EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY. Minutes of the Food Fraud Network meeting of 5 May 2017

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Crisis management in food, animals and plants Alerts, traceability and committees Minutes of the Food Fraud Network meeting of 5 May 2017 Attendees EC Services: SANTE G5, SANTE G3, SANTE A4 Member States: AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK NO, CH After welcoming the participants, the chair lists the agenda and asks if they wish to raise any other point under AOB. 1) Under point 1 of the agenda (EU-Coordinated Cases) DG SANTE provides an update on the development of some ongoing cases, i.e. illegally treated tuna, urea in feed yeast from Russia and the unauthorized use of 4-ACA as E120, 3 cases that are dealt with in the AAC-FF. Following a question about situations in which to use the different systems, the chair recalls that for all cases representing a public health risk, the RASFF must be used. The AAC-AA is to be used for non-compliances regarding food where there is no public health risk and no indications of food fraud but where it is important to inform the national controls bodies. There is no objection to putting a case both in the AAC-FF and in the AAC-AA when deemed useful, however, we do not want to overload the AAC-FF. AAC-AA is a useful tool to inform MS control bodies about a fraudulent scheme (without mentioning company names). The AAC-FF is more appropriate for suspicion of food fraud with a clear identification of businesses. 2) The chair announces that the new SANTE Food Fraud webpages are online. The EU Food Fraud Contact Points (FFCPs) are requested to report any mistakes/problems in the webpages or in the Annual Report 2016 so that the necessary modifications can be made. The chair draws the attention to the page on "successful cooperation" which accentuates the cooperation of all actors involved in the treatment of the EUcoordinated cases. No information will be put here on cases for which criminal/judicial proceedings are ongoing. If the EU FFCPs wish so, cases treated with other MS that deserve to be highlighted and links to their national websites can be added. Commission européenne/europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel

2 The FFCPs are also requested to report any reserve to the publication of the list of EU FFCPs or any mistakes or required updates regarding this list. 3) Reflection papers prepared by volunteering FFCPs on possible strategies regarding penalties, on communicating the results of inspections to the public, on collaboration with third countries and on stakeholders' vigilance and feedback The documents submitted by the volunteering MS shall not be considered as official documents but as documents presented by experts to promote the discussion. DG SANTE identified 4 possible strategies and asks the participants to reflect on them: Do the elements submitted deserve to be translated into legislation (Implementing Act) in the framework of the new OCR Regulation//is there a legal possibility to do so? Introduce notions of fraud in the different parts of the Codex Alimentarius International convention for food crime comparable to the Medicrime Convention No action a) Reflection paper on Penalties presented by France The French FFCP presents the judicial framework applicable in France regarding sanctions imposed for fraudulent activities in the food fraud area. The chair thanks the French representative for this well-structured overview of penalties and asks the other MS to check in their respective systems of sanctions whether they have other elements than the ones presented by France. The structure supplied by France will be used as a basis to be completed with the elements supplied by other MS to produce a global overview. b) Reflection paper on Penalties presented by Ireland Ireland welcomes the opportunity for increased penalties provided by art. 139 of the new OCR but observes that it can be very difficult to estimate the economic gain of fraudulent or deceptive practices for the operator as provided for in part 2 of this article. The Irish FFCP gives an overview of the sanctions used in Food Law in Ireland and of the difficulties encountered in sanctioning food fraud cases such as the difficulty to establish whether there is a public health concern, the fact that prosecution takes a long time and a lot of resources, the poor effectiveness of small financial penalties. On the other hand, penalties such as seizure, destroying or taking a product off the market, name and shame for companies that have developed a brand, reclassification of products without traceability have proved to have an impact, as well as controlling and banning the use of logos and brands and PDOs and PDIs have proved to be effective. Prosecuting, although lengthy and expensive, is yielding good results. 2

3 The chair thanks the Irish representative for this overview and suggests to provide a presentation merging the information supplied by France and Ireland which could then be completed by information from the other MS. He furthermore invites the group to better indicate the action/decision taken following a request in the AAC-FF and AAC-AA systems so as to demonstrate what the EU FFN is achieving. To the questions from France whether prison sentences are provided in Ireland for extremely serious cases of food fraud and whether the Irish public prosecutors' offices are specialised in this field, the Irish representative replies that Irish Food Law indeed provides prison terms and that the public prosecutors are not specialised but that they receive as much information as possible from the competent services.. c) Reflection paper on "cooperation with third countries" presented by Ireland Ireland suggests the Commission to do the majority of the work on this topic given that a network is already available. However, these contact points need to be able to act and share information. There is a complication created by data protection requirements and guidance is needed from the Commission (e.g. a common template for the MS to be submitted to the Commission for them to address it to the third countries). The chair lists the difficulties encountered in this field: - which information can be exchanged with TC on companies/individuals? - after a case relating to a third country has been inserted in RASFF, who does what? A procedure is needed to guarantee that a follow-up in the third country is provided. - what type of measures can the EU propose (e.g. strong letter, request to supply results of investigations, suspension of activities, reinforced controls at the borders,, certification)? Guidance is needed also here. DG SANTE will develop draft guidelines on the basis of previous experiences that will be shared with the MS. It has to be made sure that measures imposed upon TC are proportionate to those applicable to the MS. To make sure that we are in line with international rules, a discussion on this topic should also take place in the framework of the Codex. d) Reflection paper on "Communication of results of inspections to the public" presented by Ireland The Irish representative observes that now that food fraud is in the OCR, it is covered by professional secrecy and is quite restrictive about which information can be revealed. Only when a public health risk is involved - which is difficult to prove in cases of food fraud - can information be disclosed. A way needs to be found to be able to inform the public about serious cases of fraud without impact on human health. France agrees that in case of serious economic impact of fraudulent activities, it has to be possible to inform the public. The chairman observes that an important role for the FFCPs consists in convincing judges to release the necessary information to ensure the traceability of unsafe products and information of the Consumers when a public health issue has been identified. If some FFCPs experience difficulties in doing so, DG SANTE is ready to assist, without of 3

4 course interfering with the judicial proceedings. The absence of communication may create more media confusion than a limited release of information. The Irish representative agrees to take the lead on the development of a paper on communication with the input of the other MS. e) Reflection paper on "Stakeholders' vigilance and feedback" presented by Ireland The Irish representative explains that in Ireland, whistle-blowers are very well protected by the Protected Disclosure Act. The problem is that in cases of food fraud, the public is not aware and therefore, it is more important to go to the source of the problem, notably to industry, TRACES, RASFF, national and coordinated control programmes, media, surveys, trade representatives, the Commission, etc. The industry is however suspicious about the regulator asking questions and even between MS there is sometimes reluctance to reply to questions regarding food fraud. Ireland is developing Data Sharing Agreements (DSA) for parties involved in criminal investigations of food fraud. Ireland has a draft DSA with the Scottish FSA and this system is also used to legally share information between industry representatives and competent authorities. ADSA with the UK Food Industry Information Network is being finalized. f) Reflection paper on "Stakeholders' vigilance and feedback" presented by the Netherlands The Dutch representative thanks the Czech, German and UK colleagues for their contributions to this paper and explains that she made an overview of the different information flows (between industry and authorities, consumers and authorities, from industry to industry), the problems encountered and the challenges. To the chairman's question which countries do not have a system where individuals/companies can electronically report suspicions or problems relating to food, most of the MS reply in the negative. Most of the MS have an on-line complaint system but not specifically for problems involving food fraud. According to the chairman, although the Commission is regularly asked for an address for complaints about problems with food fraud, it would be more suitable to provide it at national level, possibly managed by consumer organisations/ngos. UK, IT, FR, DE, NL and HU explain that they have systems in place which allow to report problems/suspicions specifically relating to food fraud. The chairman believes that it would be useful to provide an address (if available) in each MS for reporting complaints. Therefore, the different addresses/telephone lines used in the MS will be collected and if the FFCPs agree, it can be published on the DG SANTE website. As regards the part of the presentation regarding reporting from the competent authorities to the stakeholders, the chairman explains how the Commission proceeds: letter to European stakeholders, copied to the FFCPs requesting the FFCPs to pass the 4

5 information to the national stakeholders, explaining the 4 criteria of food fraud. As regards the information towards consumer organisations, DG SANTE will have to reflect with the concerned association on how to best proceed in order to avoid excessive reaction towards a specific sector. The French representative observes that as regards the exchange of information between authorities, France has the necessary legislation in place to allow for the exchange of information from investigations with the Commission and with other MS. The chair replies that at EU level, there is a legal basis for the exchanges within the FFN but it needs to be made sure that the source of the information agrees to divulge the information outside the network. Furthermore, the Commission's legal service has recently confirmed that DG SANTE is legally entitled to put information in the AAC systems and to submit requests to the MS. The chair summarized that: with respect to sanctions, France takes the lead to compile the French and Irish paper and collects information from the other MS. As regards the strategy, the EU Food fraud Network considers that the legislative option is too premature given that each MS has its own system of sanctions, it sees no role for the Codex nor for an international convention. A guidance paper will be more useful. with respect to the communication to the public, Ireland will take the lead to gather additional information from the other MS. The objective is to establish how we can communicate results of inspections. The chair invites the MS to reflect on the question whether an Implementing Act under the OCR or a guidance document would be the most useful. On the collaboration with third countries, the Commission will take the lead and will prepare a guidance document relating to o data protection o the procedure (role of each of the MS and of the Commission) o a list of possible administrative actions towards third countries. On stakeholders' vigilance, DG SANTE counts on the Netherlands for a draft list of addresses in the MS which consumers can contact with complaints or information. With respect to information to stakeholders, the MS are requested to report about existing experiences. The Commission will contribute to this paper by reporting on its activities to inform stakeholders. 4) Presentation by the NL on the Codex Alimentarius in the area of fraud The Dutch representative explains that Iran drafted a paper on the role of the Codex in the field of food authenticity and integrity, with the support of the Netherlands and Canada. This paper was discussed recently during the CCFICS (Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems) meeting. The paper requested Codex to screen the existing standards. CCFICS agreed to create an e-working group to define the terms of reference and a clear scope for the new work for Codex. Link to the paper: dex%252fmeetings%252fcx %252fwd%252ffc23_05e.pdf 5

6 5) FSAI OPSON EU conference in Dublin in October 2017 The Irish representative gives details about an event on food fraud that will take place from 2 to 6 October in Dublin: 2-3 October : debrief on OPSON VI and launch of OPSON VII 4 October : FFN AAC meetings 5-6 October : International Food Fraud Conference (programme is distributed) dedicated to regulation, the industry view, science and distant selling. 6) IT developments DG SANTE gives explanations about a few small updates to the AAC system (see presentation) and reminds that after introduction in the system, the requests need to be saved, if not they are not visible to the MS to which the requests are addressed. The AAC external support team is ready to give on-the-spot trainings. IT developments.pptx To the question from Norway related to the state-of-play of the announced updating the forms so that special information relating to e-commerce could be input, DG SANTE replies that this is still under development because more analysis is required. To the question from Germany about the next meetings of the OMB (Operational Management Board), DG SANTE replies that a meeting is likely to take place in June For the moment, there are not many developments in the AAC-system and priority has been given to RASFF and to make sure that the other systems are compatible with the changes in the RASFF system. 2 additional OMBs will be created for TRACES veterinary section and for products of plant origin. Furthermore, the work on IMSOC is ongoing. 7) E-Commerce DG SANTE gives an overview of the Commission's plans regarding online sales. The Coordinated Control Plan for e-commerce is scheduled for the second half of The proposal is now in internal procedure and will soon be presented to the PAFF Committee for vote. Volunteering MS will be asked to cooperate in this CCP by looking for specific products in a limited number of websites during a period of 6 weeks. The RASFF and AAC-systems will be used in the process. The results will be discussed with the MS before publication. DG SANTE is also reflecting on a participation in OPSON VII with an e-commerce theme. 6

7 The Italian representative from the Ministry of Agriculture explains that in Italy, an important control activity on e-commerce has been activated and a memorandum of understanding with Amazon and Alibaba has been signed focusing on protected denominations. This allowed removing false products from these electronic sales sites. Italy can contribute by sharing their best practices for operational guidelines on how to operate in the virtual world. The chair confirms that the purpose is to share the Italian experience with the rest of the EU, hence the agreements the Commission is trying to achieve with the different market players. Italy adds to this that the market players have a positive approach towards cooperation and that for consumers, it is important to know that the EU cooperates to guarantee save products. Denmark is concerned about the fact that the CCP e-commerce is scheduled for the second half of 2017 because it will require substantial resources and suggests to postpone it until the spring of DG SANTE replies that the work involved will be limited and that also MS with little experience in dealing with e-commerce will be able to participate. The number of websites and products to be monitored will be limited and the MS will only have to notify when a non-compliant product is found on one of these websites. Ireland observes that in the EMPACT operational programme, part of the activity involves the search for counterfeit products on Internet sites by police and customs and Ireland has been invited to join their programme. The chair thanks Ireland for this important information and will get in touch with the Commission's coordinator for EMPACT. 8) AOB The head of unit of DG SANTE/G5 reports about his participation in a conference on seafood in Brussels. As regards the coordinated controls plans, the chair takes note of the comments of the Danish participants. For the future, there are 2 options : - CCPs that cover the entire EU and that are financed at 50%: these have to programmed and a Commission Recommendation is required. Any suggestions for 2018 are welcome and will be discussed in the group. - for CCPs that require less analytical work, it can be envisaged to work without financing. This way, it may be possible to work by means of a tacit agreement and without Recommendation. Suggestions are welcome and will be discussed in the group. The chair thanks all present and especially France, Ireland and the Netherlands for their contributions