The Justification & History of the Consolidation of EU Food Legislation - Coursework Example

The Justification & History of the Consolidation of EU Food Legislation Introduction The 2006 Food Hygiene Legislation came into being after several years of developing food safety laws and many different amendments to the same laws. The common market and the formation of the EU meant that laws across different nations had to be consolidated with several aims in mind e.g. prevention of unfair competition, protection of consumers and ensuring uniformity of law. These laws also affect the processes by which food is produced across the EU (Jean, 2006). The first proposals for food hygiene regulations were discussed in 2001 and the debate on them continued till 2004. In their final shape they were acceptable to all member states which led to the consolidation of the EU Food legislation for all individuals living in the EU (Food.gov, 2006). With this, the 2006 Food Hygiene Legislation becomes the most modern, consolidated and comprehensive food related legislation since it controls and governs the production, distribution as well as the origins of the food we eat. Essentially, the legislation is more related to health rather than food itself since it seeks to create a supply chain which is free from environmental, treatment or handling hazards (Ecologist, 2006). Perhaps the most important influence and the shift in the structure of the law is to make sure that the food business operators are made responsibility for the safety of the food being consumed (Food.gov, 2006). Regulations There are three significant regulations which make up the new laws i.e. regulation (EC) 852/2004 on the cleanliness of food, regulation (EC) 853/2004 which gives very specific laws for the origins of animals that are to be used in food products and regulation (EC) 854/2004 that gives the rules for the official controls on meat or dairy products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Prior to these regulations, the idea of food safety on farms or on other locations where meat and dairy products were being produced was not very cleat but the consolidation of these laws means that primary producers are also given the responsibility of producing clean food (Food.gov, 2006). Similarly, the legislations preventing trace elements and contaminants were not adequate for the continual maintenance of public health (Berg and Licht, 2002). While the legislation creates new laws, it also comes with Directive 2004/41 that repeals the previous EU legislation and with some exceptions, creates amendments for the legislation that still exists (Food.gov, 2006). The laws find their justification in the fact that all food businesses have to be registered with the required authorities such as the environmental health department, the meat hygiene service or other authorities which are connected with their business. Discussion Of course such registration and additional expenses for maintaining a safer food supply chain could add to the cost of doing business for caterers and even for primary producers but it must be realized that public health demands are often more important than business needs (Food.gov, 2006). The EU has in the past provided funds to farmers where the regulations have caused a severely negative effect for them (Huxley, 2006). Additionally, businesses can also benefit from cross-border buyers since a unified legislation would make it simpler for German producers to sell in the UK or for British suppliers to get business from the French (Elamin, 2007). Such registration ensures that the authority can monitor the production and selling of food related products based on the laws of the land. Caterers and other food sellers have to further follow further procedural regulations which are based on HACCP laws for the safety and hygiene of food. This ensures consumer protection from all corners since no company, caterer or producer is left out of the loop (Food.gov, 2006). It can be said that including producers in the food chain is rather an extreme measure but the legislation justifies this by saying that the intent of the law is to ensure the safety of food from all possible angles. Therefore, the conditions of the production of animals which are to be used in food products also have to be brought under rules and regulations (Food.gov, 2006). With this, the governing body aims to prevent, eliminate or at the very least control the various pathogens and harmful bacteria which can contaminate the food supply. This is certainly important for the consumer as well as the producers of meat and dairy products. Viruses such as the Bird Flu Virus or the Mad Cow Disease have often scared many individuals out of eating meat and have even caused panic in the agricultural sectors of the economy. The motivation of the laws may have been political since it shows how the government seeks to prevent the outbreak of such diseases by ensuring that laws are in place to prevent them. At the same time, the economic effects of having these laws in place can not be denied since a stable market for food products across the EU is very desirable. The Sheffield City Council is certainly aware of the situation and is aiming to inform food businesses running in the area about the changes in the laws. The key requirement for food businesses is that they now have to prove that they understand food hazards. Moreover, they have to show what they are doing to eliminate or minimize the food hazards (Sheffield.gov, 2006). The city council is assisting them in making sure they get where they need to be but it does seem like it is going to take some time before everyone is on the same page. Conclusion However, this has not stopped the government from going ahead and reviewing the present legislation for improvements and changes. In fact, it seems likely that new legislation will be enacted as the changes in present laws and the development of current regulations take place (Elamin, 2007). I feel that the necessity of the laws is certainly there and that they can be justified given the food supply safety issues we have seen in the past. The benefits of the new laws far outweigh the costs which might come with them therefore the laws are justified. In the future there may be additional requirements for the protection of the consumer and public health which would certainly add to the quality of the food we consume. In fact, it can be asked why the laws were brought into play after the ravages of Mad Cow, Foot and Mouth as well as the economic shocks of the Bid Flu virus had been suffered by the European economy. It might have been better for all concerned parties had the laws been in place before the need for them was realised but as it happens so often in politics and law making, the debate on the law often exceeds the time it takes to understand and even enact the law. It can be hoped that future laws will not be delayed to due politics or excessive debates and shall be created as soon as the need for them is seen. Word Count: 1,298 Works Cited Berg, T. and Licht, D. 2002, ‘International legislation on trace elements as contaminants in food’, Food Additives & Contaminants, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 916-927 Ecologist, 2006. ‘EU Sets Dioxin and PCB Levels for Food and Feed’, Ecologist, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 12. Elamin, A. 2007, ‘EU to review food hygiene laws’, [Online] Available at: http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=73229-hygiene-gelatine-coldstores Food.gov. 2006, ‘Background to the 2006 food hygiene legislation’, [Online] Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/europeleg/eufoodhygieneleg/ Huxley, R. 2006, ‘EU funds boost local food sector by 50%’, Farmers Weekly, vol. 145, no. 24, pp. 18-19 Jean, M. 2006, ‘The food industry and health’, Lancet, vol. 368, no. 9546, pp. 1490. Sheffield.gov. 2006, ‘Food Hygiene Legislation’, [Online] Available at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/environment/how-we-work/health-protection/food-safety/food-hygiene-legislation Read More