The draft regulation on novel foods is headed straight for third reading (conciliation). On 7 July, MEPs maintained at second reading their position to exclude cloned animals and their offspring from the scope of the future regulation establishing harmonised rules for the placing of novel foods on the market in the Union. “The Council dealt with this issue hastily. It took an off-hand approach and continues to stand its ground. It would be absurd not to maintain our front at second reading,” explained Bart Staes (S&D, Belgium) during a debate on the eve of the vote, at which the Council was not represented.

The amendment on cloned animals, tabled by the EP at first reading, was rejected by the Council in its common position of 15 March. The 27 ministers found it preferable to keep foods from cloned animals and their offspring in the scope of the regulation until specific legislation is presented by the Commission. If the Council rejects Parliament’s second-reading position, an agreement will have to be found through the conciliation procedure.

The Commission has promised to present a report on the different aspects of cloning. “I share the importance that the European Parliament attaches to this most sensitive matter,” assured Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli. “I agreed to report by November 2010 and my report will be matched with proposals. It will be the starting point for relaunching the discussions,” he added. The three institutions all seem interested in this question but consensus appears difficult because the Commission defends the legal status quo (no harmonisation at EU level) for foods produced with new reproduction techniques, such as cloning.

PARLIAMENT’S ARGUMENTS

In Parliament, while some opinions are less radical than others, there seems to be a consensus on this type of practice and on foods from such animals. “We do not want to thwart innovation,” explained rapporteur Kartika Tamara Liotard (EUL-NGL, Netherlands). “Innovation is a good thing but it must not be harmful. Personally, I am not in favour of cloning, but what I want is a specific regulation for this question.” “If we remove cloned animals from this regulation, we can advance on other issues,” said Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Health (ENVI). Other reasons mentioned by MEPs were the lack of information and the impact on animal welfare, supported by the opinions of the Scientific Committee of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies.

NANOMATERIALS

Another important point of this regulation is that of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. MEPs called for a moratorium until such time as a risk assessment that is appropriate for nanotechnologies and nanomaterials proves that they are harmless. They insisted again that nano-ingredients must be mentioned on food labels, defying the Council’s common position.

The amendment calls for mandatory labelling of foods derived from animals fed genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Background

The draft regulation concerns foods that have not been consumed to any significant degree before May 1997, whether they are newly developed or foods traditionally consumed in other parts of the world. It aims to simplify the authorisation procedure, provide a clear definition of novel foods, improve the effectiveness, transparency and implementation of the authorisation system and ensure legal clarity. It amends Regulation (EC) 1331/2008 and repeals Regulations (EC) 258/97 and 1852/2001.