1. What to Expect From the latest Food Control Regulation
Dr Gudrun Gallhoff Deputy Head Unit
DG Health and Food Safety (Sante) Unit G3 European Commission

2. Current regulatory context

3. Commission proposal
COM proposal adopted on 6.05 together with proposals on:
Plant Health
Plant Reproductive Material
Animal Health (adopted 03.16
EU financing (adopted on 7.06)
European Parliament (vote plenary 15.04)
Rapporteur ENVI Mr. Pirillo (S&D, IT – not renewed) – Vote 20.02
Opinion AGRI Mrs Reimers (ALDE, DE)
Context of the proposal
The primary aim of the proposal is to simplify the current legal framework and improve the effectiveness of controls. Recent food scandals and frauds are obviously elements which were taken into account by the Commission when drafting the proposal
The Commission intends to strengthen the instruments of Member States' competent authorities to check compliance with EU legislation (through controls, inspections and tests).
The new rules follow a more risk based approach thus allowing competent authorities to focus their resources on the more relevant issues (EFSA has got a role to indicate the emerging risks).

4. Evolution of the revision proposal: negotiations ongoing
6 May 2013: Commission proposal adopted
April 2014: position of EU Parliament (vote in plenary)
October 2015: start of the Trilogues
Under the Dutch Presidency: possible agreement between the co-legislators (early 2nd reading)
BACKGROUND
European Parliament
Rapporteur ENVI Mr. Pirillo (S&D, IT – not renewed) – Vote 20.02
Opinion AGRI Mrs Reimers (ALDE, DE)
The responsible Committee is COMENVI and the rapporteur is MEP Karin Kadenbach (S&D – AT)
Council:
Technical discussions on the official control proposal have been taking place within the Joint Working Party of Veterinary Experts (Public Health) and Phytosanitary Experts
Trilogues:
Since October 2015, 9 trilogues
EP and Council made good progress on the file and hoped for early second reading agreement
Last trilogue 15 June 2016
The Commission is heavily involved in the Trilogues . If negotiations are successful, agreement will be reached at early second reading

5. Objectives of the review of Regulation 882/2004
Simplify and clarify the legal framework applicable to control activities
Consolidate the integrated approach across the food chain in its widest meaning (food and feed, plant health, animal health, animal welfare)
Ensure that MS appropriately resource control authorities through fees charged on operators

6. Key changes (1) Improved transparency
CAs
Obliged to:
Make available information on organisation/ performance of OCs
Publish timely and regularly type/number/outcome of OCs, type/number of non-compliances, cases where measures taken/penalties imposed
Allowed to publish outcome of OCs on individual operators
Entitled to publish rating of individual operators
Obliged to give a copy of the report both in case of non-compliance and compliance
The proposal intends to increase the transparency of official controls by national authorities, and overall offers a level playing field for businesses
under certain conditions CC.AA. will be allowed to publish information on the results of controls on individual busineess and to establish "rating schemes" whereby consumers can consult data on the performance of retailers, restaurants…
publication of individual reports:
prior to publishing the factual outcome of official controls carried out on an individual operator, the competent authorities must give the operator the opportunity to comment on the information they intend to publish, and the published information must be take into account his comments or be published together with them

7. Key changes (2)- Clarified/new obligations during controls
Operators to give access to:
Premises (plants, machineries, animals, goods..)
Computerised information management systems
Documents, any other relevant information and assist the staff of the CAs and cooperate
Competent authorities: perform official controls in a manner minimising burden on operators
Differently from the current legislation 882/2004, the proposal spells out the obligations for business to give access to plants
In some cases businesses can ask an extra expert opinion at their own cost

8. Modernised integrated controls at borders (1)
BIPs, DPEs, points of entry
Border Control Posts (BCPs)
Common Health Entry Document (CHED)
Used for all animals + goods subject to controls at BCPs:
By operators for mandatory prior notification of arrival
By CAs to record controls and decisions
By customs
Duly completed CHED for customs procedures
Full electronic use
a new system will integrate all existing and future systems and will allow the use of e-certificates and e-signatures

9. Modernised integrated controls at borders (2)
Common set of rules for animals and goods subject to controls at BCPs
Documentary and identity checks (all consignments)
Risk based physical checks
Checks at the BCP where the good is first presented (empowerment for establishment of exemptions)
BCPs: Border Control Posts

