Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Risks in Imports of Non-animal Origin: The EU System of Reinforced Border Surveillance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk Regulation in Non-Animal Food Imports

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science ((BRIEFSCHEFO))

  • 601 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter illustrates the full range of policy tools that are currently available to the European Union (EU) for counteracting risks associated with imports of feed and food of non-animal origin. While verification of compliance is performed by EU Member States by means of official controls, place and intensity of controls may vary depending on the seriousness of the risk to be addressed. Policy tools available to the European Commission and EU Member States in their capacity as risk managers include market surveillance, reinforced border controls, emergency measures, special import conditions and approval of checks prior to export. Following a general introduction on the European legal framework governing imports of non-animal origin, the present work analyses the main features of the EU system of reinforced border controls designed by the Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The four proposals have been announced as a part of the policy initiative ‘Smarter rules for safer food’ and preceded by the umbrella Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council with the title ‘Healthier Animal and Plants and a Safer Agri-food chain’, COM (2013) 264.

  2. 2.

    The horsemeat scandal can be regarded as the very first case of food fraud with an EU dimension. In essence, meat presented or labelled as beef was instead of equidae not destined to human consumption and thus used for being a cheaper ingredient. When control authorities of several Member States first detected the fraud in the first quarter of 2013, concerns arose that the fraud might also have some safety implications. Indeed, first sampling revealed, in certain instances, presence of residues of phenylbutazone, a veterinary drug usually administrated to horses employed in sports competition. For this reason, based on Article 53 of Regulation No. 882/2004, the European Commission recommended the organisation of a coordinated control plan across the EU. Results of the control plan indicated that, although the prevalence of veterinary residues was relatively limited, conversely, fraudulent mislabelling emerged as a widespread practice. In the wake of this fraud, the European Commission undertook a wide range of actions, including strengthening of requirements for controls on movement of horses within the EU, in order to prevent frauds of such an extent from happening again. Nearly one year after the scandal and while some criminal proceedings were still pending before national courts, in March 2014 the Commission launched a new round of coordinated controls aimed at ascertaining the prevalence of fraudulent practices as regards processing and labelling of bovine meat (Recommendation 2014/180/EU).

  3. 3.

    In this respect, it should be noted that the Regulation is based on Article 53 GFL as a legal basis in addition to Article 15 paragraph 5 of Regulation 882/2004. The use of Article 53 GFL as a legal basis can be explained considering that, when adopted, Regulation 669/2009 incorporated some imports that, at that time, were subject to emergency measures based on that provision (notably, Decision 2006/504/EC). This interpretation would be confirmed by the subsequent amendments of Annex I to Regulation 669/2009, which are systematically based only on Article 15 paragraph 5 of Regulation 882/2004.

  4. 4.

    This Regulation replaces Regulation (EC) No. 1152/2009 (European Commission 2009b).

  5. 5.

    If the different rationale behind the two legal bases that can be used for imposing import requirements at EU level may appear clear in theory, practice shows that the EU legislator does not seem to abide by this interpretation systematically. For instance, one could question why Article 53 GFL is still used as a legal basis of Regulation 884/2014, when several imports covered (e.g. pistachios from Iran, groundnuts from Egypt) have been subject to import conditions for more than a decade. Hardly classifiable as emergency situations, those referred rather appear as recurring or structural safety issues, which, from a mere legal perspective, Article 48 Regulation 882/2004 would address more effectively.

  6. 6.

    The European Commission’s ‘Question and Answers Paper on the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 on an increased level of official controls on certain imports of feed and food of non-animal origin’ currently deals with 35 issues related to the application of that Regulation. Issues are grouped under six different headings: General concepts, Scope, Listing under Annex I, Implementation, Common Entry Document and, finally, Control Activities. The latest version of the Guidance document is available at the following web page:

    http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/controls/increased_checks/docs/QandA_paper_en.pdf.

  7. 7.

    On the other hand, in the veterinary area, designation of BIPs is subject to the European Commission’s prior approval and regular auditing by the FVO.

  8. 8.

    The full list of DPE is available at the following web page: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/controls/increased_checks/list_DPE_en.htm.

  9. 9.

    Furthermore, all these provisions foresee that, following splitting, each part of the consignment must be accompanied by an authenticated copy of the original CED until it is released for free circulation.

  10. 10.

    On the other hand, Parts II and III of the CED are to be filled in by the competent authorities.

  11. 11.

