EU regulation: more fatuous prattle

08/09/2014

On an initiative by the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA), there is this, which reports: "An EU watchdog says toast should be eaten only when it is a light brown colour or it could increase the risk of cancer". Then there is this - see sections 8 and 9:

There is no need to understand differences between white or green papers, a report or a regulation or a directive. It is much easier to write about "crazy ideas of EU bureaucrats" … Use "EU bureaucrats" or "Brussels bureaucrats" as often as possible. A more experienced lazy journalist would simply refer to "Eurocrats".

What we are actually talking about is this, a 303-page, "Draft Scientific Opinion on Acrylamide in Food" which kicked off a public consultation process in July (one of many) and which concludes on 15 September 2014 – in one week's time. The final adoption of the opinion is set for June 2015.

Acrylamides are found in a wide range of manufactured foods, including coffee and coffee substitutes, followed by potato crisps and snacks and potato fried products, and have been associated with cancer in test animals. The EFSA is considering the risk to humans and, once finalised, its scientific advice, "will support European and national decision-makers to consider possible measures to further reduce consumer exposure to this substance in food".

As well as composition limits on manufactured foods, these measures "may include advice on eating habits and home-cooking, or controls on commercial food production". However, as EFSA is keen to point out, the Agency "plays no direct role in deciding such measures".

Here, you can take a view as to whether there should be a scientific agency working on food composition standards, and whether it should be involved in the contentious area of predicting risk of various ingredients, and then offering advice about acceptable levels.

Arguably, if there is to be an agency, then it should operate on a trans-national level, simply to widen the database, and to get access to a wider range of studies. And, if there are to be standards, we certainly don't want a plethora of different national standards – that would make international trading in certain foodstuffs a nightmare.

But whatever arguments that apply to the utility of European standards also apply to global standards, so this is an area where one might expect the WHO to be active, which indeed it is, having also produced a 156-page monograph on the issue.

Ideally, if there is then to be a standard – and I do stress if - it should come from Codex which already has a code of practice. However, it is often the case that Codex needs national or bloc standards, on which to piggyback, before it can produce its own.

Crucially though, nothing is going to happen there without the agreement of the United States, which had its own FDA produce a code of practice last year. That, like the EU code, is also out for consultation.

In the final analysis, we may or may not end up – after a huge and expensive amount of effort, carried out on a global scale – with a sensible measure to limit a possible carcinogen in our manufactured foods, and some sensible (or otherwise) dietary advice on the preparation and consumption of some foods.

But whatever the actual outcome, it is an absolute travesty for the Express to write a silly little story about "EU bureaucrats" telling us "we can't eat TOAST" (their capitals). Yet, while we expect this low drone from the Express, there is no excuse for Alan Murad, of Get Britain Out, from whom we get: "It is time the EU stopped meddling". And we get the usual silliness from UKIP MEPs, which is why we can't even begin to take these stupid people seriously. They are a positive embarrassment.

As always, for my part, I'm looking at Flexcit aspect. In the grown-up world we have to factor in such issues as how we handle food standards in a post-exit UK. Even if we wanted to, we can't walk away from their proper consideration. We have to acknowledge that they are of great importance to international trade, and that the EU is a player, as is Codex, as is the FDA and the WHO. Their views have to be taken seriously, and accommodated.

Thus, how we factor in these players, and how we work with the international community to formulate food standards (or block them if necessary), is going to determine (in part) whether we have a workable exit plan or not. It would be nice to think that we could have a grown-up newspaper to report in such issues, and grown up campaign groups, but - as always - we're out on our own.