REPORT on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 [on general food law], Directive 2001/18/EC [on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs], Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 [on GM food and feed], Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 [on feed additives], Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 [on smoke flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 [on food contact materials], Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 [on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [on plant protection products] and Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 [on novel foods]
29.11.2018 - (COM(2018)0179 – C8-0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD)) - ***I
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Renate Sommer
- 001-131 (PDF - 289 KB)
- 001-131 (DOC - 96 KB)
- 132-140 (PDF - 400 KB)
- 132-140 (DOC - 81 KB)
- 141-150 (PDF - 317 KB)
- 141-150 (DOC - 83 KB)
- 151-157 (PDF - 215 KB)
- 151-157 (DOC - 78 KB)
- 158-163 (PDF - 399 KB)
- 158-163 (DOC - 25 KB)
- 164-170 (PDF - 312 KB)
- 164-170 (DOC - 27 KB)
- 171-171 (PDF - 315 KB)
- 171-171 (DOC - 118 KB)
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 [on general food law], Directive 2001/18/EC [on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs], Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 [on GM food and feed], Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 [on feed additives], Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 [on smoke flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 [on food contact materials], Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 [on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [on plant protection products] and Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 [on novel foods]
(COM(2018)0179 – C8-0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0179),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 43, 114 and 168(4)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0144/2018),
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal basis,
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 September 2018[1],
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 10 October 2018[2],
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0417/2018),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Citation 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 43, 114, and 168(4)(b) thereof, |
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 43, 114, 168(4)(b) and 192(1), | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The authorisation to cultivate or to put into circulation genetically modified organisms, plants or animals as well as the authorisation of active substances of pesticides has considerable impacts on the natural environment and on human health; the protection of human health forms part of the EU environmental policy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(2a) Risk management, assessment and communication activities should be based on a thorough application of, inter alia, the precautionary principle. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) It is therefore necessary to ensure a comprehensive and continuous risk communication process throughout risk analysis, involving Union and national risk assessors and risk managers. That process should be combined with an open dialogue between all interested parties to ensure the coherence and consistency within the risk analysis process. |
(4) It is therefore necessary to ensure a transparent, independent, continuous and inclusive risk communication process throughout risk analysis, involving Union and national risk assessors and risk managers. That process should regain citizens' trust that the whole process is underpinned by the objective of this Regulation, which is to ensure high level of human life and health and the protection of consumers' interests. That process should also be capable of contributing to a participatory and open dialogue between all interested parties particularly the public, to ensure prevalence of public interest only, accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency, consistency, and accountability within the risk analysis process. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to win public's trust, any communication and marketing of the process, should have a real content which will concretely demonstrate and prove that the things have improved. Otherwise any change is doomed to failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) On signing trade agreements, the Union needs to ensure that the food legislation of third-country partners is at least as protective of food safety as Union law, so as to guarantee consumer safety and prevent unfair competition with European products. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining in a coherent, appropriate and timely manner not only risk assessment findings themselves but also how these are utilized to help inform risk management decisions along with other legitimate factors, where relevant. |
(5) Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining in an accurate, clear, objective and timely manner not only risk assessment findings themselves but also how these are utilized to help inform risk management decisions along with other legitimate factors, where relevant. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) There is no definition of 'other legitimate factors' in the General Food Law in relation to its objective. This principle should always be applied on a case-by-case basis, but as there are no general guidelines on the application and interpretation of the principle, there is a lack of consistency in its application. The Commission should therefore draft general guidelines on the application of this principle. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) To this effect, it is necessary to establish general objectives and principles of risk communication, taking into account the respective roles of risk assessors and managers. |
(6) To this effect, it is necessary to establish general objectives and principles of risk communication. In this connection, the respective roles of risk assessors and managers should be taken into account, while guaranteeing their independence. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(8) The general plan should identify the key factors to be taken into account when risk communications’ activities are considered, such as the different levels of risk, the nature of the risk and its potential public health impact, who and what are directly or indirectly affected by the risk, the levels of risk exposure, the ability to control risk and other factors that influence risk perception including the level of urgency as well as the applicable legislative framework and relevant market context. The general plan should also identify the tools and channels to be used and should establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure coherent risk communication. |
(8) The general plan should lay down the practical arrangements for making available to the public the necessary information to achieve a high level of transparency in the risk management process. It should identify the key factors to be taken into account when risk communications’ activities are considered, such as the different levels of risk, the nature of the risk and its potential impact on public health, animal health and the environment, who and what are directly or indirectly affected by the risk, the levels of risk exposure, the ability to minimise or control risk and other factors that influence risk perception including the level of urgency as well as the applicable legislative framework and relevant market context. The general plan should also identify the tools and channels to be used and should establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure coherent risk communication. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(9) Transparency of the risk assessment process contributes to the Authority acquiring greater legitimacy in the eyes of the consumers and general public in pursuing its mission, increases their confidence in its work and ensures that the Authority is more accountable to the Union citizens in a democratic system. It is therefore essential to maintain the confidence of the general public and other interested parties in the risk analysis process underpinning Union food law and in particular in the risk assessment, including the organisation and independence of the Authority and transparency. |
(9) Improving transparency of the risk assessment process would contribute to the Authority acquiring greater legitimacy in the eyes of the consumers and general public in pursuing its mission, increase their confidence in its work and ensure that the Authority is more accountable to the Union citizens in a democratic system. It is therefore essential to rebuild the confidence of the general public and other interested parties in the risk analysis process underpinning Union food law and in particular in the risk assessment, including the organisation, functioning and independence of the Authority and transparency. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) It is appropriate to align the composition of the Management Board of the Authority to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies, in accordance with the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on decentralised agencies of 201222 . |
deleted | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular on risk assessment. |
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States, the Commission, the European Parliament, as well as civil society and industry associations in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular on risk assessment and that any conflict of interest is avoided. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(12) The Management Board should be selected in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence and a broad range of relevant experience available amongst the representatives of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. |
(12) The Management Board should be selected in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence and commitment to the protection of health and the environment and a broad range of relevant experience available amongst the representatives of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law identified certain shortcomings in the long-term capability of the Authority to maintain its high-level expertise. In particular, there has been a decrease in the number of candidates applying to be members of the Scientific Panels. The system has thus to be strengthened and Member States should take a more active role to ensure that a sufficient pool of experts is available to meet the needs of the Union risk assessment system in terms of high level of scientific expertise, independence and multidisciplinary expertise. |
(13) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law identified certain shortcomings in the long-term capacity of the Authority to maintain its high-level expertise through expert personnel. Moreover, there has been a decrease in the number of candidates applying to be members of the Scientific Panels, and the reason for this decline should be examined. Six Member States provide two thirds of the experts on the scientific panels. As the United Kingdom currently provides approximately 20% of the national experts, the problem will be further exacerbated with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union. In order to tackle this phenomenon more effectively, the system has thus to be strengthened and promoted, must encourage candidates to apply and Member States should support the dissemination of the Authority’s calls for expressions of interest for membership of the Scientific Panels and Scientific Committee, to ensure that a sufficient pool of independent experts is available, by undertaking support actions and using incentives and rewards to increase the level of participation and the degree of interest in seeking to engage in it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Explanation of the causes of the Authority’s human resources problems. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(14) To preserve the independence of the risk assessment from risk management and from other interests at Union level, it is appropriate that the nomination of the members of the Scientific Panels by the Member States, their selection by the Executive Director of the Authority and their appointment by the Management Board of the Authority are based on strict criteria ensuring the excellence and independence of the experts while ensuring the required multidisciplinary expertise for each Panel. It is also essential to this end that the Executive Director whose function is to defend EFSA’s interests and in particular the independence of its expertise has a role in the selection and appointment of those scientific experts. Further measures should also be put in place to ensure that scientific experts have the means to act independently. |
(14) To preserve the independence of the risk assessment from risk management and from other interests at Union level, it is appropriate that the nomination of the members of the Scientific Panels, their selection by the Executive Director of the Authority and their appointment by the Management Board of the Authority are based on strict criteria ensuring the excellence and independence of the experts while ensuring the required multidisciplinary expertise for each Panel. It is also essential to this end that the Executive Director, who is the legal representative of the Authority and whose function is to defend EFSA’s interests and to monitor its performance and in particular the independence of its expertise has a role in the selection and appointment of those scientific experts. Further measures, including proper financial compensation, should also be put in place to ensure that scientific experts have the means to act independently and to dedicate sufficient time to their risk assessment work for the Authority. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(15) It is essential to ensure the efficient operation of the Authority and to improve the sustainability of its expertise. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the support provided by the Authority and the Member States to the work of the Authority’s Scientific Panels. In particular, the Authority should organise the preparatory work supporting the Panels’ tasks, including by requesting the Authority’s staff or national scientific organisations networking with the Authority to draft preparatory scientific opinions to be peer-reviewed and adopted by the Panels. |
(15) It is essential to ensure the efficient operation of the Authority and to improve the sustainability of its expertise. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the support provided by the Authority and the Member States to the work of the Authority’s Scientific Panels. In particular, the Authority should organise the preparatory work supporting the Panels’ tasks, including by requesting the Authority’s staff or national scientific organisations networking with the Authority to draft preparatory scientific opinions to be peer-reviewed and adopted by the Panels. This should be without prejudice to the independence of the Authority’s scientific assessments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) Authorisations procedures are based on the principle that it is for the applicant to prove that the subject matter of an authorisation procedure complies with Union safety requirements given the scientific knowledge in its possession. This principle is based on the premise that public health is better protected when the burden of proof is on the applicant since it has to prove that a particular subject matter is safe prior to its placing on the market, instead of the public authorities having to prove that a subject matter is unsafe in order to be able to ban it from the market. Moreover, public money should not be used to commission costly studies that will in the end help the industry to place a product on the market. According to this principle and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, in support of applications for an authorisation under Union sectoral food law applicants are required to submit relevant studies, including tests, to demonstrate the safety and in some cases the efficacy of a subject matter. |
(16) Authorisations procedures are based on the principle that it is for the applicant to prove that the subject matter of an authorisation procedure complies with Union safety requirements given the scientific knowledge in its possession. This principle is based on the premise that public health and the environment are better protected when the burden of proof is on the applicant since it has to prove that a particular subject matter is safe prior to its placing on the market, instead of the public authorities having to prove that a subject matter unsafe in order to be able to ban it from the market. Moreover, public money should not be used to commission costly studies that will in the end help the industry to place a product on the market. According to this principle and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, in support of applications for an authorisation under Union sectoral food law applicants are required to submit relevant studies, including tests, to demonstrate the safety and in some cases the efficacy of a subject matter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16a) A comparison of Union agencies shows that the Authority needs up to 55 months for an authorisation procedure or five times longer than the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This discourages firms from investing in innovative products and reduces Union’s competitiveness in the long run. In addition, long authorisation procedures weaken confidence in the Authority. It is therefore urgently advisable to ensure the efficiency of the risk assessment by means of better human and financial resources. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) Provisions exist on the content of applications for authorisations. It is essential that the application for authorisation submitted to the Authority for its risk assessment meets the applicable specifications to ensure the best quality scientific assessment by the Authority. Applicants and in particular small- and medium-sized enterprises do not always have a clear understanding of these specifications. It should be thus appropriate that the Authority provides advice to a potential applicant, upon request, on the applicable rules and the required content of an application for authorisation, before an application is formally submitted, while not entering into the design of the studies to be submitted that remain the applicant’s responsibility. To ensure the transparency of this process, the advice of the Authority should be made public. |
(17) Provisions exist on the content of applications for authorisations. It is essential that the application for authorisation submitted to the Authority for its risk assessment meets the applicable specifications to ensure the best quality scientific assessment by the Authority. Applicants and in particular small- and medium-sized enterprises do not always have a clear understanding of these specifications. It should be thus appropriate that the Authority provides advice to a potential applicant, upon request, on the applicable rules and the required content of an application for authorisation, before an application is formally submitted. By 36 months after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should evaluate the impact of the general advice provided on the functioning of the Authority. In particular, the Commission should evaluate its impact on the allocation of the Authority's resources and on its independence. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(18) The Authority should have knowledge of the subject matter of all studies performed by an applicant with a view to a future application for an authorisation under Union food law. To this end, it is necessary and appropriate that business operators commissioning the studies and laboratories carrying them out notify those studies to the Authority when commissioned. Information about the notified studies should be made public only once a corresponding application for authorisation has been made public in accordance with the applicable rules on transparency. |
(18) The Authority should have knowledge of the subject matter of all studies performed by an applicant with a view to a future application for an authorisation or renewal under Union food law. To this end, it is necessary and appropriate that business operators commissioning the studies and laboratories carrying them out notify those studies to the Authority when commissioned in the Union or beyond. Information about the notified studies should be made public only once a corresponding application for authorisation or renewal has been made public in accordance with the applicable rules on transparency. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) There are certain public concerns about the Authority’s assessment in the area of authorisation being primarily based on industry studies. The Authority already makes searches in scientific literature to be able to consider other data and studies existing on the subject matter submitted to its assessment. In order to provide an additional level of guarantee ensuring that the Authority can have access to all relevant scientific data and studies available on a subject matter of an authorisation procedure, it is appropriate to provide for a consultation of third parties in order to identify whether other relevant scientific data or studies are available. To increase the effectiveness of the consultation, the consultation should take place when the studies submitted by industry included in an application for authorisation are made public, under the transparency rules of this Regulation. |
(20) There are certain public concerns about the Authority’s assessment in the area of authorisation being primarily based on industry studies. In the case of a new application for an authorisation or a renewal procedure, the Authority should always conduct searches in scientific literature to be able to consider other data and studies existing on the subject matter submitted to its assessment and, where necessary, demand additional studies. The Authority should provide public access to all relevant scientific literature on the matter, which it holds. In order to provide an additional level of guarantee ensuring that the Authority can have access to all relevant scientific data and studies available on a subject matter of an authorisation procedure, it is appropriate to provide for a consultation of third parties in order to identify whether other relevant scientific data or studies are available. To increase the effectiveness of the consultation, the consultation should take place immediately after the studies submitted by industry included in an application for authorisation have been made public, under the transparency rules of this Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) Studies, including tests, submitted by business operators in support of applications for authorisations under Union sectoral food law usually comply with internationally recognised principles, which provide a uniform basis for their quality in particular in terms of reproducibility of results. However, issues of compliance with the applicable standards may arise in some cases and this is why national systems are in place to verify such compliance. It is appropriate to provide an additional level of guarantees to reassure the general public on the quality of studies and to lay down an enhanced auditing system whereby Member State controls on the implementation of those principles by the laboratories carrying out such studies and tests would be verified by the Commission. |
(21) Studies, including tests, submitted by business operators in support of applications for authorisations under Union sectoral food law should be based on scientific open literature or comply with internationally recognised standards and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) principles, which provide a uniform basis for their quality in particular in terms of reproducibility of results. However, issues of compliance with the applicable standards may arise in some cases and this is why national systems are in place to verify such compliance. It is appropriate to provide an additional level of guarantees to reassure the general public on the quality of studies and to lay down an enhanced auditing system whereby Member State or third country controls, in collaboration with the Commission’s Directorate for Health and Food Audits and Analysis on the implementation of those principles by the laboratories carrying out such studies and tests in the Union and in third countries would be verified by the Commission. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(21a) Sufficient flexibility ought to be built into the process so that new insights into serious health adverse effects can be promptly taken into consideration, even when they are not specifically covered by regulatory data requirements. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Food safety is a sensitive matter of prime interest for all Union citizens. While maintaining the principle that the burden is on the industry to prove compliance with Union requirements, it is important to establish an additional verification tool to address specific cases of high societal importance where there is a controversy on safety issues, namely the commissioning of additional studies with the objective of verifying evidence used in the context of risk assessment. Considering that it would be financed by the Union budget and that the use of this exceptional verification tool should remain proportionate, the Commission should be responsible for triggering the commissioning of such verification studies. Account should be taken of the fact that in some specific cases the studies commissioned may need to have a wider scope than the evidence at stake (for example new scientific developments becoming available). |
(22) Food safety is a sensitive matter of prime interest for all Union citizens. While maintaining the principle that the burden is on the industry to prove compliance with Union requirements, it is important to establish an additional verification tool to address specific cases of high societal importance where there is a controversy on safety issues, namely the commissioning of additional studies with the objective of verifying evidence used in the context of risk assessment. Considering that it would be financed by the Union budget and that the use of this exceptional verification tool should remain proportionate, the Commission should, in case of divergent scientific findings, be responsible for triggering the commissioning of such verification studies. Account should be taken of the fact that in some specific cases the studies commissioned may need to have a wider scope than the evidence at stake in the risk assessment process (for example new scientific developments becoming available). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(23a) The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public with regard to the environment. The Aarhus Convention provides for the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities, the right to participate in environmental decision-making, and the right to review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Recital 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(24) The European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides” further confirmed concerns regarding transparency with respect to studies commissioned by the industry and submitted in authorisation application23 . |
(24) As a Party to the Aarhus Convention, the Union has recognised that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns. The European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides” further confirmed concerns regarding transparency with respect to studies commissioned by the industry and submitted in authorisation application23 . | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 Communication from the Commission on the ECI “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”, C(2017) 8414 final. |
23 Communication from the Commission on the ECI “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”, C(2017) 8414 final. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(25a) Using the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency as its model, as set out in Articles 89 to 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, an EFSA Board of Appeal should be established by means of delegated acts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p.1). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(27) To determine what level of disclosure strikes the appropriate balance, the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, should be weighted up against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. |
(27) To determine what level of proactive disclosure strikes the appropriate balance, the need to ensure transparency in the risk assessment process, should be weighted up against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of a high level of protection of human life and health, the protection of consumers' interests, as well as the protection of animal health and welfare, plant health and the environment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wording of article 5(1) of Reg 178/2002. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(27a) The provisions on active dissemination laid down in this Regulation are not meant to limit, in any manner, the scope of the rights provided for by Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and (EC) No 1367/2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(30) It is also necessary to set out specific requirements with respect to the protection of personal data for the purposes of the transparency of the risk assessment process taking into account Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . Accordingly, no personal data should be made publicly available under this Regulation, unless it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of ensuring the transparency, independence and the reliability of the risk assessment process, while preventing conflicts of interests. |
(30) It is also necessary to refer, for the protection and confidentiality of personal data for the purposes of the transparency of the risk assessment process, to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . Accordingly, no personal data should be made publicly available under this Regulation, unless it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of ensuring the transparency, independence and the reliability of the risk assessment process, while preventing conflicts of interests. For the purpose of ensuring the transparency, independence, sustainability and reliability of the risk assessment process, in particular to avoid conflicts of interest, it is considered necessary and proportionate to publish the names of any individual designated by the Authority to contribute to the Authority’s decision making process, including in the context of the adoption of guidance documents. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). |
24 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). |
25 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) For the purposes of increased transparency and in order to ensure that requests for scientific outputs received by the Authority are processed in an effective manner, standard data formats and software packages should be developed. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the adoption of standard data formats and software packages, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. |
(31) For the purposes of increased transparency and in order to ensure that requests for scientific outputs received by the Authority are processed in an effective manner, standard data formats and software packages should be developed. In order to ensure uniform and harmonised conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the adoption of standard data formats and software packages, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). |
26 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(33) Furthermore, in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the different provisions applying to the Authority, it is also appropriate to provide for a Commission evaluation of the Authority, in accordance with the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies. The evaluation should, in particular, review the procedures for selecting the members of Scientific Committee and Panels, for their degree of transparency, cost-effectiveness, and suitability to ensure independence and competence, and to prevent conflicts of interests. |
