RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation (C4-0562/97 - 00/0169(COD)) and on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Directive on the establishment of a Community list of foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation (C4-0561/97 - 00/0169B(COD))

5 February 1998

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
Rapporteur: Mrs Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz

At its sitting of 11 October 1989 Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on the proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.
A.I. DRAFT DECISION
A.II. DRAFT DECISION
B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

At its sitting of 11 October 1989 Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on the proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.

At the sitting of 2 December 1993 Parliament confirmed this vote at first reading under the codecision procedure.

The Council split the Commission proposal and on 16 October 1997 established two common positions (C4-0561/97 and C4-0562/97).

At the sitting of 6 November 1997 the President of Parliament announced that the common positions had been received and referred to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection as the committee responsible.

The committee had appointed Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz rapporteur at its meeting of 27 July 1994.

By letter of 14 November 1997 Parliament and the Council by common accord extended the period for adoption at second reading by one month, pursuant to Article 189b(7) of the Treaty.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection considered the common positions and the draft recommendation for second reading at its meetings of 25 November 1997 and 5 January and 3 February 1998.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft decisions unanimously.

The following took part in the vote: Collins, chairman; Poggiolini and Lannoye, vice-chairmen; Bloch von Blottnitz, rapporteur; Baldi (for d'Aboville), Blokland, Bowe, Breyer, Cabrol, Corbett (for Kokkola), Correia (for Apolinário), Díez de Rivera Icaza, Eisma, Florenz, Garosci (for Fitzsimons), González Alvárez, Graenitz, Grossetête, Hautala (for Tamino), Hulthén, Jackson, Kirsten Jensen, Liese (for Flemming), Myller (for White), Needle, Olsson, Oomen-Ruijten, Pollack, van Putten, Redondo Jiménez (for Valverde López), Roth-Behrendt, Schleicher, Schnellhardt, Sjöstedt (for Papayannakis), Trakatellis, Virgin, and Whitehead.

The recommendation for second reading was tabled on 5 February 1998.

The deadline for tabling amendments to the common position or proposals to reject it is 12 noon on Thursday, 12 February 1998.

A.I. DRAFT DECISION

Decision on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation (C4-0562/97 - 00/0169(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the common position of the Council, C4-0562/97 - 00/0169(COD),

- having regard to its opinion at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council, COM(88)0654[2],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal, COM(89)0576[3],

- having regard to Article 189b(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0042/98),

1. Amends the common position as follows;

2. Calls on the Commission to support Parliament's amendments in the opinion it is required to deliver pursuant to Article 189b(2)(d) of the EC Treaty;

3. Calls on the Council to approve all Parliament's amendments, amend its common position accordingly and definitively adopt the act;

4. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission.

Common position of the Council

Amendments by Parliament

(Amendment 1)

Recital 4

(4) Whereas in several Member States foodstuff irradiation constitutes a sensitive issue in public debate, and whereas consumers can be very concerned about the consequences of the use of food irradiation;

(4) Whereas in individual Member States foodstuff irradiation constitutes a sensitive issue in public debate, and whereas consumers may have cause for concern about the consequences of the use of food irradiation;

(Amendment 2)

Recital 5

(5) Whereas until the entry into force of the final positive list of foodstuffs which may be treated with ionizing radiation, it is appropriate that Member States may, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty, continue to apply existing national restrictions or bans on ionizing radiation of foodstuffs and on trade in irradiated foodstuffs which are not included in the initial positive list established by the implementing Directive;

(5) Whereas until the entry into force of the Community positive list of foodstuffs which may be treated with ionizing radiation, it is appropriate that Member States may, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty, continue to apply existing national restrictions or bans on ionizing radiation of foodstuffs and on trade in irradiated foodstuffs which are not included in the initial positive list established by the implementing Directive;

(Amendment 3)

Recital 6

(6) Whereas rules relating to the use of ionizing radiation for the treatment of foodstuffs should take account primarily of human health requirements but also, within the limits required for the protection of health, of economic and technical needs;