    The series of audits covered, in particular, the following countries: Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Lithuania. A previous series of audits on import controls on food of non-animal origin was conducted over the period 2006–2008 (European Commission,  Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection 2009).

  12. 12.

    During 2012, the FVO performed audits also in Greece and Poland, in addition to a follow-up mission to Bulgaria. During 2013, the FVO visited Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary.

  13. 13.

    EU reports containing consolidated results on official controls performed by EU Member States and Norway pursuant to Regulation 669/2009 for the period 2010–2013 are available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/controls/increased_checks/index_en.htm.

  14. 14.

    The SPS Committee is an intergovernmental body established by the SPS Agreement (Article 14). Any WTO member has the right to be represented at meetings of the Committee. International organisations such as Codex Alimentarius, World Animal Health Organization and the International Plant Protection Convention enjoy the status of permanent observers within the Committee. Other international organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), may take part in meetings as observers on ad-hoc basis. The SPS Committee is a forum designed to monitor and ensure the appropriate application of the SPS Agreement. In such a context, it encourages and facilitates the exchange of views between WTO members on animal health, food safety and plant health issues. It can also elaborate procedures and guidance in order to ensure WTO members fulfil the obligations stemming from the SPS Agreement. The Committee normally meets three times per year in Geneva.

Abbreviations

BCP:

Border Control Post

BIP:

Border Inspection Post

CED:

Common Entry Document

CHED:

Common Health Entry Document

CP:

Control Point

DPE:

Designated Point of Entry

EFSA:

European Food Safety Authority

EU:

European Union

FVO:

Food and Veterinary Office

GFL:

General Food Law

ISO:

International Standard Organisation

MANCP:

Multi-Annual National Control Plan

OECD:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

RASFF:

Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed

SPS:

Sanitary and Phytosanitary

TRACES:

TRAde Control and Expert System

USA:

United States of America

WTO:

World Trade Organisation

References

  • Alemanno A (2010) L’approche européenne de la sécurité des importations—Concilier protection des consommateurs et accès au marché après l’affaire du lait chinois frelaté. Rev Droit Union Europ 3:527–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Communities (1991) Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animal entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC. Off J Eur Comm L268:56–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries. Off J Eur Comm L24:9–30

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA AFC (2008) Scientific opinion of the panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and food contact materials on a request from European Commission on Safety of aluminium from dietary intake. EFSA J 754:1–34. Available http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/754.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2014

  • European Commission (2000) White paper on food safety. Brussels, 12.1.2000 COM (1999) 719 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Commission Decision 2008/47/EC of 20 December 2007 approving the pre-export checks carried out by the United States of America on peanuts and derived products thereof as regards the presence of aflatoxins. Off J Eur Union L11:12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009a) Commission Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC. Off J Eur Union L194:11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009b) Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1152/2009 of 27 November 2009 imposing special conditions governing the import of certain foodstuffs from certain third countries due to contamination risk by aflatoxins and repealing Decision 2006/504/EC. Off J Eur Union L313:40–49

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (2009) Overview report on a series of missions in certain Member States to assess the control measures in place for import controls on food of non-animal origin and to monitor compliance with Commission decisions on the import of certain products regarding mycotoxins and Sudan Dyes adulteration’. DG (SANCO)/2009-8328. Available http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/specialreports/2011_6577_en.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2014

  • European Commission (2010a) Commission Regulation (EC) No. 258/2010 of 25 March 2010 imposing special conditions on the imports of guar gum originating in or consigned from India due to contamination risks by pentachlorophenol and dioxins, and repealing Decision 2008/352/EC. Off J Eur Union L80:28–31

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010b) Commission Decision 2010/313/EU of 7 June 2010 authorising physical checks pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 to be carried out at approved premises of feed and food business operators in Cyprus. Off J Eur Union L140:28–29

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010c) Commission Decision 2010/458/EU of 18 August 2010 authorising physical checks pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 to be carried out at approved premises of feed and food business operators in Malta. Off J Eur Union L218:26–27

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010d) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the effectiveness and consistency of sanitary and phytosanitary controls on imports of food, feed, animals and plants. 21.10. 2010, COM (2010) 785 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (2011) Final Overview report of a series of audits carried out in 2010 and 2011 in certain Member States in order to assess the official control system in place for import controls on food of non-animal origin. DG (SANCO)/2011-6577. Available http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/specialreports/gr_2009-8328_aw_en.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2014

  • European Commission (2011a) Commission Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU of 6 July 2011 on emergency measures applicable to imports of fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans from Egypt. Off J Eur Union L179:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011b) Commission Implementing Decision 2011/718/EU of 28 October 2011 amending Implementing Decision 2011/402/EU on emergency measures applicable to fenugreek seeds and certain seeds and beans imported from Egypt, Off J Eur Union L285:53–55

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011c) Commission Regulation (EU) No. 284/2011 of 22 March 2011 laying down specific conditions and detailed procedures for the import of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in and consigned from the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. Off J Eur Union L77:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011d) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 844/2011 of 23 August 2011 approving the pre-export checks carried out by Canada on wheat and wheat flour as regards the presence of ochratoxin A. Off J Eur Union L218:4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013a) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the overall operation of official controls in the Member States on food safety, health and animal welfare and plant health, 4.10.2013, COM (2013) 681 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Animal Health, COM (2013) 260 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013c) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material, COM (2013) 262 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013d) Proposal for a Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants, COM (2013) 267 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013e) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection products, COM (2013) 265 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013f) Commission Regulation (EU) No. 211/2013 of 11 March 2013 on certification requirements for imports into the Union of sprouts and seeds intended for the production of sprouts. Off J Eur Union L38:26–29

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013g) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 91/2013 of 31 January 2013 laying down specific conditions applicable to the import of groundnuts from Ghana and India, okra and curry leaves from India and watermelon seeds from Nigeria and amending Regulations (EC) 669/2009 and (EC) 1152/2009. Off J Eur Union L33:2–10

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014a) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU of 13 February 2014 suspending temporarily imports from Bangladesh of foodstuffs containing or consisting of betel leaves (‘Piper betle’). Off J Eur Union L45:34–35

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014b) Commission Implementing Decision 510/2013/EU of 29 July 2014 amending Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU suspending temporarily imports from Bangladesh of foodstuffs containing or consisting of betel leaves (‘Piper betle’) as regards its period of application. Off J Eur Union L 228:33–34

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014c) Commission Regulation (EU) No. 718/2014 of 27 June 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) 882/2004 as regards an increased level of official controls on import of certain feed and food of non-animal origin. Off J Eur Union L190:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014d) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 323/2014 of 28 March 2014 amending Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin. Off J Eur Union L35:12–23

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014e) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 884/2014 of 13 August 2014 imposing special conditions governing the import of certain feed and food from certain third countries due to contamination risk by aflatoxins and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1152/2009. Off J Eur Union L 242:4–19

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014f) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 885/2014 of 13 August 2014 laying down specific conditions applicable to the import of okra and curry leaves from India and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 91/2013. Off J Eur Union L 242:20–26

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2002) Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Off J Eur Comm L31:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2004) Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare rules. Off J Eur Union L165:1–141

    Google Scholar 

  • González Vaqué L (2013a) Los Estados miembros de la UE como gestores de los controles oficiales relativos a la seguridad de los alimentos, la salud y el bienestar de los animales y la fitosanidad. Riv Dirit Aliment 4:20–28. Available http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it/rivista/2013-04/VAQUE.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2014

  • González Vaqué L (2013b) La Propuesta de la Comisión Europea para simplificar, racionalizar y uniformizar los controles sobre los alimentos: ¿cómo afectará al conjunto de la la legislación alimentaria? Riv Dirit Aliment 2:14–22. Available http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it/rivista/2013-02/VAQUE.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2014

  • Laurenza E (2013) The EU’s new regulatory framework on official controls, animal health, plant health and seeds. Eur J Risk Regul 3:381–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Montanari F (2013) Controlli ufficiali - La proposta di riforma della Commissione UE. Alimenti Bevande 6:22–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Paganizza V (2013) Les quatres mosquetaires (ou mosquetons) contre E. Coli: I Regolamenti (UE) 208/2013. 209/2013, 210/2013, 211/2013 e gli eccessi nella sicurezza. Riv Dirit Aliment 2:36–44. Available http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it/rivista/2013-02/PAGANIZZA.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2014

  • Rodriguez Font M (2012) The ‘Cucumber Crisis’: legal Gaps and lack of precision in the risk analysis system in food safety. Riv Dirit Aliment 2:1–15. Available http://www.rivistadirittoalimentare.it/rivista/2012-02/RODRIGUEZ%20FONT.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2014

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lisbon, Portugal

    Francesco Montanari

Authors
  1. Francesco Montanari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Montanari .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Montanari, F. (2015). Managing Risks in Imports of Non-animal Origin: The EU System of Reinforced Border Surveillance. In: Risk Regulation in Non-Animal Food Imports. SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14014-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation