Food and Consumer Affairs: A Hot-seat for Controversy
By Ulrich Adam, Head of Food and Consumer Affairs Practice
When John Dalli started his work as Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, he found the powers of the post considerably increased: not only had the Commission’s internal reshuffling merged the previously split responsibilities of health and consumer protection into the domain of one single Commissioner, but it also added the responsibilities for pharmaceuticals and pesticides to this (already) broad portfolio. These developments notwithstanding, it was on two well-established battlefields of DG SANCO that Mr Dalli has faced the most controversy so far: the approval process for GMOs as well as the ongoing debates on health claims and nutrient profiles for food products.
Mr. Dalli has named ‘responsible innovation’ as his guiding principle when dealing with issues such as GMOs, cloning and nanotechnology. He defended the approval of the Amflora potato as a logical step of science-based policy making in light of the various favourable safety assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This, however, has not spared him from intense criticism from NGOs such as Greenpeace. These groups have petitioned the Commission to take other factors – such as socio-economic and ethical issues –into account as part of the overall GMO approval process.
The Amflora approval was the first of several gauntlets that Commissioner Dalli will have to run. The long-term challenge for him will be to strike workable balances not only on GMOs (particularly in the Commission’s roadmap on GMOs, which is expected to be published later this month), but also with regards to other innovative technologies such as nanotechnology and food from cloned animals.
Food legislation and the fight against obesity have also been focal points of Mr Dalli’s first 100 days. Mr. Dalli’s self-proclaimed guiding principle in this area is to expand information for consumers so as to allow them to make informed choices – or, in his own words, not to tell consumers what to eat but rather what they are eating.
During recent weeks, the ongoing EU review and approval of health claims made on food has been the most controversial issue in this field. Mr. Dalli faced strong criticism from the industry over the lack of transparency in the approval process and the risk of market distortions arising from the considerable time differences in the approval (or rejection) of different health claims dossiers. Again, Mr. Dalli was quick to defend the Commission’s and EFSA’s work as fact- and science-based and promised to take counter measures should there be any clear proof of competitive distortions in the foods and drinks sector.
Another hot potato in this field is the issue of nutrient profiling, which had been put on hold by the previous Commission in March 2009 following severe criticism from stakeholders, the European Parliament and a number of Member States. Mr. Dalli has publicly come forward in defence of nutrient profiling, even though he has not given indications of his exact position on this issue. Notwithstanding the possibility of a future deletion of the very concept of nutrient profiles by the European Parliament, Mr. Dalli is poised to present a modified proposal later this year. Controversy will follow for sure, even if the new proposal might not differentiate substantially from the so-called ‘Barroso profiles’ draft that concluded the first debate in 2009. As such, it appears that Mr. Dalli is likely to remain in the hot-seat for controversy for the foreseeable future.