar on the Use of Antibiotics in Food Production (London, 8-9 June 1998) organised by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.