1. FOOD IMPORT CONTROL- A national perspective, Italy Romano Marabelli°, Paolo Aureli*, Agostino Macri’**, ° Direction General of Veterinary Public Health, Food and Nutrition MINISTRY OF HEALTH * Food and **Veterinary Medicine Laboratories ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DELLA SANITA’ Rome, ITALY

2. FOOD PRODUCTION IN ITALY  It is mainly performed by small-sized and medium-sized family run businesses  it is deeply rooted in the food tradition of the territory  the output of these food businesses is low  the qualitative level is high also under the hygiene and health points of view, due to the possibility of performing an accurate control at all stages that entails a considerable effect on food exports  the strong reduction of certain agricultural activities has led to an increase in the use of raw materials imported from other countries, making it more difficult to perform a direct control on their hygiene and health quality.

3. ORIGIN OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS - 2002 ~100 Countries (80% EU’s) 60% of fish products are imported : ~50 Third Countries and ~ 50% EU’s IMPORTANCE TO THE QUALITY OF RAW MATERIALS

4. VERIFICATION OF THE COMPLIANCE AT THE IMPORT STAGE it is necessary to have updated ■common assessment criteria on emerging hazards ■adequate control networks to prevent the introduction of risk factors in the food production chain

5. COMMON INTERESTS AMONG THE EU COUNTRIES  build up an efficient information network not only between the central authorities but also between the local services in charge of checking imported goods to foster a quick notification of violations found and a verification of the control procedures for a possible implementation

6. EU STRATEGY FOR THE CHECKS ON IMPORTED PRODUCTS food of animal origin can enter the European Union only if:  they come from specifically approved Third Countries (List of Third Countries)  they meet the health requirements established at Community level (health certificate)  they come from approved establishments  the outcome of the checks at the EU borders was favourable

7. VETERINARY CHECKS AT BORDER INSPECTION POSTS (BIPS) Documentary and identity checks Physical (or material) checks Laboratory checks ( random)  consignments may be  Accepted ( DVCE is issued)  Rejected

8. LABORATORY CHECKS differences with respect to  sampling procedures  acceptability criteria  sensitivity of methods  laboratory accreditation  possibility of repeating the tests

9. ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE  to assure the same accuracy in the evaluation in all Border Inspection Posts it would be desirable to establish  a minimum list of laboratory tests  a harmonised overall procedure

10. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT HEALTH PROBLEMS  Illegal veterinary drug residues (Cloramphenicol and nitrofurans)  Detection of counterfeited certificates  Chemical contaminants (mycotoxins)

11. NUMBER OF (%)IRREGULARITY OBSERVED BY THE ITALIAN BIPs 1997-2002 YearN° Rejections% of rejections 19974930,6% 19983200,4% 19992550,3% 20003000,3% 20013310,4% 20024220,5%

12. NATURE OF THE IRREGULARITIES lack of health certificate or origin from a country subjected to a ban presence of pathogenic micro-organisms active substance residues environmental contaminants

13. THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 90/675 ■organization of national checks ■own training and updating courses of official veterinarians for BIPs

14. THE OUTPUTS  difference in procedures for similar situations  interventions of the EU inspectors to harmonize the inspection approach

15. The new BIPs Decrease in the beneficial effects produced by the “buffer zone” direct exposition of MSs to the current health emergencies coming from Central and Far Eastern Countries need to acquire the “Community inspection” awareness by the “new” inspectors who are technically well skilled

16. CONCLUSIONS an EU legal status for border inspectors an adequate wage a centralised training setting up a Superior School for Border Inspectors under the aegis of the Commission