Food Standards Agency
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Listen
Listen to this siteMonday 21 September 2009
Details of the report from Council Working Group Working Party on Veterinary Experts (Public Health).
1. First discussions on the Commission’s report of the hygiene legislation, including a presentation by the Commission. As this was the first meeting, it was largely taken up with Commission’s presentation of the report.
2. Following the report, the Commission indicated that it has no plans to make any legislative proposals until 2010, for adoption in 2011.
3. The meeting also considered two draft Commission Regulations, one laying down transitional measures for the implementation of Regulations 853/2004, 854/2004 and 882/2004, the second amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 on Food Chain Information. As these drafts fall under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, the Commission had to submit them to the European Parliament and Council for a 3 month scrutiny period before they can be finally adopted. The meeting confirmed that the Council had no objection to these measures (not reported further).
4. Next meeting will be 29 September.
5. The Commission began by giving an overview of the report of the hygiene legislation. The hygiene package introduced which applied in January 2006 represented a major simplification of what had gone before and in the Commission’s view should remain so. The Commission did not suggest that there needed to be a fundamental overhaul of the legislation, and so was not proposing new texts; it did however reserve the right to propose amendments in due course, without tampering with the basic architecture of the legislation.
6. The Commission had drafted the report as a factual account of experience from 2006 to mid-2008. It had looked in particular at the most innovative parts of the hygiene package. Not all comments from Member States and stakeholders had been included in the report as it had been constrained by translation restrictions. The Commission had therefore focussed on those aspects which involved co-decision. The Commission would hold a meeting with stakeholders in November to get further contributions from them. It very much viewed the report as a trigger for further debate, and following this would produce proposals during 2010 for adoption in 2011.
7. The Commission then presented each section of the report. There were some comments from Member States. Those that spoke all welcomed the report, and agreed with the general conclusions.
Scope
8. The Commission thought that difficulties in scope related mainly to exclusions, or when activities fell outside of the legislation as indicated in its report. This was especially the case as to what might constitute an establishment and the definition of retail.
Definitions
9. The Commission had decided to leave out any proposals for legislation in the report, transitional measures had been extended pending further discussion of the issues. During their consultation with Member States and stakeholders the definition of retail had provoked the most comments. It was clear that this was an area for further discussion.
10. There remained an issue with ‘composite products’, as there was no real definition. The Commission could extend the transitional period for imports, but the recent problems with composite products imported from China demonstrated that this issue needed to be resolved.
11. A number of Member States raised concerns about the definition of retail creating difficulties around the operation of cold stores. The Commission thought that here might be ways of making progress on this without amending the legislation.
12. The Commission confirmed that it was happy to prioritise issues, provided that Member States gave a clear idea of what they thought was important. It was planning to consider ‘composite products’ in detail before the end of the year.
13. Regarding definitions for meat separation/recovery, it appears that trade bodies would prefer an amendment to the labelling regulations rather than the hygiene package, which already includes separate definitions for MSM and meat preparations. The Commission is drawing up a communication on this issue which it hoped to discuss in 2010/2011.
Primary production
14. The Commission reported that most of those consulted thought that the provisions for primary production were adequate and proportionate.
15. Gaps still existed at European level as regards guides to good practice and the Commission was seeking COPA-COGECA (the European level body representing farmers and agricultural cooperatives) to be more active in this area. Some Member States have created successful national guides to fill the gap.
HACCP
16. The Commission thought that the implementation of HACCP had not been controversial, though it had been more difficult for slaughterhouses (particularly those with small capacity) and for micro firms. Some Member States had created standardised risk assessments and practical guides to help small firms.
17. There was near consensus during the Commission’s consultation that it is premature to extend HACCP to primary production, and that it would be better to achieve the objectives and requirements with guidance not legislation.
Registration and approval procedures
18. The intention of the hygiene package had been that these procedures should be as streamlined as possible. There were some difficulties over who should register (questions around brokers, internet traders and those involved in one off events). There had been some practical difficulties around approvals, and other difficulties relating to the questions of scope and definition reported earlier.
Health and identification marking
19. The Commission noted that repackaging was the main issue here.
Guides to good practice
20. The Commission’s consultation had found that these were applied in varying degrees at national level. It had not received quantified information on the level of use among operators. Some Member States reward those who use the guides, by awarding them a lower risk assessment and less frequent audits. There was some support for Community level guides, and some were still under evaluation.
21. It was suggested by Member States that it would be helpful if Community level guides were translated into more languages than English and French.
Flexibility
22. From the comments received by the Commission, it was clear that not all Member States had implemented the hygiene package as flexibly as was permitted by the legislation. There was clearly some doubt among Member States as to how flexibility might be applied. The Commission was therefore preparing a “Frequently Asked Questions” document that it would present to Scofcah.
Imports
23. The Commission noted that it had tried to harmonise import conditions as far as possible. As reported earlier, it would be looking closely at composite products.
Official controls in relation to products of animal origin
24. The Commission made reference to the Lyon conference in July 2008, and the recommendations subsequently agreed by CVOs on modernisation of meat inspection. This section also mentions difficulties accrediting labs for trichinella testing. The Commission said that it would arrange a discussion as promised on 765/08 to give some interpretation of the regulation which might help small labs meet the criteria. It also noted that the issue of a chemical text for bio-toxins in live bivalve molluscs was being dealt with in separate meetings this week. Some progress had been made, and it was a priority of the Commission to resolve this through comitology.
Microcriteria
25. The Commission considered that there had been improvements in the application of the microcriteria requirements, but this still remains unsatisfactory and may need revisiting. There were still some queries about implementation, which had been discussed in the Commission’s Working Group.
Surface contamination
26. The Commission did not elaborate on the report’s content, but indicated that it may return to the subject at a later date. It noted that some treatments (steam, hot water, UV light) were being discussed in Commission working groups.
Food Chain Information
27. The Commission reported that this was being introduced species by species. There may be a need to harmonise the FCI documents, as the format of these had been left to individual MS and this was causing some cross border trade difficulties.
Emergency Slaughter
28. The Commission had promised to revisit this issue in the report, but had found there were divergent views on the issue. It therefore merited further discussion.
Conclusions
29. The Presidency asked for written comments from Member States to be sent in preparation for the next working group on 29 September.
Find out about our different types of content