Scope:

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

Evaluation findings:

The General Food Law Regulation is still relevant today with respect to the current trends, e.g. growth and competitiveness and increased globalisation. Nevertheless, it is less adequate to address new challenges, such as food sustainability in general, and more specifically, food waste.

Overall, the General Food Law Regulation has achieved its core objectives, namely high protection of human health and consumers' interests and the smooth functioning of the internal market.

The General Food Law Regulation has resulted in efficiency gains through clear allocation of responsibilities between food and feed business operators (FBOs) and public authorities along the food chain. The benefits resulting from the primary responsibility principle and from the obligation of traceability outweigh the corresponding costs. The compliance costs aimed at preventing and managing crises are considered justified vis-à-vis the costs that full-blown food crises would involve. The centralisation of the risk analysis at EU level has increased efficiency by allowing cost savings for national competent authorities and for operators and the pooling of scientific resources in EU and national assessment bodies.

Nevertheless, the evaluation identified certain shortcomings:

• National differences in the implementation of the General Food Law Regulation at Member State level have been observed creating uneven playing field for businesses in some instances such as different levels of implementation of withdrawals due to variable determination of a food or feed as safe; diverging implementation in the few partly harmonised areas of food law (e.g. food contact materials, food supplements, foods with added vitamins and minerals); diverging interpretation of the common definitions set out in the General Food Law Regulation; national differences in relation to the information provided to the public on food safety incidents; variable national approaches to the implementation of official controls; and variable measures and penalties to address violations of food law. These national differences are not systematic but occur rather on a case-by-case basis.

• Despite overall considerable progress, the perception of a certain lack of transparency and independence of the risk assessment process in the context of authorisation dossiers may have a negative impact on the acceptability of EFSA's scientific work. Moreover, risk communication has not always been effective with a negative impact on consumers' trust and on the acceptability of risk management decisions.

• A number of negative signals have also been identified on the capacity of EFSA to maintain a high level of scientific expertise which showed the limitations of the current system to ensure in the long-term sufficient expertise and to fully engage all MS in scientific cooperation.

• Certain negative impacts on innovation and trade in relation to authorisation procedures might be attributable to the design of those authorisation procedures in specific EU food legislation. Lengthy authorisation procedures in some sectors (e.g. feed additives, plant protection products, food improvement agents, novel foods, health claims) slow down the market entry process.

Estimated savings and benefits

The evaluation has identified some potential for simplification and burden reduction in sectorial EU food legislation.