(6) Whereas rules relating to the use of ionizing radiation for the treatment of foodstuffs must take full account of human health requirements, and its use must present no hazard to health and not be used as a substitute for hygiene or health practices or good manufacturing or agricultural practice;

(Amendment 4)

Recital 8

(8) Whereas approved irradiation units should be subject to an official control, through an inspection system to be created for the needs of this Directive;

(8) Whereas approved irradiation units must be subject to an official control, through an inspection system to be created for the needs of this Directive;

(Amendment 5)

Recital 11a (new)

(11a) Whereas the international food irradiation (radura) symbol may be used to indicate the presence of irradiation in foodstuffs;

(Amendment 6)

Recital 12

(12) Whereas the Scientific Committee for Food should be consulted before the adoption of provisions likely to have an incidence on public health, for example, the inclusion of new foodstuffs in the approved list, the authorized dosages or their modification;

(12) Whereas the Scientific Committee for Food must be consulted and the European Parliament must play its part pursuant to Article 100a of the Treaty before the adoption of provisions likely to have an incidence on public health, for example, the inclusion of new foodstuffs in the approved list, the authorized dosages or their modification;

(Amendment 7)

Recital 13

(13) Whereas foodstuffs may only be treated by the action of ionizing radiation if there is a food hygiene need, or a demonstrable technological or other advantage, or benefit to the consumer and if they are wholesome and in a proper condition, since ionizing radiation should not be used as a substitute for hygiene or health practices or good manufacturing or agricultural practice;

(Amendment 8)

Recital 16

(16) Whereas should the use of the process or of a foodstuff treated with ionizing radiation authorized on the basis of this Directive appear to constitute a health risk, Member States should be authorized to suspend or limit such use, or to reduce the limits, pending a decision at Community level;

(Amendment 9)

Article 1(1)

1. This Directive shall apply to the manufacture, marketing and importation of foods and food ingredients, hereinafter called 'foodstuffs', treated with ionizing radiation.

1. This Directive shall apply to the manufacture, marketing, importation and analytical testing of foods and food ingredients, hereinafter called 'foodstuffs', treated with ionizing radiation.

(Amendment 10)

Article 3(1)

1. The conditions which must be fulfilled for authorization of the treatment of foodstuffs with ionizing radiation are set out in Annex I. At the time of treatment such foodstuffs must be in a suitably wholesome state.

1. The conditions which must be fulfilled for authorization of the treatment of foodstuffs with ionizing radiation are set out in Annex I; for authorization all requirements, especially those mentioned in Article 7(3), must be met. At the time of treatment such foodstuffs must be in a suitably wholesome state.

(Amendment 11)

Article 4(1)

1. The list of foodstuffs which may be treated with ionizing radiation to the exclusion of all others and the maximum radiation doses authorized shall be defined in the implementing Directive, which shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 100a of the Treaty taking account of the authorization conditions set out in Annex I.

1. The Community list of foodstuffs and their ingredients which may be treated with ionizing radiation, the maximum radiation doses authorized and the analytical test procedures shall be defined in the implementing Directive, which shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 100a of the Treaty taking account of the authorization conditions set out in Annex I.

(Amendment 12)

Article 4(3)

3. The Commission shall examine the national authorizations in force and, after consulting the Scientific Committee for Food, submit in accordance with Article 100a of the Treaty proposals aiming at establishing the list.

3. The Commission shall examine the national authorizations in force and, after consulting the Scientific Committee for Food, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 100a of the Treaty submit proposals aiming at establishing the list.

(Amendment 13)

Article 7(3), third indent

- the results of checks carried out at the product marketing stage. The reference methods used to detect treatment with ionizing radiation shall, where available, be standardized methods.

- the results of checks carried out at the product marketing stage. The reference methods used to detect treatment with ionizing radiation shall, where available, be standardized methods, for the development and constant further development of which the Member States and the Commission shall be equally responsible.

(Amendment 14)

Article 12(1) first subparagraph

1. Where the procedure defined in this Article is to be followed, the Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee'.

1. Where the procedure defined in this Article is to be followed, the Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee', which shall be advisory in nature and chaired by the representative of the Commission.

(Amendment 15)

Article 12(1), third subparagraph (new)

Meetings of the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs shall as a rule be held in public except where there has been a specific decision to the contrary, duly reasoned and published in good time. The Committee shall publish its agendas two weeks in advance of meetings. It shall publish the minutes of its meetings. It shall draw up a public register of declarations of the interests of its members.

(Amendment 16)

Article 12(2)

2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be adopted. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the Chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148(2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The Chairman shall not vote.

(Amendment 17)

Article 12(3)

3(a) The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee;(b) If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority.If, on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of referral to the Council, the Council has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission.

3. The Committee's opinion shall be recorded in the minutes with the position of each Member State appended on request.The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.

(Amendment 18)

Article 13

Provisions which are likely to have an effect on public health shall be adopted after consultation of the Scientific Committee for Food.

Provisions which are likely to have an effect on public health shall be adopted, after consultation of the Scientific Committee for Food, by the European Parliament and the Council on a proposal from the Commission pursuant to Article 100a of the Treaty.

(Amendment 19)

Article 14(3)

3. If the Commission considers that amendments to this Directive are necessary in order to resolve the difficulties mentioned in paragraph 1 and to ensure the protection of human health, such amendments may be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12; the Member State which had adopted safeguard measures may retain them until the amendments enter into force.

3. If the Commission considers that amendments to this Directive are necessary in order to resolve the difficulties mentioned in paragraph 1 and to ensure the protection of human health, such amendments may be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 100a of the Treaty; the Member State which had adopted safeguard measures may retain them until the amendments enter into force.

(Amendment 20)

Article 15, first paragraph, second indent

- prohibit the marketing and use of irradiated foodstuffs not complying with Directive by [...[⁽¹⁾.	- prohibit the marketing and use of irradiated foodstuffs not complying with this Directive by [...[⁽¹⁾.
⁽¹⁾24 months after the entry into force of this Directive.	⁽¹⁾12 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

(Amendment 21)

Annex I(1), third indent

- it is of benefit to the consumer;

- it is essential to the consumer;

(Amendment 22)

Annex I(2)

2. Food irradiation may be used only for the following purposes:- to reduce the incidence of food-borne disease by destroying pathogenic organisms;- to reduce spoilage of foodstuffs by retarding or arresting decay processes and destroying spoilage organisms;- to reduce loss of foodstuffs by premature ripening, germination or sprouting;- to rid foodstuffs of organisms harmful to plant or plant products.

2. Food irradiation may be used only for the following purposes:- to reduce the incidence of food-borne disease by destroying pathogenic organisms;- to reduce spoilage of foodstuffs by retarding or arresting decay processes and destroying spoilage organisms;deleted- to rid foodstuffs of organisms harmful to plant or plant products.

[1] () OJ C 291, 20.11.1989, p. 38, and OJ C 342, 20.12.1993, p. 33.
[2] () OJ C 336, 30.12.1988, p. 7.
[3] () OJ C 303, 2.12.1989, p. 15.

A.II. DRAFT DECISION

Decision on the common position of the Council with a view to adopting the European Parliament and Council Directive on the establishment of a Community list of foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation (C4-0561/97 - 00/0169B(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the common position of the Council, C4-0561/97 - 0169B(COD),

- having regard to its opinion at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(88)0654[2],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal, COM(89)0576[3],

- having regard to Article 189b(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0042/98),

1. Amends the common position as follows;

2. Calls on the Commission to support Parliament's amendments in the opinion it is required to deliver pursuant to Article 189b(2)(d) of the EC Treaty;

3. Calls on the Council to approve all of Parliament's amendments, amend its common position accordingly, and definitively adopt the act;

4. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and Commission.

(Amendment 1)

Article 1(1)

1. Without prejudice to the final positive list to be established in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the framework Directive, this Directive establishes a Community initial positive list of food and food ingredients, hereinafter referred to as 'foodstuffs' that may be treated with ionizing radiation, together with the maximum doses authorized for the intended purpose.