10. Better financing of official controls (1)
Commission proposed a cost-based mandatory fees for most official controls
The Council approach is based on mandatory fees per sector
Meat plants
Imports
Negotiations are ongoing
The proposal will extend the compulsory contributions to almost all operators.
Council approach:
Mandatory fees NOT on all sectors but for:
Slaughterhouses, cutting plantas and game processing plants;
Milk production;
On production and placing on the market of fishery and aquaculture products;
The Council shares COM approach: mandatory fees at the borders, for unplanned controls (following the identification of non-compliance, and for the approval of feed premises.
Principle of the proposal: the below narrative applies only to the proposal, but the negotiations are likely to change it.
all stakeholders (farmers, transporters, slaughterhouses, processors) are called to contribute to contribution system for official controls to minimize the food safety system costs. In this way the costs of official controls become sustainable because they are not a burden the national budget through tax collection.
However, the current position of co-legislator tends to prefer the existing system of contributions, based on fixed costs for each sector, set at EU level for all Member States (Annex to the current Regulation, adapted to the increase of labor costs). The equality of the costs of controls among all EU MSs , inspections and tests is intended to avoid that operators transfer the slaughtering in countries with lower costs of controls (avoid the "cross country-shopping")
In the current system the contributions operators are already required to be charged where the official inspections are more frequent (and therefore more expensive), in particular in the areas of production of fish, meat and dairy products. The proposal extends compulsory contributions to other sectors of the agro-food sector and for almost all official controls, most of which will cost far less than in controls in slaughterhouses or meat processing plants. By extending the scope, the proposal seeks to broaden the base of contributions, impacting less on areas where contributions are more frequent. All operators who benefit directly from the official controls are now required to contribute to their funding.
The proposal, however, exempt micro-enterprises from the payment of contributions.

11. Better financing of official controls (2)
Consultation of operators concerned on calculation methods of fees
Full transparency on:
- how fees are calculated and used
- how thrifty and efficient use of fees is ensured
exemptions:
No fees however will be charged for official controls:
1) carried out to verify the application of specific rules in relation to organic products, protected designations of origin (PDO), protected geographical indications (PGI) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG),
2) On national disease control measures.
the breakdown of control costs and the calculation of fees:
According to the proposal, Member States will have the obligation to publish how the fees are calculated and used and how they ensure the efficient use of the fees.

12. Prevention of frauds (1)
1. Prioritise the fight against food fraud
- Increase awareness (training activities, conferences)
- Promote cross-agencies cooperation (food inspectors + police, customs etc.)
- Integrate food fraud priorities into other departments' actions
2. More efficient official controls
- Unannounced controls for the detection of frauds in Multiannual Control Plan
- Sanctions  financial benefits
- Mandatory coordinated control plans
Intensification of official controls at borders in case of suspicion

13. Prevention of frauds (2)
3. Food Fraud Network
- Food Fraud Network
- IT mechanism to enable cooperation across borders in case of fraud
Improve investigation skills for better detection/prevention
4. Food Authenticity EU Reference Centre
Food Fraud Network are not part of the proposal but an element of the Commission five points action plan adopted after the horse meat incident from 2013
The IT system will be operational to ease exchange of information and thus prevent frauds

14. EU Reference Laboratories: functions and training
Ensure high-quality, uniform testing in the EU
Receive annual EU funding to fulfil their tasks and functions and cover their operational costs
Commission approves their work programmes every year & can establish new EURLs or change their designation
The EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs)
Ensure high-quality, uniform testing in the EU
Receive annual EU funding to fulfil their tasks and functions and cover their operational costs
Commission approves their work programmes every year and can establish new EURLs or change their designation

15. EU Reference centres: functions and training
Provide National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) with analytical methods and diagnostic technics, and coordinate their application
Train staff from NRLs
Provide the Commission with scientific and technical expertise in relation to laboratory analysis e.g. diagnosis of animal disease outbreaks.
Collaborate with competent laboratories in non-EU countries

16. Main Outstanding Issues during the negotiation (1)
scope
GMOs for the purpose of food and feed
Marketing Standards
Organic production
control staff requirements
Training requirements
role of the official veterinarian
at borders
in in meat inspection

17. Main Outstanding Issues during the negotiation (2)
import controls
Plants and documentary/physical checks (exemptions)
fees for official controls
subsidiarity vs partly harmonised
enforcement action and fraud
empowerments
delegated acts (preferred by the EP)
implementing acts (preferred by the Council)

18. Main conclusions
The proposal has 3 main objectives: 1. strenghten the quality of the controls 2. enhance transparency to manufacturers and traders 3. Integrate new technical and scientific knowledge
It has still to be decided with the co-legislator whether the empowerments will be implementing or delegated acts
Stakeholders and Competent Authorities will be consulted when the Commission will start the empowerments – not before three years

19. Source