(33) Furthermore, in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the different provisions applying to the Authority, it is also appropriate to conduct an independent evaluation of the Authority. The evaluation should, in particular, review the procedures for selecting the members of Scientific Committee and Panels, for their degree of transparency, cost-effectiveness, and suitability to ensure independence and competence, and to prevent conflicts of interests. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(33a) The Seventh European Environment Action Programme has prioritised the development and realisation of pathways to address the combined effects of chemicals on human health and the environment. Assessment of ‘cocktail effects’ requires a cross-sectoral approach, closer cooperation between monitoring agencies at European level and the formulation of suitable procedures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment seeks the adoption of a coordinated approach by all relevant sectors to the European chemicals evaluation process, giving EFSA a key role. In addition, it is important for those carrying out the evaluations to take account of cocktail effects also so that the appropriate management measures can be implemented. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(35) For the purposes of ensuring transparency of the risk assessment process, it is also necessary to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, currently limited to food law, to also cover applications for authorisations in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 as regards feed additives, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 as regards food contact materials and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards plant protection products. |
(35) For the purposes of ensuring the transparency and independence of the risk assessment process, it is also necessary to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, currently limited to food law, to also cover applications for authorisations in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 as regards feed additives, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 as regards food contact materials and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards plant protection products. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(36) To ensure that sectoral specificities with respect to confidential information are taken into account, it is necessary to weigh up the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, including those flowing from the Aarhus Convention1, against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the specific objectives of sectoral Union legislation as well as experienced gained. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to provide for additional confidential items to those set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. |
(36) To ensure that sectoral specificities with respect to confidential information are taken into account, it is necessary to weigh up the relevant rights of the public to transparency, including the right to benefit from proactive information related to the risk assessment process, against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the specific objectives of sectoral Union legislation as well as experienced gained. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to provide for additional confidential items to those set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. The provisions on active dissemination laid down in this Regulation and the assessment of a confidentiality request by the Authority should not in any manner limit the scope of the rights provided by Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and (EC) No 1367/2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_____________________________ |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p.13). |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(36a) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law also highlighted a lack of transparency of the risk management process. There is a need to better inform the public on the risk management options under consideration, the level of protection to consumer and animal health and the environment that each of these options would achieve, as well as on the factors, other than the results of the risk assessment, which are taken into account by the risk managers, and how they are weighed up against each other in the decision-making process. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(37) In order to further strengthen the link between risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national levels as well as the coherence and consistency of risk communication, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt a general plan on risk communication on matters covering the agri-food chain. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. |
(37) In order to improve the interactive exchange of information, throughout the risk analysis process, amongst the risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national levels, as well as with other stakeholders of the food chain such as economic operators, consumer and other civil society organisations, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt a general plan on risk communication on matters covering the agri-food chain. The general plan on risk communication should lay down the practical arrangements for making available to the public the necessary information to achieve a high level of transparency of the risk management process. Therefore, it is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(37a) Provisions regarding what information should be made public should be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as national or Union law regarding public access to official documents. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(38) In order to enable the Authority and the business operators to adapt to the new requirements while ensuring that the Authority continues its smooth operation, it is necessary to provide for transitional measures for the application of this Regulation. |
(38) In order to enable the Authority, Member States, the Commission and the business operators to adapt to the new requirements while ensuring that the Authority continues its smooth operation, it is necessary to provide for transitional measures for the application of this Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Recital 39 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(39a) Since the amendments contained in this proposal serve to transfer far-reaching competencies for risk assessment and confidentiality checks to the Authority, a significant increase in the budget for the Authority pursuant to Annex 3 of the Commission’s proposal is necessary. The financing proposal is compatible with the current multiannual financial framework but may entail the use of special instruments as defined in Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013. Should discussions between the European Parliament and the Member States on the Union budget not leave sufficient room for the necessary budgetary resources, then the Commission would have to propose an alternative financing proposal under a delegated act. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given the impact of Brexit on the EU budget, the outcome of the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework is still completely uncertain. Should the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament not be able to agree on an appropriate budget for the EFSA, we would be saddling the Authority with a mandate that it could simply not carry out with the existing financial and human resources. The negotiations on the Commission proposal should also cover an alternative to take account of this eventuality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a regulation Recital 40 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(40a) Recent food safety incidents have demonstrated the need to establish appropriate measures in emergency situations ensuring that all foods, whatever their type and origin, and all feed should be subject to common measures in the event of a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment. This comprehensive approach to emergency food safety measures should enable effective action to be taken, avoiding artificial disparities in the treatment of any serious risk to food or feed through a harmonised joint food alerts management procedure. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (Articles 50 to 54), establishes the RASFF, together with its basic provisions, scope and operation. Weaknesses were subsequently identified, requiring rectification through the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 16/2011, which did not include harmonised procedures to be followed by all MS or the necessary enhancement of the Commission’s powers for dealing with alerts. A joint, compulsory and enhanced procedure for managing food alerts is necessary. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph – point -1 (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 6 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On Glyphosate, the applicant submitted only 52% available scientific publications, along its own studies. Through the “Klimisch score” by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, rapporteur for EFSA, most of these studies were classified of ‘limited value’, with little influence on the outcome of its assessment. That leads EFSA to grant greater weight to the applicant’s own studies. A rejection of peer-reviewed publications shouldn't be possible in a risk analysis. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 7 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
add Shall" instead of may" In the Glyphosate file, the precautionary principle should have guided EFSA and COM in the decision making, as there was a “possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists”, according to Article 7. Instead of taking “provisional risk management measures” (Article 7), authorities seem to have applied “the doubt should benefit the substance”. Therefore, provisional risk management measures shall be taken when the pcp is applicable, and not "may" be taken | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
add: "the risk analysis as well as during.." This amendment on the principle of transparency governing Regulation n°178/2002 is in line with Commission’s intention to reinforce transparency during the risk analysis process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 22 – paragraph 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment is intended to facilitate EFSA's legal mandate and inter-agency coordination, given the need to take into account across the board all possible scenarios involving exposure of the public and the environment to chemicals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment seeks the adoption of a coordinated approach by all relevant sectors to the European chemicals evaluation process, giving EFSA a key role. In addition, it is important for those carrying out the evaluations to take account of cocktail effects also so that the appropriate management measures can be implemented. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – points a and b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraphs 5 to 5g | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 9 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 9 – point g a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
During the process in which EFSA reviews a dossier, the agency may come across some critical areas of concern (which is in many cases related to a consideration related to lack of specific data) which are then reflected in its final Scientific Opinion. However, once these concerns are included in the final EFSA Opinion, the process does not allow applicants to address such concerns, even if in many cases these would be easily solved with specific already existing data. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 29 – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the Glyphosate file, the applicant submitted only 52% of available scientific publications, along its own studies. Most of these studies were classified of ‘limited value’, and hence had little influence on the outcome of its assessment. That methodological bias, led EFSA to grant greater weight to the applicant’s own studies. Quite on the contrary, CIRC was guided in its analysis by peer-reviewed publications only. Such a priori rejection of peer-reviewed publications should not be possible in a risk analysis guided by the precautionary principle, pursuant to Article 7. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Provision that safeguards that the applicants won't make a cherry picking of the convenient for them research results, but all of them will be known and available allowing for a complete assessment. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 2 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This provision was added on recommendation of the Ombudsman, in order to avoid any public perception that the file is incomplete. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 4 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The obligation to publish studies shall not have retroactive effect. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32c – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32c – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The consultation period must be clearly defined in order to provide a clear structure for the overall duration of the authorisation process. Public consultation should not be seen as the panacea for good quality and exhaustive risk assessment. Indeed public consultations generally touch a very narrow audience. This responsibility lies with the EFSA. The rigorous identification of relevant scientific data should be done by the Authority itself, as laid down in Article 33. Public consultation should not exempt EFSA from this obligation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 69 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32e | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 70 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32e – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 71 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 72 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 73 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 74 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 75 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 76 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 77 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point i | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to support the competitiveness and capacity for innovation of SMEs, it is essential for them to receive advice before they lodge an application. The crucial source of costs is often the studies required for the authorisation process. The advice should therefore also cover these aspects in order to avoid unnecessary or misdirected studies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 78 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 79 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 80 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is no reason to put the whole disclosure requirements with reservation as regards intellectual property rights (IPR). Moreover, there is no need to refer to IPR at this point: ‘Hard IPRs’, such as patents, copyrights or trademarks will already be protected under Article 38.1a (b). ‘Soft IPRs’ (trade secrets) will be covered by Article 39(2). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 81 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 82 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 83 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 84 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 2 – point 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 85 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 2 – point 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 86 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 2 – point 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 87 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 88 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 89 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 – point b a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This provision is, already today, included in the pesticides Regulation, and should not be abolished. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 90 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 – point b b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 91 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 92 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 93 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Both EMA and EFSA has a Board of Appeal of some sort. This is to provide the applicant the possibility for a re-examination of the opinion. The Commission should, by means of a delegated act, set up this same possibility in EFSA. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 94 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 95 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 96 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 97 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39d – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarification needs to be made regarding when EFSA:s obligation to confidentiality decision applies, notably only when the authorities proactively publish information. When access to information is requested, an individual assessment must be made, even if the institution previously have decided on confidentiality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 98 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39d – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 99 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39e – paragraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 100 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39e – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 101 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39f – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SMEs have limited technical possibilities. It should nonetheless also be possible for them to use the standard data formats without knowledge or possession of the latest software programmes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 102 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39f – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 103 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39g – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 104 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 41 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 105 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 50 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 106 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 51 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (Articles 50 to 54), establishes the RASFF, together with its basic provisions, scope and operation. Weaknesses were subsequently identified, requiring rectification through the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 16/2011 which did not include harmonised procedures to be followed by all MS or the necessary enhancement of the Commission’s powers for dealing with alerts. A joint, compulsory and enhanced procedure for managing food alerts is necessary. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 107 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 57a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 108 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 109 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2001/18/EC Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 110 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Article 29 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This provision is taken from the current Regulation 1829/2003, Article 29. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 111 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 112 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 113 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 114 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 115 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 3 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 116 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 117 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 118 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation No 1935/2004 Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 119 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation No 1935/2004 Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 120 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 Article 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 121 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 Article 11 – paragraph 1 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 122 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 123 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Article 23 – paragraph 1 – last sentence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
add: and “approved” This is an amendment of clarification, as many doubts remain on which substances may be considered as basic substances. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 124 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Article 63 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a clarification, this is provided for in Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 125 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Article 63 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 126 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Article 63 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 127 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 10 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 128 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 23 – paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 129 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 23 – paragraph 4 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EU) 2283/2015 foresaw in Article 23 (8) that the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, adopt detailed rules on the implementation of paragraphs 1 to 6. This is required because of the specificities of Novel Foos that can cover aspects that are new and not known today. This provision must remain. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 130 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 131 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article 9a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transparency of risk management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. The Commission and the Member States shall carry out their risk management activities in the context of the legislative acts referred to in Articles 1 to 9 with a high level of transparency. They shall in particular make public without undue delay: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(a) at an early stage of the risk management process, any envisaged the draft risk management measures; | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(b) the agendas and proceedings, detailed summary reports of meetings, and the draft measures, to be adopted, as appropriate, in the form of delegated or implementing acts, including the results and explanations of votes by individual Member States in committees within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/20111a, including the appeal committees, which assist the Commission in the implementation of [Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 2015/2283], where and in which the risk management measures are discussed and put to a vote; and | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(c) the agendas and the detailed minutes of meetings of the Member States working groups in which the risk management measures are discussed; | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission shall attach to each draft measure to be adopted on in accordance with Article 58 [of the GFL Regulation], Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC, Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003, Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1935/2004, Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 1331/2008, Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and Articles 30 and 32 of Regulation EU (No) 2015/2283 an explanatory statement comprising: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(a) the reasons for and objectives of the measure; | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(b) the justification of the measure taking into consideration both need and proportionality; | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(c) the impact of the measure on public and animal health, the environment, on the society and on food manufacturers as indicated by the impact assessment; and | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(d) the results of any public consultation, including pursuant to Article 9 [the GFL Regulation]. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). |
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
1. Background
Following a number of serious food scandals, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 established the independent European Food Safety Authority with responsibility for scientific risk assessment. Risk management is a matter for the Institutions of the Union, notably the Commission. Today, food safety in the Union is considered the best in the world. Through a Fitness Check, the Commission established that the Regulation met the objectives of ensuring a high level of food safety and harmonisation of the internal market.
Widespread scepticism with regard to GMOs and the associated herbicide glyphosate resulted in a public controversy regarding herbicides and pesticides in general, which gave rise to a citizens’ initiative. In view of the success of this citizens’ initiative, the Commission concluded that there was a need to improve public confidence in risk assessment and pledged to put forward a corresponding legislative proposal.
2. Commission proposal
In April 2018, the Commission submitted to Parliament and the Council a proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 comprising the following key points:
- a tightening of the rules on transparency of the EFSA;
- stricter rules to guarantee reliability, objectivity and independence of studies used by the EFSA in its risk assessment;
- improvement of the functioning and governance of the EFSA;
- greater involvement of the Member States;
- making the EFSA more attractive to scientific experts;
- a comprehensive and effective risk communication strategy, involving the Commission, Member States and the EFSA.
In the interests of coherence, eight legal acts relating to the sector are to be harmonised as regards transparency and confidentiality.
3. Rapporteur’s comments
In principle, your rapporteur welcomes the Commission's proposal for a regulation. The EFSA publishes a lot of information but it has to date not been legally obliged to do so. As result, the only way the public can gain access to information from the applications and studies submitted is by asserting the rights conferred under Regulation EC No 1049/2001 on public access to documents. A comparison with other EU agencies and the debate on the authorisation procedures for plant protection products show that the EFSA transparency rules are in need of revision. In addition, the EFSA is finding it increasingly difficult to find experts for the scientific panels.
The proposed amendments, however, are more likely to create new problems than solve existing ones. Moreover, the timing of the publication, the significant shortening of the consultation period and the absence of an impact assessment run counter to the Commission’s better law-making principles.
Your rapporteur is particularly critical of the following:
Lack of an impact assessment
Whereas the REFIT of the basic Regulation referred to the general principles of food law as well as to the rapid alert system and crisis management, the Commission is now proposing amendments to articles which were not covered by REFIT. The proposed transparency rules could seriously damage the innovative strength and competitiveness of the European food industry. It would have been appropriate to consider different options with regard to the time of publication of sensitive data from applications. It is equally hard to understand why the Commission chose not to carry out an impact assessment. Similarly, no impact assessments were carried out for the eight sectoral legislative acts.
The Commission provides for a significant increase (+80 %) in the EFSA’s budget. Should the European legislator, however, not be able to come to an agreement as regards the budget, then the Authority would not be able to fulfil its mandate in accordance with the revised regulation. An impact assessment with different funding models would also have been necessary in this connection.
Timing of the Commission proposal
The Commission essentially justified its proposal with the need to respond to the Citizens’ Initiative ‘Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides’. In March 2018, the European Parliament set up a special committee (PEST) to look into the authorisation procedure and propose possible courses of action. The Commission ignored this process of democratic opinion forming and pre-empted its outcome.
By cutting the consultation period from the usual twelve weeks to eight, the Commission left the stakeholders scant time for consultation. Moreover, it was also only possible to react to general questions but not to the specific plans of the Commission. The publication of the Commission proposal shortly after the completion of the public consultation suggests that the draft regulation had already been finalised and that it was a consultation in name only.
Owing to time constraints in view of the 2019 European elections, there is hardly any possibility for the European Parliament to exercise due diligence and to obtain external expertise. Your rapporteur hopes that this was not the intention.
Rules on transparency
Unlike with the ECHA and EMA, which publish information and underlying studies in relation to applications simultaneously with their scientific opinions, the Commission proposes that in the authorisation procedures under food law such information be published already at the time of the submission of applications. This could, however, have far-reaching consequences for the competitiveness and innovative capacity of applicants. Competitors from third countries could tap into product ideas and realise them already whilst the European authorisation process is still on-going, particularly since innovations in the food sector cannot, as a rule, be protected by patents. The Commission proposal therefore puts important jobs in jeopardy. Moreover, the new rules could lead companies to transfer their research and development activities to third countries. In addition, such early publication might potentially expose the EFSA to public pressure.
As it is, in controversial cases, the EFSA already grants interested parties the opportunity to comment on the studies commissioned as part of a consultation following the publication of its draft scientific opinion. In the case of aspartame, for example, this consultation led to the EFSA reviewing its opinion.
Appointment of members of scientific panels
The involvement of the Member States in the appointment of members of scientific panels through the obligation to nominate numerous experts could result in political interference with the EFSA. Moreover, it is questionable whether all disciplines would be appropriately covered if each Member State issued its own call for expressions of interest. A constant exchange of information between Member States on the state of play in their search for experts would result in a further significant increase in the additional administrative burden, which is already enormous. It would therefore be appropriate to allow Member States to nominate experts but not to oblige them to do so. Ultimately, EFSA should draw up the lists of experts from as many Member States as possible and make the appointments on the basis of such lists.
4. Rapporteur’s amendments
Your rapporteur proposes to bring the EFSA rules on transparency into line with those of other agencies so that non-confidential information from applications, studies and consultation sessions are only made accessible when the EFSA publishes its scientific opinion and not at the time of the submission of the application. This is the only way to eliminate the theft of ideas. Information should only be published if an application is maintained.
The requirement for stringent transparency should also apply in the areas of risk management and risk communication. The Commission and Member States should be required to publish minutes of working group meetings and voting results in standing committees.
The audit obligation should also extend to laboratories in third countries commissioned by European companies to carry out studies. This should fall under the responsibility of the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO).
Your rapporteur welcomes the involvement of stakeholder representatives in the EFSA Management Board, as is the case with the ECHA and EMA. However, in view of the broad range of products covered by Regulation 178/2002, your rapporteur considers it necessary to include not one but two representatives of industry (GMOs/plant protection products as well as foodstuffs/additives). This is also envisaged for non-governmental organisations (environment and consumer protection).
5. Conclusions
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on general food law is a success story. With it, the EU created the world’s highest food safety standards for its internal market. The Fitness Check of the basic Regulation confirmed this.
The structure and transparency of EFSA should be brought into line with those of other EU agencies. The Commission’s proposals, however, go well beyond the ECHA and EMA rules. This is just as hard to understand as the fact that the Commission intends to envelop the whole of the food sector with new rules liable to threaten the very survival of undertakings simply because of the public discourse on the authorisation procedure for a plant protection product and it intends to do so without the due impact assessment.
The Commission proposal also lacks precision. Many details are to be determined later in the Authority’s internal rules, making the evaluation of the proposals difficult. This is equally true for risk communication, which constitutes an important element if the EU is to restore public confidence in food safety.
OPINION of the Committee on Fisheries (11.10.2018)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 [on general food law], Directive 2001/18/EC [on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs], Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 [on GM food and feed], Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 [on feed additives], Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 [on smoke flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 [on food contact materials], Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 [on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [on plant protection products] and Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 [on novel foods]
(COM(2018)0179 – C8‑0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD))
Rapporteur: Ricardo Serrão Santos
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The rapporteur:
- considers that it is crucial for EU citizens that the safety of food on the market is guaranteed and that high safety standards continue;
- stresses the importance of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), particularly as a provider of scientific advice to the Commission, Parliament and the Member States;
- takes a positive view of the Commission proposal to update the General Food Law (GFL) Regulation, particularly where it concerns the clarification of transparency rules for risk assessment and strengthening the guarantees of reliability, objectivity and independence of the studies that EFSA uses in its risk assessment;
- believes that the conditions must be created under which EU citizens have full confidence in Union agencies and authorities like EFSA, and that this confidence can only be gained and maintained by applying transparent and clear rules and methodologies;
- stresses that EFSA’s capacity must be increased if it is to achieve a high level of scientific expertise in all its areas of work;
- believes that in a number of contexts, including the above context, decisions need to be based on the best available scientific knowledge and considers it important to increase EFSA’s capacity by hiring scientists known for their scientific panels;
- stresses that a risk assessment can only be carried out quickly if a comprehensive and effective risk communication strategy, involving all the parties throughout the risk assessment process and maintaining an open dialogue, is in place;
- is concerned that, in the Commission’s proposal, fishing, particularly aquaculture, is overlooked, and points out that fishery products are one of the most important and healthiest sources of animal protein, and that the EU is the biggest market for and consumer of such products in the world, and it currently imports 68% of them from third countries;
- stresses the importance as a food source of fishery products, which were the subject of a scientific opinion, ‘Food from the Oceans’, presented by the Scientific Advice Mechanism’s High Level Group to the Commission in November 2017.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) | |||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||
|
(8a) No GMOs should be deliberately released into the environment or placed on the market, as or in products, in contravention of the precautionary principle and when there is no scientific knowledge of the implications for each of the areas concerned (the environment, health, biodiversity, etc.). | ||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 | |||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular on risk assessment. |
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States as well as representatives of civil society and industry in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular on risk assessment. | ||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point b | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a – point a | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a – point b | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a – point c | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The interests of producers in the field of GMOs and plant protection products, on the one hand, and those of producers of foodstuffs and additives, on the other, are different. Likewise agriculture and fisheries/aquaculture. The Board should also include a representative of fisheries and aquaculture organisations. The Board should therefore also include two separate representatives of industry. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32d – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The Food and Veterinary Office works to assure effective control systems and to evaluate compliance with EU standards within the EU, and in third countries exporting to the EU. This is done mainly through inspections carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office in the Member States and in third countries exporting to the EU. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39e – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain |
||||
References |
COM(2018)0179 – C8-0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 28.5.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
PECH 28.5.2018 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Ricardo Serrão Santos 31.5.2018 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
20.6.2018 |
29.8.2018 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
9.10.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
21 1 0 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Marco Affronte, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Renata Briano, Alain Cadec, David Coburn, Richard Corbett, Diane Dodds, Linnéa Engström, João Ferreira, Sylvie Goddyn, Mike Hookem, Ian Hudghton, Carlos Iturgaiz, Werner Kuhn, António Marinho e Pinto, Barbara Matera, Gabriel Mato, Norica Nicolai, Liadh Ní Riada, Ulrike Rodust, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Remo Sernagiotto, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Isabelle Thomas, Ruža Tomašić, Jarosław Wałęsa, Peter van Dalen |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, José Blanco López, Nicola Caputo, Ole Christensen, Rosa D’Amato, Norbert Erdős, Giuseppe Ferrandino, John Flack, Elisabetta Gardini, Jens Gieseke, Anja Hazekamp, Maria Heubuch, Czesław Hoc, Yannick Jadot, France Jamet, Seán Kelly, Verónica Lope Fontagné, Linda McAvan, Francisco José Millán Mon, Ana Miranda, Nosheena Mobarik, Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Rolandas Paksas, Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Nils Torvalds |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Klaus Buchner |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
21 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
António Marinho e Pinto, Norica Nicolai |
|
ECR |
Nosheena Mobarik, Remo Sernagiotto, Ruža Tomašić |
|
EFDD |
Rosa D'Amato |
|
ENF |
Sylvie Goddyn |
|
PPE |
Alain Cadec, Carlos Iturgaiz, Werner Kuhn, Gabriel Mato, Francisco José Millán Mon |
|
S&D |
Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Renata Briano, Ole Christensen, Giuseppe Ferrandino, Ulrike Rodust, Ricardo Serrão Santos |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Marco Affronte, Klaus Buchner, Linnéa Engström |
|
1 |
- |
|
GUE/NGL |
Anja Hazekamp |
|
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs (15.10.2018)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 [on general food law], Directive 2001/18/EC [on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs], Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 [on GM food and feed], Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 [on feed additives], Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 [on smoke flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 [on food contact materials], Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 [on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings], Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [on plant protection products] and Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 [on novel foods]
(COM(2018)0179 – C8‑0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Pavel Svoboda
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Assessing the proposal
This long awaited European Commission proposal for the disclosure of confidential industry studies used in the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) risk assessments contains positive elements but fails to enable meaningful independent scrutiny of the data.
The proposal amends Regulation 178/2002 (hereafter the General Food Law (GFL)) and several related Regulations and Directives. The rapporteur considers that there are some positive changes in the proposal concerning transparency, however, he has also identified a number a provisions that need to be changed or strengthened in order to achieve what the European Commission intends on doing.
To that aim, the rapporteur has adopted a comprehensive stance, building on the Commission’s proposal in order to fully implement a much needed reform of the risk assessment process conducted by EFSA, thus allowing the EU as a whole to abide by the Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters).
The two main features of the proposal, automatic and pro-active publication of data in a machine-readable format and the creation of a register of studies aimed at preventing industry cherry-picking of favourable studies, along with some minor changes with regard to risk communication, consultation of third parties, reform of the composition of EFSA’s management board are positive steps in the right direction.
The rapporteur considers however, that if the proposed industry authorisation for any publication and use of independent data cross checks is indeed to be mandated, the usefulness of these two provisions will be rather limited. Indeed, the proposal introduces a new provision stating that the disclosure of scientific data and studies regarding applications for authorisations under food law, authorisations for GMOs or additives in food, ‘shall be without prejudice to’ ‘any intellectual property right which may exist over documents or their content’. Furthermore, the proposal introduces a presumption with regard to categories of information that the disclosure of such information ‘may be deemed to significantly harm commercial interests’.
The impossibility of re-using the data without permission would compromise the possibility to reduce the overall number of toxicity studies, hinder the public scrutiny of the results, including a better understanding of the potential adverse effects on health and the environment. The peer review process that is essential to ensure the full effectiveness of the risk assessment conducted is essentially at risk.
Notwithstanding the changes with a positive effect on transparency in the proposal, the rapporteur deems necessary to amend the Commission’s proposal in order to maintain and expand the current level of transparency under European Union food law with regard to several categories of information, within the several directives that are amended under this proposal.
A real overhaul of the EU’s risk assessment in the food chain
The rapporteur does not consider that it is reasonable to “weigh up the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, including those flowing from the Aarhus Convention, against the rights of commercial applicants” as stated in the European Commission’s proposal. Nor that the EU should grant more protection to commercial parties than the Aarhus legislation already provides for (implemented through Regulations 1049/2001 and 1367/2006). He is also firmly opposed to the use of the EU taxpayers money granted to EFSA to give advice to the private companies that are applicants.
The rapporteur aims to make transparency the rule and confidentiality the exception. The exceptions to the principle of transparency must be interpreted strictly to fully guarantee public and independent scrutiny. That translates into several amendments made to the GFL regulation.