1. Without prejudice to the Community positive list to be established in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the framework Directive, this Directive establishes a Community initial positive list of food and food ingredients, hereinafter referred to as 'foodstuffs', that may be treated with ionizing radiation, together with the maximum doses authorized for the intended purpose and the permitted analytical test procedure.

(Amendment 2)

Article 1(3)

3. The foodstuffs that may be treated with ionizing radiation and the maximum overall average dose that may be imparted are listed in the Annex.

3. The foodstuffs that may be treated with ionizing radiation, the maximum overall average dose that may be imparted, and the analytical test procedure to be applied are listed in the Annex.

(Amendment 3)

Annex

Common position of the Council

CATEGORY OF FOODSTUFF	MAXIMUM OVERALL AVERAGE ABSORBED RADIATION DOSE (kGy)
Dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings	10

Amendments

ANALYTICAL TEST PROCEDURE

EN 1788

CATEGORY OF FOODSTUFF	MAXIMUMOVERALL AVERAGE ABSORBED RADIATION DOSE (kGy)
Dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings	10

[1] () OJ C 291, 20.11.1989, p. 38, and OJ C 342, 20.12.1993, p. 33.
[2] () OJ C 336, 30.12.1988, p. 7.
[3] () OJ C 303, 2.12.1989, p. 15.

B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I. Introduction

These two common positions represent the text of a directive, substantially amended in both content and form, stemming from Commission proposal COM(88)0654 submitted to the Council by the Commission as long ago as 9 December 1988 and dealing with Community arrangements to govern the irradiation of foodstuffs and ingredients for preservation. The European Parliament delivered an opinion on the proposal on 11 October 1989. On 17 November 1989 the Commission submitted an amended proposal (COM(89)0576) which the Council considered twice in 1990 and 1991. It was however not until 21 May 1997, six years later, that the Council managed to reach political agreement on the Commission proposal.

II. Form of the Commission Proposal

The Commission proposal (COM(88)0654) for a directive on the approximation on the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation, which originally took the form of a single proposal, has now been split into:

a) The Council's common position on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation, and

b) The Council's common position on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a Community list of foods and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.

Proposal a) is a framework directive and covers the general and technical aspects of the irradiation of food and food ingredients.

Proposal b) is an implementing directive laying down a list of food and food ingredients authorized for irradiation.

III. Content of the Commission Proposal

a) Framework directive

In this framework directive the Commission seeks to establish Community-wide uniform conditions for the irradiation of foodstuffs for preservation, and the marketing of such foodstuffs. It lays down binding requirements for irradiation facilities. It states conditions for the authorization of this preservation procedure. It covers the import of irradiated foodstuffs and prescribes procedures for the labelling of irradiated foodstuffs, and it provides for a positive list to be drawn up in stages of those foodstuffs which may be irradiated for their preservation. Until this list is adopted, the Member States may retain existing provisions governing irradiation of foodstuffs - approvals and bans.

b) Implementing Directive

The implementing directive in its present positive list mentions only one category of foodstuff which may be treated with ionizing radiation for the purpose of preservation: dried aromatic herbs, spices and seasonings.

This list is now to be established in stages on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty. The framework directive gives further details of the procedure.

IV. Assessment of the Commission Proposal

About ten years have passed since the original proposal for a directive; it took the Council 8 years just to reach agreement on the present common positions (framework and implementing directives). The unusually long period gives some clue to the controversy in the Member States of the irradiation of foodstuffs.

In some Member States (e.g. in Germany and Sweden) there are at present outright bans on this method of preservation and on the marketing of irradiated foodstuffs. In only three Member States is the method in commercial use (France, Belgium and the Netherlands). The barriers to trade arising from these variations in legislation are the reason for the Commission's attempt to introduce Community rules for the use of this method of preservation.

If we consider the view taken by the European Parliament on this matter, we notice how far the present texts depart from it. In its resolution[1] of 10/3/1987, Parliament rejected 'on precautionary grounds the general authorization of irradiation as a method of conserving food'. In its Amendment No 13[2] it called for the irradiation of foodstuffs to be 'banned in all countries of the European Community from 31.12.1992. Limited exceptions to this fundamental ban are listed in Annex 1'.

The limited exceptions to this general ban called for by Parliament fully concur with the statement by the Swedish Delegation appended to the minutes[3] of the Internal Market Council to the effect that Sweden's basic attitude is that foodstuffs may not be irradiated. Sweden accepts the irradiation of spices alone, which cannot be treated by any other method.

The European Parliament also wanted to have any exception to the ban on irradiation limited to aromatic herbs and spices. This common position contains no such restriction. By adding to the positive list stage by stage, the Council is pursuing the goal of allowing the irradiation of various other food and food ingredients in the future. In doing so it ignores the various resolutions adopted by the European Parliament.

Although the process of drawing up the positive list in stages is to be on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty, i.e. with EP participation, such participation is inadequate as designated in the common positions. Especially in respect of the activities of the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs (Article 12 of the Framework Directive), EP participation is practically excluded.

Parliament's repeated criticism of the excessive influence of regulatory committees under the comitology arrangements has to be restated here. The Standing Committee for Foodstuffs does not sit in public and keeps its decisions and/or recommendations secret. On procedural grounds alone, the quality of the scientific expertise exercised in this body has to be questioned. The recommendations of the individual members of the committee are to be weighted according to their country of origin. Any attempt to ascertain scientific truth is therefore an exercise in futility.

The Framework Directive (Article 1) governs the manufacture, marketing and importation of irradiated foods and food ingredients, but what it essentially lacks are any pronouncements on and requirements for progress in the analytical detection of irradiated foodstuffs. On this, there are to date 5 European standards dating from March 1997 (EN 1784 - 1788).

EN 1784 and EN 1785 deal with the detection of irradiated fatty foodstuffs. In these cases hydrocarbons newly formed by irradiation are isolated from the fat and identified by gas chromatography. EN 1786 and EN 1787 deal with the identification of irradiated foodstuffs containing bone and cellulose using the electron spin resonance spectroscopic method. EN 1788 is the most comprehensive method of identification: the detection of irradiated foodstuffs from which silicates may be isolated, using the thermoluminescence method. These include all herbs, spices and mixtures thereof and shrimps.

However, these few standardized methods are quite inadequate to analyse all foodstuffs for radiation. Protein foods, in particular food preparations (e.g. prepared dishes and spice ingredients) in which added irradiated ingredients depending on their quantities would be difficult if not impossible to detect, present the main problem. The same problem exists for low irradiation doses. A great deal remains to be done in this respect, especially concerning the irradiated fatty foodstuffs mentioned above. Irradiation destroys fatty acids. This releases free radicals in these fatty foodstuffs, which may increase the risk of cancer. Irradiation also reduces the vitamin content of foodstuffs.

Without internationally recognized standardized methods of detection, foodstuffs cannot be allowed to be irradiated without jeopardizing consumer protection and consumer belief in the safety and wholesomeness of our food.

The latter requires, in addition to the missing methods of detection, the detailed cataloguing and study of all substances created by irradiation. So far few are known (e.g. the new hydrocarbons - see identification methods EN 1784 and EN 1785). This means that there are special risks of toxicity in these substances. Articles 13 and 14 of the framework directive reveal these problems; consumers are however to be used as guinea pigs. Even if irradiated foodstuffs are labelled, consumers will be left in the dark over these risks.

Labelling irradiated foodstuffs is one of the few positive aspects of this proposal. However, one clear expression ('irradiated') is preferable to the proposed use of two alternative forms of words. In addition, a clear logo would considerably help consumers in reaching a purchasing decision; the rapporteur therefore offers two proposals, one of which should be used.

Annex I of the framework directive lays down conditions for authorizing irradiation. The method has to meet 'a reasonable technological need', present 'no health hazard' and be 'of benefit to the consumer' or it should not be used. However, the irradiation of spices is alone in meeting a reasonable technological need. No less hazardous alternative method of preservation is known, and the quantities consumed are small.

There is no reasonable need for the irradiation of other foodstuffs. Nor, in view of the widespread absence of methods of detection and the known risks (e.g. creating of new toxologically harmful substances, loss of nutritional value, etc.) can it be said to present no hazard to health. These aspects of irradiation also rule out any benefit to the consumer.

What is, however, reasonable, a contribution to health and of benefit to the consumer is the condition mentioned in the fourth indent of Annex I to the Framework Directive. This states that food irradiation may be authorized only if 'it is not used as a substitute for hygiene and health practices or for good manufacturing or agricultural practice'. The basis for healthy food will always be the responsible treatment of animals, plants and raw materials. If the criteria we have called for in so many resolutions on factory farming of animals for example were met, many hazardous chemical preservation and processing methods would not be needed. European consumers' associations have for years been drawing attention to these factors; they too reject food irradiation, for one thing because there are plenty of alternative methods of preservation.

In recent years, new methods of preservation have been developed, which are both practical and have far fewer drawbacks than irradiation, for example the use of high intensity light which reliably kills off bacilli on foodstuffs. Of course, this method cannot and must not be used as a substitute for sound practice.

Irradiation, as opposed to sound and responsible treatment of foodstuffs, offers enormous scope for deceiving consumers as to the true quality of their foodstuffs. Old and overripe goods may be freshened up to the eye by irradiation, but of course without regaining the quality and nutritional value of fresh foodstuffs. This gives the appearance of high-quality fresh and wholesome goods, commanding high prices although consumers are actually receiving lower-quality food. The injunction in the framework directive that only fresh and wholesome foodstuffs may be irradiated will be a dead letter as large-scale checks are not practical.

However, in addition to these objections on health grounds there are further reasons for not allowing the further use of irradiation as a method of conservation: in the event of breakdowns, irradiation facilities are as much a source of danger as other installations using radioactive substances. The increased transport of radioactive isotopes (e.g. cobalt 60) would multiply the high existing risk represented by the constant transport of radioactive substances.

V. Summary

The eight year or so delay of the legislative procedure in the Council, the short deadline provided for Parliament under the procedure and the constraints presented thereby are unacceptable. Your rapporteur therefore recommends formally treating this consultation of Parliament as a fresh first reading. This is called for in particular as, in its analysis of the common positions, the Council expressly points out that the text 'underwent substantial amendment during the discussion'[4]. This substantial amendment and the splitting of the original proposal into two directives are the grounds for our call for a first reading.

The clear will of the European Parliament to approve irradiation as a method of preservation for herbs and spices alone is not reflected in these proposals, as the method is to be extended in stages to an as yet unlimited number of foodstuffs.

The principle that only such methods of preservation may be authorized which may be detected has also been ignored. Detection methods are not available for many types of foodstuffs, let alone standardized methods. The need for better control is reflected in Amendments 9, 10, and 11.

The European Union is a long way from being able to guarantee safe food to its citizens. There is still a great deal of uncertainty in respect of many foodstuffs because of their chemical and natural additives alone. Consumer uncertainty would be further increased by the irradiation of their foodstuffs or the addition of irradiated ingredients. Labelling will make no difference. The consumer associations therefore continue to reject irradiation.

Any irradiated foodstuffs must be clearly labelled.

The legal basis, Article 100a of the Treaty, gives the European Parliament a substantial role. The committee procedure laid down in the Framework Directive, in Article 12 in particular, would, however, substantially claw back these powers of codecision, hence Amendments 6, 8, 13, 14, and 19.

[1] () OJ C 99, 13.4.1987.
[2] () OJ C 291, 20.11.1989.
[3] () Interinstitutional file 169 (SYN) of 5 June 1997.
[4] () Interinstitutional File Nos 97/169, 9389/1/97, and 10062/1/97.

Legal notice - Privacy policy