Proposed amendments to the proposal within the sectorial regulations targeted are set to close the existing loopholes in the obligation to disclose information gathered when there is an “overriding public interest in disclosure” related to food safety. Then he considers appropriate to lay down in the GFL a horizontal and non-exhaustive list of information items which can never be kept secret.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 defines “risk analysis” as a process consisting of three interconnected components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. For the purposes of risk assessment at Union level, it establishes the European Food Safety Authority (“the Authority”), as the responsible Union risk assessment body in matters relating to food and feed safety. Risk communication is an essential part of the risk analysis process. |
(2) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 defines “risk analysis” as a process consisting of three distinct but interconnected components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. For the purposes of risk assessment at Union level, it establishes the European Food Safety Authority (“the Authority”), as the responsible Union risk assessment body in matters relating to food and feed safety. Risk communication is an essential part of the risk analysis process and presupposes the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process as regards hazards and risks, risk-related factors and risk perceptions amongst risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, feed and food businesses, the academic community, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 178/200221 , (“Fitness Check of the General Food Law”), found that risk communication is overall, not considered to be effective enough, which has an impact on consumers’ confidence on the outcome of the risk analysis process. |
(3) The evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 178/200221 , (“Fitness Check of the General Food Law”), found that risk communication is overall, not considered to be effective enough, which can have a negative an impact on the outcome of the risk analysis process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 Commission Staff Working Document, “The REFIT evaluation of the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002)”, SWD(2018)38 final, dated 15.1.2018. |
21 Commission Staff Working Document, “The REFIT evaluation of the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002)”, SWD(2018)38 final, dated 15.1.2018. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) It is therefore necessary to ensure a comprehensive and continuous risk communication process throughout risk analysis, involving Union and national risk assessors and risk managers. That process should be combined with an open dialogue between all interested parties to ensure the coherence and consistency within the risk analysis process. |
(4) It is therefore necessary to ensure a comprehensive, transparent, independent and continuous risk communication process throughout risk analysis, involving Union and national risk assessors and risk managers. That process should be capable of contributing to a participatory and open dialogue between all interested parties to ensure prevalence of public interest only, accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of the risk analysis process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining in a coherent, appropriate and timely manner not only risk assessment findings themselves but also how these are utilized to help inform risk management decisions along with other legitimate factors, where relevant. |
(5) Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining in an accurate, clear and timely manner not only risk assessment findings themselves but also how these are utilized to help inform risk management decisions along with other legitimate factors, where relevant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) To this effect, it is necessary to establish general objectives and principles of risk communication, taking into account the respective roles of risk assessors and managers. |
(6) To this effect, it is necessary to establish general objectives and principles of risk communication, taking into account the respective roles of risk assessors and managers, while guaranteeing their independence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(7) Based on these general objectives and principles, a general plan on risk communication should be established in close cooperation with the Authority and the Member States, and following relevant public consultations. |
(7) Based on these general objectives and principles, a general plan on risk communication in real time should be established in close cooperation with the Authority and the Member States, and following the organisation of the relevant public consultations. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(8) The general plan should identify the key factors to be taken into account when risk communications’ activities are considered, such as the different levels of risk, the nature of the risk and its potential public health impact, who and what are directly or indirectly affected by the risk, the levels of risk exposure, the ability to control risk and other factors that influence risk perception including the level of urgency as well as the applicable legislative framework and relevant market context. The general plan should also identify the tools and channels to be used and should establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure coherent risk communication. |
(8) The general plan should identify the key factors to be taken into account when risk communications’ activities are considered, such as the different levels of hazard and risk, the nature of the hazard and its potential environmental and public health and environmental impacts, what groups of the population can directly or indirectly be affected by the risk, the levels of risk exposure, the ability to control exposure and risk, the ways of managing it and other factors that influence risk understanding including the level of urgency as well as the applicable legislative framework. The general plan should also identify the tools and channels to be used and should establish appropriate, exhaustive and expeditious mechanisms to ensure accurate risk communication. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) It is appropriate to align the composition of the Management Board of the Authority to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies, in accordance with the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on decentralised agencies of 201222. |
(10) It is appropriate to align the composition of the Management Board of the Authority to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies, in accordance with the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on decentralised agencies of 201222, while also taking into account the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU and the legal effects resulting therefrom. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf. |
22 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular on risk assessment. |
(11) Experience shows that the role of the Management Board of the Authority is focussed on administrative and financial aspects and does not impact on the independence of the scientific work performed by the Authority. It is thus appropriate to include representatives of all Member States, including representatives of civil society and industry, in the Management Board of the Authority, while providing that those representatives should have experience in particular in assessing and managing risks and problems and that they have no conflict of interest with the applicants. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(12) The Management Board should be selected in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence and a broad range of relevant experience available amongst the representatives of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. |
(12) The Management Board should be selected in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence and commitment to the protection of health and the environment and a broad range of relevant experience available amongst the representatives of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law identified certain shortcomings in the long-term capability of the Authority to maintain its high-level expertise. In particular, there has been a decrease in the number of candidates applying to be members of the Scientific Panels. The system has thus to be strengthened and Member States should take a more active role to ensure that a sufficient pool of experts is available to meet the needs of the Union risk assessment system in terms of high level of scientific expertise, independence and multidisciplinary expertise. |
(13) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law identified certain shortcomings in the long-term capability of the Authority to maintain its high-level expertise. In particular, there has been a decrease in the number of candidates applying to be members of the Scientific Panels. In order to tackle this phenomenon more effectively, the system has thus to be strengthened and promoted, and Member States should take a more active role to ensure that a sufficient pool of experts is available, by undertaking support actions and using incentives and rewards to increase the level of participation and the degree of interest in seeking to engage in it, to meet the needs of the Union risk assessment system in terms of high level of scientific expertise, independence and multidisciplinary expertise. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(14) To preserve the independence of the risk assessment from risk management and from other interests at Union level, it is appropriate that the nomination of the members of the Scientific Panels by the Member States, their selection by the Executive Director of the Authority and their appointment by the Management Board of the Authority are based on strict criteria ensuring the excellence and independence of the experts while ensuring the required multidisciplinary expertise for each Panel. It is also essential to this end that the Executive Director whose function is to defend EFSA’s interests and in particular the independence of its expertise has a role in the selection and appointment of those scientific experts. Further measures should also be put in place to ensure that scientific experts have the means to act independently. |
(14) preserve the independence of the risk assessment from risk management and from vested private interests at Union level, it is appropriate that the nomination of the members of the Scientific Panels by the Member States, their selection by the Executive Director of the Authority and their appointment by the Management Board of the Authority are based on strict, transparent criteria ensuring the excellence and independence of the experts while ensuring the required multidisciplinary expertise for each Panel. It is also essential to this end that the Executive Director whose function is to safeguard EFSA’s accountability, and in particular the independence of its expertise, has a role in excluding scientific experts who oppose the publication of their name or who have conflicts of interest, from risk assessment. Adequate budgetary measures should be put in place to ensure that scientific experts have the means to act independently. To this effect, it is necessary to implement new and adequate budgetary measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) Authorisations procedures are based on the principle that it is for the applicant to prove that the subject matter of an authorisation procedure complies with Union safety requirements given the scientific knowledge in its possession. This principle is based on the premise that public health is better protected when the burden of proof is on the applicant since it has to prove that a particular subject matter is safe prior to its placing on the market, instead of the public authorities having to prove that a subject matter is unsafe in order to be able to ban it from the market. Moreover, public money should not be used to commission costly studies that will in the end help the industry to place a product on the market. According to this principle and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, in support of applications for an authorisation under Union sectoral food law applicants are required to submit relevant studies, including tests, to demonstrate the safety and in some cases the efficacy of a subject matter. |
(16) Authorisations procedures are based on the principle that it is for the applicant to prove that the subject matter of an authorisation procedure complies with Union safety requirements given the scientific knowledge in its possession. This principle is based on the premise that public health and the environment are better protected when the burden of proof is on the applicant since it has to prove that a particular subject matter is safe prior to its placing on the market, instead of the public authorities having to prove that a subject matter unsafe in order to be able to ban it from the market. Moreover, public money should not be used to commission costly studies that will in the end help the industry to place a product on the market. According to this principle and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, in support of applications for an authorisation under Union sectoral food law applicants are required to submit relevant studies, including tests, to demonstrate the safety and in some cases the efficacy of a subject matter. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) Provisions exist on the content of applications for authorisations. It is essential that the application for authorisation submitted to the Authority for its risk assessment meets the applicable specifications to ensure the best quality scientific assessment by the Authority. Applicants and in particular small- and medium-sized enterprises do not always have a clear understanding of these specifications. It should be thus appropriate that the Authority provides advice to a potential applicant, upon request, on the applicable rules and the required content of an application for authorisation, before an application is formally submitted, while not entering into the design of the studies to be submitted that remain the applicant’s responsibility. To ensure the transparency of this process, the advice of the Authority should be made public. |
(17) Provisions exist on the content of applications for authorisations. It is essential that the application for authorisation submitted to the Authority for its risk assessment meets the applicable specifications to ensure the best quality scientific assessment by the Authority. Applicants and in particular small- and medium-sized enterprises do not always have a clear understanding of these specifications. It should be thus appropriate that the Authority provides advice to a potential applicant, upon request, on the applicable rules and the required content of an application for authorisation, before an application is formally submitted, while not entering into the design of the studies to be submitted that remain the applicant’s responsibility. To ensure the transparency of this process and provide wide and non-discriminatory access to information, the advice of the Authority should be made public. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(18) The Authority should have knowledge of the subject matter of all studies performed by an applicant with a view to a future application for an authorisation under Union food law. To this end, it is necessary and appropriate that business operators commissioning the studies and laboratories carrying them out notify those studies to the Authority when commissioned. Information about the notified studies should be made public only once a corresponding application for authorisation has been made public in accordance with the applicable rules on transparency. |
(18) The Authority should have knowledge of the subject matter of all studies performed by an applicant with a view to a future application for an authorisation under Union food law. To this end, it is necessary and appropriate that business operators commissioning the studies and laboratories carrying them out notify those studies to the Authority when commissioned. Information about the notified studies should be made public only once a corresponding application for authorisation or renewal has been submitted and the Authority has published its official scientific opinion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) There are certain public concerns about the Authority’s assessment in the area of authorisation being primarily based on industry studies. The Authority already makes searches in scientific literature to be able to consider other data and studies existing on the subject matter submitted to its assessment. In order to provide an additional level of guarantee ensuring that the Authority can have access to all relevant scientific data and studies available on a subject matter of an authorisation procedure, it is appropriate to provide for a consultation of third parties in order to identify whether other relevant scientific data or studies are available. To increase the effectiveness of the consultation, the consultation should take place when the studies submitted by industry included in an application for authorisation are made public, under the transparency rules of this Regulation. |
(20) There are public concerns about the Authority’s assessment in the area of authorisation being primarily based on industry studies. The Authority already makes searches in scientific literature to be able to consider other data and studies existing on the subject matter submitted to its assessment. In order to ensure that the Authority includes all relevant scientific data and studies available on a subject matter of an authorisation procedure, it is appropriate to provide for a public consultation, once a corresponding application for authorisation or renewal has been made public, in order to identify whether other relevant scientific data or studies are available. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) Studies, including tests, submitted by business operators in support of applications for authorisations under Union sectoral food law usually comply with internationally recognised principles, which provide a uniform basis for their quality in particular in terms of reproducibility of results. However, issues of compliance with the applicable standards may arise in some cases and this is why national systems are in place to verify such compliance. It is appropriate to provide an additional level of guarantees to reassure the general public on the quality of studies and to lay down an enhanced auditing system whereby Member State controls on the implementation of those principles by the laboratories carrying out such studies and tests would be verified by the Commission. |
(21) Studies, including tests, submitted by business operators in support of applications for authorisations under Union sectoral food law usually refer to internationally recognised principles, which provide a uniform basis for their quality in particular in terms of reproducibility of results. However, non-compliance with the applicable standards may arise and this is why national systems are in place to verify such compliance. In order to ensure the quality of studies it is appropriate to enhance the auditing system whereby Member States control and ensure the implementation of those principles by the laboratories carrying out such studies and tests and whereby Member States’ controls are to be verified by the Commission. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(21 a) Sufficient flexibility must be built into the process so that new insights into serious health adverse effects can be promptly taken into consideration, even when they are not specifically covered by regulatory data requirements. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Food safety is a sensitive matter of prime interest for all Union citizens. While maintaining the principle that the burden is on the industry to prove compliance with Union requirements, it is important to establish an additional verification tool to address specific cases of high societal importance where there is a controversy on safety issues, namely the commissioning of additional studies with the objective of verifying evidence used in the context of risk assessment. Considering that it would be financed by the Union budget and that the use of this exceptional verification tool should remain proportionate, the Commission should be responsible for triggering the commissioning of such verification studies. Account should be taken of the fact that in some specific cases the studies commissioned may need to have a wider scope than the evidence at stake (for example new scientific developments becoming available). |
(22) Food safety is a sensitive matter of prime interest for all Union citizens. While maintaining the principle that the burden is on the industry to prove compliance with Union requirements, it is important to establish an additional verification tool to address specific cases of high societal importance where there is a controversy on safety issues, namely the commissioning of additional studies with the objective of verifying evidence used in the context of risk assessment. Considering that it would be financed by the Union budget and that the use of this exceptional verification tool should remain proportionate, the Authority should be responsible for triggering the commissioning of such verification studies. Account should be taken of the fact that in some specific cases the studies commissioned may need to have a wider scope than the evidence at stake (for example new scientific developments becoming available). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(23) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law demonstrated that although the Authority has made considerable progress in terms of transparency, the risk assessment process, especially in the context of authorisation procedures covering the agri-food chain, is not always perceived as fully transparent. This is also partly due to the different transparency and confidentiality rules that are laid down not only in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 but also in other Union legislative acts covering the agri-food chain. Their interplay can impact on the acceptability of the risk assessment by the general public. |
(23) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law demonstrated that the Union has promoted a considerable number of measures to protect the quality and safety of food and products (Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005; Regulation (EC) No 853/2004; Regulation (EC) No 854/2004; and in particular Recital 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC) and, although the Authority has made considerable progress in terms of transparency, the risk assessment process, especially in the context of authorisation procedures covering the agri-food chain, is not yet fully transparent. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(23a) The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public with regard to the environment. The Convention provides for the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities, the right to participate in environmental decision-making, and the right to review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Recital 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(24) The European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides” further confirmed concerns regarding transparency with respect to studies commissioned by the industry and submitted in authorisation application23 . |
(24) As a Party to the Aarhus Convention, the Union has recognized that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns. The European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides” further confirmed concerns regarding transparency with respect to studies commissioned by the industry and submitted in authorisation application23 . | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 Communication from the Commission on the ECI “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”, C(2017) 8414 final. |
23 Communication from the Commission on the ECI “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”, C(2017) 8414 final. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(25) It is therefore necessary to strengthen the transparency of the risk assessment process in a proactive manner. Public access to all scientific data and information supporting requests for authorisations under Union food law as well as other requests for scientific output should be ensured, as early as possible in the risk assessment process. However, this process should be without prejudice to existing intellectual property rights or to any provisions of Union food law protecting the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data supporting relevant applications for authorisations. |
(25) To further the accountability and to regain public support for decisions of the Authority and in order to ensure the liability of the Authority, it is therefore necessary to strengthen the transparency and clarity of the risk assessment process in a proactive manner. In order to ensure public scrutiny, public access to all scientific data and information supporting requests for authorisations under Union food law as well as other requests for scientific output should be ensured, as early as possible in the risk assessment process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(27) To determine what level of disclosure strikes the appropriate balance, the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, should be weighted up against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. |
(27) The present Regulation intends to ensure transparency in the risk assessment process and give the fullest possible effect to the right of the public to transparency of information and access to documents of the Authority and is to be read in conjunction with Regulation No 1049/2001 and 1367/2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(27a) The provisions on active dissemination laid down in this Regulation are not meant to limit, in any manner, the scope of the rights provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and (EC) No 1367/2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(28) Accordingly and with respect to the procedures governing requests for authorisation procedures provided in Union food law, experience gained so far has shown that certain information items are generally considered sensitive and should remain confidential across the different sectoral authorisation procedures. It is appropriate to lay down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 a horizontal list of information items whose disclosure may be considered to significantly harm the commercial interests concerned and should not therefore be disclosed to the public, (“general horizontal list of confidential items”). Only in very limited and exceptional circumstances relating to foreseeable health effects and urgent needs to protect human health, animal health or the environment, such information should be disclosed. |
(28) Any information having a direct impact on health or the environment should therefore always be made public. It is appropriate to lay down, in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, an exhaustive horizontal list of information items which may be kept confidential as they would significantly undermine the protection of commercial interest. However, it should only be possible for this information to be kept secret if the company opposing its dissemination can verifiably prove that the proactive disclosure of the information item would significantly undermine its commercial interests (“general horizontal list of confidential items”). The exceptions to the principle of transparency must be interpreted strictly. However, even if the disclosure of the information is considered to undermine the commercial interests of an economic operator, the information should, in case there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure, not be kept confidential as the interests of public health prevail over commercial interests. It is appropriate to lay down, in Regulation (EC)No178/2002, a horizontal exhaustive list of information items for which it should not be possible to keep them confidential, since they relate to circumstances where an overriding public interest in their disclosure is deemed to exist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(30) It is also necessary to set out specific requirements with respect to the protection of personal data for the purposes of the transparency of the risk assessment process taking into account Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . Accordingly, no personal data should be made publicly available under this Regulation, unless it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of ensuring the transparency, independence and the reliability of the risk assessment process, while preventing conflicts of interests. |
(30) It is also necessary to refer, for the protection and confidentiality of personal data for the purposes of the transparency of the risk assessment process, to regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . Accordingly, no personal data should be made publicly available under this Regulation, unless it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of ensuring the transparency, independence and the reliability of the risk assessment process, while preventing conflicts of interests. For the purpose of ensuring the transparency, independence, sustainability and reliability of the risk assessment process, in particular to avoid conflicts of interest, it is considered necessary and proportionate to publish the names of any individual designated by the Authority to contribute to the Authority’s decision making process, including in the context of the adoption of guidance documents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). |
24 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). |
25 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) For the purposes of increased transparency and in order to ensure that requests for scientific outputs received by the Authority are processed in an effective manner, standard data formats and software packages should be developed. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the adoption of standard data formats and software packages, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. |
(31) For the purposes of increased transparency and in order to ensure that requests for scientific outputs received by the Authority are processed in an effective manner, standard data formats and software packages should be developed. In order to ensure uniform and harmonised conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the adoption of standard data formats and software packages, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). |
26 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(32) Having regard to the fact that the Authority would be required to store scientific data, including confidential and personal data, it is necessary to ensure that such storage is carried out in accordance with a high level of security. |
(32) Having regard to the fact that the Authority would be required to store scientific data, including confidential and personal data, it is necessary to ensure that such storage is carried out in a way that ensures complete security. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(33) Furthermore, in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the different provisions applying to the Authority, it is also appropriate to provide for a Commission evaluation of the Authority, in accordance with the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies. The evaluation should, in particular, review the procedures for selecting the members of Scientific Committee and Panels, for their degree of transparency, cost-effectiveness, and suitability to ensure independence and competence, and to prevent conflicts of interests. |
(33) Furthermore, in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the different provisions applying to the Authority, it is also appropriate to provide for a Commission evaluation of the Authority, in accordance with the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies. The evaluation should, in particular, review the procedures for selecting the members of Scientific Committee and Panels, for their degree of transparency, cost-effectiveness, and suitability to ensure independence, vigilance and competence, and to prevent conflicts of interests. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(35) For the purposes of ensuring transparency of the risk assessment process, it is also necessary to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, currently limited to food law, to also cover applications for authorisations in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 as regards feed additives, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 as regards food contact materials and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards plant protection products. |
(35) For the purposes of ensuring the transparency and independence of the risk assessment process, it is also necessary to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, currently limited to food law, to also cover applications for authorisations in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 as regards feed additives, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 as regards food contact materials and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards plant protection products. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(36) To ensure that sectoral specificities with respect to confidential information are taken into account, it is necessary to weigh up the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, including those flowing from the Aarhus Convention35, against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the specific objectives of sectoral Union legislation as well as experienced gained. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to provide for additional confidential items to those set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. |
(36) To ensure that sectoral specificities with respect to confidential information are taken into account, it is necessary to weigh up the relevant rights of the public to transparency in the risk assessment process, including those flowing from the Aarhus Convention35, against the rights of commercial applicants, taking into account the specific objectives of sectoral Union legislation as well as experienced gained, while, however, bearing in mind that, where there are specific grounds for concern about public welfare and public health, public interest prevails over commercial interests. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to provide for additional confidential items to those set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p.13). |
35 Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p.13). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(37) In order to further strengthen the link between risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national levels as well as the coherence and consistency of risk communication, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt a general plan on risk communication on matters covering the agri-food chain. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. |
(37) In order to safeguard the independence of the risk assessment and risk management stages at Union and national levels as well as the accuracy and consistency of risk communication, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt a general plan on risk communication on matters covering the agri-food chain. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(38) In order to enable the Authority and the business operators to adapt to the new requirements while ensuring that the Authority continues its smooth operation, it is necessary to provide for transitional measures for the application of this Regulation. |
(38) In order to enable the Authority, Member States, the Commission and the business operators to adapt to the new requirements while ensuring that the Authority continues its smooth operation, it is necessary to provide for transitional measures for the application of this Regulation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point f | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point f a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8b – paragraph 1 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8b – paragraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8b – paragraph 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8b – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8c – paragraph 2 – introductory part | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8c – paragraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8c – paragraph 2 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 8c – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 1a – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph1b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alternate members are empowered to vote in place of full members, which means that they must have the same qualifications. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 25 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 5a – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 5a – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 5a – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 28 – paragraph 5d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32b – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32c – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32d – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32e – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 32e – paragraph 1a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point а Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point а Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point а Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point i | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point а a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph -1a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 69 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 70 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c a (new) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 38 – paragraph 3a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 71 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 72 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 2 – point 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 73 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 2 – point 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 74 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 75 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39 – paragraph 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This formulation is necessary for the benefit of transparency | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 76 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39a – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 77 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 78 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 79 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39b – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 80 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39d – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 81 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39d – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 82 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39e – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 83 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39e – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 84 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 39g – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 85 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 57a – paragraph 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 86 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 61 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 87 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 61 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 88 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 61 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 89 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2001/18/EC Article 24 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 90 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2001/18/EC Article 28 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 91 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Article 29 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 92 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 93 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Article 30 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paragraph 2 simply reinstates the current wording of Regulation 1829/2003. If the aim of the proposal is to strengthen transparency, then, instead of enlarging the list of information which can be kept confidential, the current provisions relating to information that can never be kept confidential must be kept. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 94 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 95 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 96 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 97 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 98 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Article 18 – paragraph 3 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 99 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point а Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 100 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 Article 14 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 101 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 102 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 103 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point а Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 104 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 Article 19 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 105 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 Article 19 – paragraph 2a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 106 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 107 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 108 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Article 63 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 109 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 10 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 110 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 16 – paragraph 2 – last sentence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 111 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 2015/2283 Article 23 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 112 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain |
||||
References |
COM(2018)0179 – C8-0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 28.5.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
JURI 28.5.2018 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Jiří Maštálka 23.4.2018 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
3.9.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
10.10.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
12 5 6 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Max Andersson, Joëlle Bergeron, Jean-Marie Cavada, Kostas Chrysogonos, Mady Delvaux, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Enrico Gasbarra, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Heidi Hautala, Sajjad Karim, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Gilles Lebreton, António Marinho e Pinto, Pavel Svoboda, József Szájer, Axel Voss, Francis Zammit Dimech, Tadeusz Zwiefka |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Geoffroy Didier, Pascal Durand, Angel Dzhambazki, Angelika Niebler, Virginie Rozière, Tiemo Wölken |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
12 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
António Marinho e Pinto |
|
ECR |
Angel Dzhambazki, Sajjad Karim |
|
PPE |
Geoffroy Didier, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Angelika Niebler, József Szájer, Axel Voss, Francis Zammit Dimech, Tadeusz Zwiefka |
|
S&D |
Enrico Gasbarra, Virginie Rozière |
|
5 |
- |
|
GUE/NGL |
Kostas Chrysogonos |
|
S&D |
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Max Andersson, Pascal Durand, Heidi Hautala |
|
6 |
0 |
|
ALDE |
Jean-Marie Cavada |
|
EFDD |
Joëlle Bergeron |
|
ENF |
Gilles Lebreton |
|
S&D |
Mady Delvaux, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Tiemo Wölken |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title |
Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain |
||||
References |
COM(2018)0179 – C8-0144/2018 – 2018/0088(COD) |
||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
11.4.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 28.5.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Committees asked for opinions Date announced in plenary |
BUDG 28.5.2018 |
ITRE 28.5.2018 |
IMCO 28.5.2018 |
AGRI 28.5.2018 |
|
|
PECH 28.5.2018 |
JURI 28.5.2018 |
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
BUDG 23.4.2018 |
ITRE 24.4.2018 |
IMCO 19.6.2018 |
|
|
Rapporteurs Date appointed |
Renate Sommer 3.5.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
30.8.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
27.11.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
43 16 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Zoltán Balczó, Ivo Belet, Paul Brannen, Nessa Childers, Birgit Collin-Langen, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Mark Demesmaeker, Stefan Eck, Bas Eickhout, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Jens Gieseke, Julie Girling, Françoise Grossetête, Jytte Guteland, György Hölvényi, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Karin Kadenbach, Kateřina Konečná, Urszula Krupa, Giovanni La Via, Jo Leinen, Peter Liese, Lukas Mandl, Jiří Maštálka, Valentinas Mazuronis, Joëlle Mélin, Susanne Melior, Rory Palmer, Massimo Paolucci, Piernicola Pedicini, Bolesław G. Piecha, John Procter, Julia Reid, Frédérique Ries, Michèle Rivasi, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Davor Škrlec, Renate Sommer, Adina-Ioana Vălean, Jadwiga Wiśniewska |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Nikos Androulakis, Christophe Hansen, Martin Häusling, Anja Hazekamp, Jan Huitema, Ulrike Müller, Alojz Peterle, Keith Taylor, Tiemo Wölken |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Martina Anderson, Edward Czesak, Jens Geier, Jude Kirton-Darling, Vladimír Maňka, Virginie Rozière |
||||
Date tabled |
29.11.2018 |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
43 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Gerben‑Jan Gerbrandy, Jan Huitema, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Valentinas Mazuronis, Ulrike Müller, Frédérique Ries |
|
ECR |
Edward Czesak, Mark Demesmaeker, Urszula Krupa, Bolesław G. Piecha, John Procter, Jadwiga Wiśniewska |
|
EFDD |
Piernicola Pedicini |
|
ENF |
Joëlle Mélin |
|
GUE/NGL |
Martina Anderson, Stefan Eck, Anja Hazekamp, Kateřina Konečná, Jiří Maštálka |
|
NI |
Zoltán Balczó |
|
PPE |
Françoise Grossetête |
|
S&D |
Nikos Androulakis, Paul Brannen, Nessa Childers, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Jens Geier, Jytte Guteland, Karin Kadenbach, Jude Kirton Darling, Jo Leinen, Vladimír Maňka, Susanne Melior, Rory Palmer, Massimo Paolucci, Virginie Rozière, Tiemo Wölken |
|
Verts/ALE |
Margrete Auken, Bas Eickhout, Martin Häusling, Michèle Rivasi, Davor Škrlec, Keith Taylor |
|
16 |
- |
|
PPE |
Pilar Ayuso, Ivo Belet, Birgit Collin Langen, Karl Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Jens Gieseke, Julie Girling, Christophe Hansen, György Hölvényi, Giovanni La Via, Peter Liese, Lukas Mandl, Alojz Peterle, Annie Schreijer Pierik, Renate Sommer, Adina Ioana Vălean |
|
1 |
0 |
|
EFDD |
Julia Reid |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention