A.E.R.E.C - Convegno

This international conference dealt with the issues of the reform of the common agricultural policy and of food safety and security through presentations of high-profile lecturers and a concluding debate. The subjects of the papers evidenced how the reform of CAP allows the Community to offer its members better commercial conditions while guaranteeing safety and security of food stuff. It was meant to transfer competence and know-how about implementation of safety standards and measures related to the production of products and food stuff and to strengthen the institutional capacity of Romanian PA, local authorities, represe conferenza

ntatives of the agricultural and rural organisations and co-operatives, consumer protection associations, agricultural producers and the students of the hosting University. In particular, the experiences of and the measures taken by the new member countries involved in this project, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, were presented and compared. During the seminar of two days the following subjects were discussed:
• the reformed common agricultural policy and its legal, economic and social aspects as well as its importance for food safety within the common market;
• its contribution to the sustainable development of the agricultural sector, comprised employment, competitiveness, growth and stability;
• the contribution of CAP to reaching the Community’s objectives in internal trade negotiations, the principle of free movement of goods and the departures from production, exchange and consumption of food stuff; the benefits of PAC within the common and international market;
• practical aspects of production, exchange and consumption of food stuff in the enlargement countries with respect to the community acquis and the rules of exchange within the European market;
• introduction of the European model of agriculture and its opportunities and models for the promotion and implementation of EU best practices;
• it was shown to the target groups how representatives from similar target groups inside the EU (Italy, Belgium, Czech Republic) have dealt with the necessity to implement and enforce CAP and how Bulgaria in parallel is actually dealing with this necessity.
• The final debate and the exchange of experience among EU member countries of old and new generation allowed the audience to deepen the various aspects of the reformed PAC.
Livu Al Marghitas

Prof. Dr. Dr. H.C. Liviu Al. Marghitas
Rector of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of
Cluj-Napoca

As the Rector of the University of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences of Cluj-Napoca, I welcome you all.
Please allow me to introduce this International conference with the title “The common agricultural policy and food safety. Practical aspects of production, exchange and consumption of products and food stuffs within the common market”. I wish to inform you that this International seminar has been realised with the financial assistance of the European Community, the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. It has been realised in co-operation with the University La Tuscia of Viterbo, the University of Siena and with our University. I wish to thank the European Academy for Economic and Cultural Relations represented by the President Dr. Ernesto Carpintieri for having included also our University in this project. I thank all colleagues and attendees that are present here and that are interested in this important subject. I wish to thank all those who are present and interested in this project, all colleagues and attendees. Dear President, dear guests we are here in this University that has been founded almost 138 years a Cornel Man

go and this University has reached 19 areas of specialization. It has over 6000 students and enjoys excellent conditions to enhance their learning, practical and research experience. It is a University that organises Master and Doctoral Programs. It is a University that is nationally accredited and valued on European and International level. This is a favourable moment; it has any kind of requisites/premises which are necessary to be organiser of such a kind of project. It is a University that wants to evolve economically especially in the development of agriculture in our country. Romania disposes of 21 million hectares of farming land, 15 million of which are in agricultural use. The population in the rural areas amounts at 10,9 million, 3,5 million of which are agricultural operators, 94 % of the national surface constitutes rural area. The rural economy is esteemed about 20-22% of the national GDP, 10-12 % of which represent the agricultural economy. The analysis of these macro economic indicators show that the territorial and human resources are the synthesis of the economic result characterising the expansion of the local rural economy as well as representing an important resource for the rural development in Romania. Romania has recently joined the European Union and the question is if it is possible to integrate in short time a not yet compatible structure in a modern and dynamic economic, social as well as political system. Perhaps after this conference on the Common Agricultural Policy, the importance of food safety in the common market and the contribution of the common agricultural policy to the sustainable development of the agricultural sector comprised employment, after having discussed the importance of CAP for consumption of food stuffs and the implementation of the EC regulations as to the exchange of food products within the common market, of the adoption of the European model of agriculture and its opportunities and the implementation of EU best practices we can find answers to our questions.
I am glad about the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply of Bulgaria, of the Czech Republic as well as of many representatives of the sector; we are all in the same boat. Sharing all the same experience, together we will be able to find solutions.
Now I would like to introduce Dr. Ernesto Carpintieri, President of the European Academy for Economic and Cultural Relations.

A particular thank you to the authorities present, to Ernesto Carpintieri

Prof. Dr. Liviu Al. Marghitas, the Rector of the University that is hosting this event. My particular task is to present the salutes of the European Academy for Economic and Cultural Relations I represent and that organised this International conference with the financial assistance of the European Community. Further thanks to the University La Tuscia of Viterbo and the University of Siena, a thank you to the Embassy of Italy in Romania for having patronaged this event, to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Romania, to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply of Bulgaria, and the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Forestry of Italy. I also wish to thank all lecturers that came from Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Bucharest. The International level of this conference will assure an important contribution to the process of integration of the enlargement countries with particular reference to Romania with which Italy has a privileged relationship; in fact, before we discussed about the presence of 20.000 Italian companies in Romania. This is one more reason to complete the integration process in short time. And we are sure that this conference will contribute significantly to this process. I also thank the attendees that are reaching us numerously. They are all experts and their task will be to disseminate the information they will receive during this conference. Dissemination is of basic importance. I wish you a profitable seminar.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and thank you Giuseppe Marino

for coming this day for this conference. First of all I would like to thank the University Cluj-Napoca and in particular the Dean Prof. Liviu Margheritas to host us in this conference and to have the opportunity to discuss together the very important issues of the agricultural sector in the food safety. First of all I would like to bring the greetings of the Rector of the University La Tuscia of Viterbo Prof. Mancini and also of the Vice Rector Prof. Stefano Grego, who was here a couple of weeks ago in this University. The University La Tuscia has been involved in International media activities especially in the EU Mediterranean countries in particular reference to the agricultural sector and we are involved in activities such as the promotion of conferences on agriculture harmonisation. As you know in Europe and in the Mediterranean countries there is great difference in the scientific control of food safety. Therefore, for a long time, we have tried to involve the public and private sector to harmonise this difference. We also tried to stimulate Universities and private sectors to respect the rules since we will reach in 2010 the free market in the Mediterranean area and we are devoted to this program and we are involving many countries to respect these rules and to be involved in the harmonisation that this activity could reach in the agricultural sector. Of course, our game in the University is also to develop human resources and also to promote the comprehension between the different cultures and to be close to these different cultures in the European region but first of all to develop free and civil society and to give the opportunity to the students to exchange their different culture and to establish partnerships with different Universities of different countries. Of course, the importance of the University is to promote formation and International cooperation.

But Food Safety for us today is priority. For this reason, to promote any kind of cooperation, to facilitate this harmonisation in the field of food safety represents for the University of La Tuscia in cooperation with the University of Siena the first aims we want develop here. Of course, the opportunity, the cooperation with the University of Cluj-Napoca is for all a very good chance to find a new project of cooperation for the future. For this reason, we hope that the European Union will support new projects we wish to implement together. I hope that today we will have the opportunity to exchange our opinion and stimulate any kind of new cooperation that we can develop together.

Ladies and gentlemen, just a few words just to say thanks to the Rector of the University of Cluj, just to say thanks to Dr. Ernesto Carpintieri of the European Academy.
Just to focus our attention on the importance of the agricultural policy and food safety. More Food security in this is a good reason to focus on this issue and to share our difference experience. The University of Siena has been working for a long time with the University of Viterbo on this subject and this is a good opportunity to find out and to share the experience with the new EU member states. I also wish to give the regards of my Rector and to say thanks to the Rector of the University of Cluj.

Good morning, dear guests, honourable authorities, we are honoured to host at this University this International conference and therefore as a representative of the City I am speaking for both. Cluj-Napoca now is a very dynamic city and the University of Agricultural Sciences is one of best structures that do not have competition and to organise this event at this here, where ever else could have been organised such an important International conference!

As to the Common Agricultural Policy, the efforts without a process and without affinity do not have sense. Where the consumer is who is committed at the end to this effort, this effort cannot be listed among the priorities. But he has existed also before the integration into the EU. After the enlargement process, specialists of the Ministry, teaching units, and territorial specialists agree on Food Safety. They are all committed to the future of food industry.

Now I wish you a pleasant stay in our city and I hope you will come back with pleasure.

The agricultural surface of ROMANIA is of 14.711,6 thousands hectares, out of which arable 9.421,9 (64%), grasslands 3.346,9 thousands hectares (22,8%), hayfields 1.498,4 thousands hectares (10,2%), vineyards 223,3 thousands hectares (1,5%), orchards 221,1 thousands hectares (1,5%), and irrigated surface 327,3 hectares and arable 322,3 hectares. Out of the total of this surface, the county of CLUJ has a total surface - 667.440 hectares, out of which an agricultural surface of 424.381 hectares, arable- 177.793 hectares, grasslands- 162.467 hectares, hayfields- 79.612 hectares, vineyards- 340 hectares, and orchards- 4169 hectares.

In the county of Cluj, the total amount of households is of 128.736, an average of 3, 3 hectares/farm, its farms situation being in the following way:

Under 2 hectares- 40.515 (31, 47%)
2-5 hectares - 66.438 (51, 60%)
5-10 hectares -15.839(12, 30%)
10-20 hectares - 5.734 (4, 45%)
20-50 hectares - 128 (0, 12%)
50-100 hectares - 39 (0, 06%)
Over 100 hectares - (43)

Oleaginous plants: 3.474 hectares with a share of 1, 96% from the arable field

Forage plants: 20.497 hectares with a share of 11, 53% from the arable field

Concerning the Common Agricultural Policy, the financial package negotiated by Romania with the European Union for agriculture, for the time frame 2007-2009 comprises the amount of 4.007.900.000 €, granted on its two pillars:

Pillar I: direct payments -967.900.000 € and market measures-732.000.000 €

Pillar I: direct payments for the time frame 2007-2009 of 967.900 million €, out of which 440.000 million €, for the year 2007, the eligible surface being of 8.704 million hectares. For SAPS - it rests an average of 50, 55 euro/hectares. In the county of CLUJ, the total number of applicants is 41.527, out of which: 41.200 farmers with surfaces under 50 hectares and 327 farmers with over 50 hectares.

The Direct Payments Schemes starting from the year 2007 are: The Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS), the Compensatory National Direct Payments (PNDC), the Compensatory Direct Payments for the farmers in the areas with national handicap, in the mountain areas (LFA), the Payment Scheme for Energetic Cultivations, and The Payment Scheme for Sugar.

The Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (11 GAEC) that shall apply as from the date of accession of Romania to the European Union are:

GAEC 1. – During winter, the arable field must be covered with autumn cultivations and/ or stay unworked after cropping on at least 20 % of the total arable surface of the farm;

GAEC 2. – Works of the soil on the arable field with a slope of more than 12 %, cultivated with hoeing plants, are carried out along the level curves;

GAEC 3. – The existing terraces are kept on the agricultural field, on the 1^st of January 2007;

II. Standards for maintaining the optimal content of organic matter in the soil, by applying some appropriate agricultural practices:

GAEC 4. The sunflower shall not be cultivated on the same surface more than two years in a role;

GAEC 5. Burning the stubble fields and the vegetal wastes on the arable field is allowed only with the consent of the competent authority for environmental protection.

GAEC 6. The soil works on the arable field with a slope of more than 12 %, cultivated with hoeing plants, are carried along the level curves;

GAEC 8. Burning the permanent meadows is allowed only with the consent of the competent authority for environmental protection;

GAEC 9. It is not permitted to cut down solitary trees and/ or groups of trees off the arable field;

GAEC 10. Preventing the growth of the unwanted vegetation on the arable fields, in particular on those that are no longer exploited for production;

GAEC 11. Maintaining the surface of permanent meadows at a national level, existing as from the 1^st of January 2007.

The good agricultural and environmental conditions are compulsory for all the users of agricultural fields that require a support within SAPS, after the date of accession. These conditions are compulsory for all the agricultural lots within the exploitation, regardless if the farmers require support for all the lots or only for a part of them.

For the cultivations of the I^stgroup of payment: cereals, oleaginous plants, protean plants, SAPS is of 50,55 euro/hectares, to which is added the complementary payment scheme, PNDC, the decoupled from production of 35 euro/ha.

For sugar beet, SAPS is of 50, 55 €/ha, PNDC is of 103 €/ha, PNDZ is of 76 €/ha (The Payment Scheme for Sugar)

The support is granted only on condition that the farmer should conclude a production delivery contract with a sugar factory and shall be endorsed by the county agricultural departments and for rural development (DADR); and the support is granted only for the surface included in the contract.

For flax and hemp for fibre, SAPS is of 50, 55 €/ha, PNDC is of 41, 74 €/ha.

PNDC is granted for flax destined for the fibre production; PNDC is granted for hemp destined for the fibre production; yet, the farmers should have an authorization for cultivating hemp and must conclude a Purchase /Sell Agreement endorsed by DADR, with an authorized first processor, submits a payment application to the APIA local centre by the 15^th of May; uses seeds that are certified from the varieties of hemp set forth in Annex 2 to the guide; the variety of hemp and the quantity of seeds used shall be specified in the payment application. In the case of the hemp for fibre, the cultivated varieties must have a content of Tetrahydrocannabinol which must be lower or equal to 0, 2 %, and the application for support shall be accompanied by the official labels for hemp according to the technology of cultivation, for at least 10 days after blooming, so as the established controls should be carried out.

For tobacco: SAPS is of 50 €/ha, PNDC is of 2 euro/kg within the limits of the amount of 2000 €/h.

The tobacco will be delivered within a cultivation contract registered at the department of agriculture and rural development; the delivery of the tobacco from the producer to the first processor should be accomplished within the frame of the cultivation contract that was concluded, observing the following conditions:

- the cultivation contracts that were concluded are presented in order to be registered to MAPDR by DADR, no later than 10 working day from their signature date, except for the situations of force majeure.

- the contract shall have as annex the nominal list of the group or of the surfaces afferent to each, when the first processor concludes cultivation contracts with a group of processors;

- the groups of producers cannot practice the activity of first processing of the tobacco;

The Payment Scheme for Energetic Cultivations: SAPS is of 50 €/ha, PNCE is of 45 €/ha (the direct payment for energetic cultivations).

The energetic cultures are cultures which are particularly destined for obtaining energetic products (biofuels). The payment consists in granting a unitary amount per surface, for the energetic cultivations (rape, sunflower, soy and corn). The support is granted for a surface whose production represents the object of a contract concluded between the farmer and the processor.

The Payment Scheme for Sugar: PNDC is of 76 €/ha and consists of granting an amount per surface for the cultivation of sugar beetdestined for the production of sugar and isoglucose.

From the analysis of the genealogic registries, it results that the evaluation of bovines is of 7,5 ron/livestock unit (tender 80-120 ron/ livestock unit/year), and to ovine/caprine - 3,68 ron/livestock unit (milk- 5,18 ron/livestock unit, wool- 0,50 ron/livestock unit, skins- 1,0 ron/livestock unit, meat- 0,8 ron/livestock unit)

With an amount of 1.741.551 livestock units, Romania produces 3.025.000 tons of milk, out of which 1.093.000 tons are processed – 36%, direct sale- 1.964.000 tons – 64%. The number of milk cows for accomplishing the quota is of 826.216 livestock units – 47% and the number of milk cows for producing milk for own consumption and animals is of 915.335 livestock units – 53%.

CLUJ - 31.394 applications / 29.200 decisions
BIHOR - 32.074 applications/ 30.864 decisions
SATU-MARE - 24.426 applications/ 22.331 decisions
MARAMURES - 33.913 applications/ 31.405 decisions
BISTRITA-Neamt - 28.460 applications/ 27.221 decisions
SALAJ - 18.071 applications/ 16.681 decisions

A document on the basis of which the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) will be accessed, which represents a financing instrument set up by the European Union for supporting the Member States in implementing the Common Agricultural Policy and observes the strategic guiding lines of rural development of the European Union.

Axis and measures for the national program for rural development 2007 – 2013

Measure 125 Improving and developing the infrastructure for the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry sectors

Measure 212Support for the less favoured areas – others than the mountains area

Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging the diversification of rural economy

Measure 312 Support for diversifying towards non-agricultural activities and the setting up and development of micro-enterprises

Beneficiaries: Natural authorized persons, family associations and legal persons that function in the field of agriculture

Types of investments: Buildings, infrastructure, greenhouses, thermal stations, irrigation plants, new machines and equipment, specialized transportation means, setting up nursery gardens of vines and fruit trees, investments for producing and using renewable energy, setting up viticultural plantations, setting up fruit-growing plantations, general costs of the project

Financing: - the maximum threshold of the non-reimbursable public support 1.000.000 EURO and of 1.500.000 EURO for projects of investments for obtaining renewable energy.

Measure 123
Increasing the added value of the agricultural and forestry products

Beneficiaries: Natural authorized persons or legal persons registered as micro-enterprises, SMEs, and other enterprises

buildings, infrastructure, utilities and connection junctions, new equipment, laboratories, specialized means of transportation, fields
implementing the management systems of quality and of food safety
technologies (know-how)
patents and licenses for preparing the implementation of the project
general costs of the project
software purchase

Measure 322
Restoration, development of villages, improvement of the basic services for the economy and the rural population and the capitalization of the rural heritage.

Beneficiaries: Local councils and associations of the local councils a-d and NGOs: c-d, natural and legal persons, cultural and cult institutions: c

Director of the Department for EU structural funds negotiations, Ministry of the Regional Development of the Czech Republic, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to the EU Commission in Brussels

“Food Safety in the Czech Republic – the Experience of a New Member Country”

ish to thank the Rector of the University of Bulgaria for this chance; I would like to thank the President of the European Academy that I have the chance to give you a small part of the experience of the Czech Republic being a new member country. I think in many aspects we have similar position and we share very similar experience. My speech will be a short presentation that will focus on the EU common market very quickly. Then I will come back to the Czech Republic, I will compare the Czech Republic with Romania and then I will try to explain to you how we cope with the difficulties of food safety. Let’s start with the track slide which shows Europe. Europe is growing bigger and bigger and we can see that since the 1^st May 2004 our population grew from 380 million towards 450 million consumers. With the enlargement of 1st January 2007, which means with Romania and Bulgaria, we have already 480 million of consumers. We have a common market and we are doing our best to persuade the consumers that our food is good, tasted and safe.

We can consider many difficult periods of the European Union prior to 2004 and I can speak of the BSE crisis that destroyed the possibility of export of British beef to Europe. I can speak of the dioxin crisis that persuaded us that Food Safety is very important. The feedstuffs market is also a very important aspect of the Food Safety. The crisis in the main feedstuffs raw material gave the reason to establish the European Food Safety Authority, which is an extremely important institution. I will come back to this Institution later on in my presentation. We have also the issue that almost all countries import products that might be of interest for humans or animal health. These products enter the territory of the European Union for 480 million consumers. As Institutions and Institutes, EFSA and Rapid Alert System are very important.

There are 400 basic requirements for the success on the common market, if we want to produce and sell the products on the common market. The products must be of high quality, excellent products but also we must fulfil the national and EU legislation that means the Food Law and the registration of proper labelling and package and we must care about the consumers’ trust, which is even more difficult on the European market. And I should be frank; sometimes we forget how important it is to have the consumers´ trust that we constantly have to persuade the consumers that the products are excellent and safe. This information must have clear scientific basis. But for the consumer is not always easy to understand it, therefore we must send the information that is both scientific and easy to understand. We should keep in mind that people trust scientists. It is extremely difficult to gain their trust, you have to work every day to gain the consumers’ trust, and we can lose it in one second.

I will briefly mention the EU food law: it is the Council Regulation 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law that includes for the first time also the feedstuffs hygiene. Another important aspect is the fact that this regulation that establishes also the European Food Safety Authority, as well as the Rapid Alarm System for Food and Feed (RASFF).

This regulation pays also a great attention on the risk management independent on the risk assessment – which allows the scientifically based evaluation of food safety. I don’t want to give more details but I refer also to the so-called Hygiene Package – the set of legislation for the controls in this area.

Now I would like to explain how the Czech Republic coped with the food safety issues before the enlargement. In the year 2003 and at the beginning of the year 2004, the Czech Republic had the very difficult task of ensuring, after its past experience, the implementation of all the regulations in force in our slaughter houses, in our processing parts, in our dairies and in our poultry slaughter houses. From the beginning of 2004, some of those processing parts had to close. During our negotiations, we had 51 establishments that were in the so called transition period and they had to fulfil all the requirements within 2006 or to close. Now there is zero of closing of enterprises as they fulfil the requirements. We have other enterprises that according to the regulation that can only operate on the internal market of the Czech Republic, and they can’t sell their products in other European countries. Today we also have 820 enterprises in the transitional arrangements (2076/2005 regulation) that may operate on the internal market of the Czech Republic only. They can’t sell their products (marked with round rubber stamp) to other European countries. Out of the total 820 plants there are 126 slaughter houses, 224 cutting meat plants, 9 red meat freezing enterprises, 17 poultry slaughter houses, which have to improve hygiene standards by the year 2009, and otherwise they have to stop by the year 2009. Now they can operate only on the internal market of the Czech Republic. Now let me come to explain our experience with the European Union. It has not always been easy to persuade the European Commission about our difficulties to meet the food requirements but I believe that we will manage this difficult task.

Now let me come to present how the situation in the Czech Republic is and since we are not neighbour countries and I would like to compare the basic data of all countries. The Czech Republic is much smaller than Bulgaria is; it is one third of the total area and one half of inhabitants. The density of inhabitants is 131 inhabitants per square kilometres, in Romania it is 91 and I would like now to compare the figures that show now the imports of agriculture.

The Czech Republic has never been a typical agricultural country as we are more an industrial country, but agriculture of course is very important as a source of food stuffs. The share of agriculture on the GDP is lower compared to the one of Romania and the share of total employment is still much lower than the one in Romania. Here you can see the import of agriculture from Romania. I fully understand the forecast on the private production and I fully understand the financial questions and the importance to use human resources but I am sure that in a very short period we will be able to set our products on the Common Market.

Let’s continue with the main export partners. The Czech Republic changed their export partners after the enlargement. It has an essential change in the percentage of share of our export partners in the EU countries which was not the case before. Of course our main export partners are our neighbours, that means Slovakia, with which we have exchanged for so many years, so that is our partner no. one, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria.

Our main import partners are Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Austria, Hungary and most of the EU countries.

As to the structure of our processing industry, we are a traditional producer of sugar, sweets and bakery that is almost one quarter of our production. Meat is also very important; we are important consumers of pork and poultry. We have also a culture of the production of beverages, beers, Pils beer and Budweiser beer that have a large tradition over Europe. We also process fish and other products like fruits and vegetables the shares of which are much smaller in comparison to your country.

And now I would like to show you which is the organisation of controls that means food safety management in the Czech Republic. I will present you the basic institutions that control the fulfilment of Hygiene Standards for food in the Czech Republic. There are two institutions that are responsible for the certificate, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Impact on Health which is the Ministry of Health. I had worked at the Ministry of Agriculture for several years, and it is an honour for me to represent the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. This Ministry is responsible for agriculture, water management, forestry, food industry and fisheries which is a very small sector. We have a food authority that is a part of the Ministry of Agriculture and there are three departments: one is responsible for food safety, which means that it deals with risk assessment and risk communication; the other department is connected with food production and legislation and the third department is responsible for the communication of our control institutions.

Now I come to the control institutions. The first is the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. This control institution is very important and is responsible for all products of non animal origin, that means no meat and no milk, but all other products that are of other origin than of animal origin. This institution controls all the producers and it controls the shops that deal those products. It does not only control food safety, but also proper labelling and documentation of the products, it controls quality and detects deceptive practices of the enterprises. It also controls the conditions during the production, transport and sale.

The other very important institution is the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. It is a specialised body of the state administration established by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic and it is specialised in controlling feed stuffs which is an extremely important part and I remind you that food safety depends on the entire chain of food production: really from stable to table, and feeding is a very important part. It also controls the quality of wine.

Now we come to the third extremely important institution: it is the State Veterinary Administration. It has a very important role in controlling the food hygiene of all products of animal origin and they have an important role in the disease control, which is another part. They are committed to animal health, animal welfare and veterinary protection. I am only speaking about food safety control: they control the producers, the farmers, the cutting plants, the slaughterhouses and they control the entire production chain in the area of animal products.

The last part is the State Phytosanitary Administration. We can imagine that the protection of plants against harm insects or even organisms harmful for the whole food chain is very important. This department takes measures to survey systematically the territory, to carry out phytosanitary inspections, to diagnose diseases and pests of plants and plants products. It registers pesticides and other plant protection products.

It is absolutely necessary to have a very good communication across these four Institutions, the Ministry of Agriculture and with the farmers and producers. I have to say that in the Czech Republic we have this in many fields. In our country we have 35 per cent of cooperatives, 30 per percent of legal entities and 35 percent of typical family farms. The cooperatives take 2000 hectares, the average area of juridical persons is of 3-4000 hectares and a typical family farm has 100-200 hectares. So there are great differences and we must concentrate on the control.

The control is organised by the Ministry and there is another very difficult issue, which is coordination as to food safety. I spoke before about four Control Institutions, but there are also the Ministry of Agriculture, of course the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Trade and the one of Transport, the Ministry of Interior because if there is a quick crisis, it must interfere immediately.

We have also the State Office for Nuclear Safety, the Ministry of Justice and of Defence. Therefore all those institutions must share information on food safety and food control what is extremely important.

When I speak about food safety, I always say communication, communication and communication.

But we must also speak with the scientists because they know what is the priority to safe public health, because people trust the scientists, they do not trust the politicians. We must be on the side of the people and we must answer their questions. We have our scientific committees, we have five of them. And the experts of them try to discuss the issues of great importance. We have a veterinary scientific committee, a committee for animal nutrition, a committee for phytosanitary and environment, and we must control food and feed and that means also medicals and health protection.

Very briefly, we have veterinarians that meet and discuss the difficult questions, for instance the phthalates in the animal products, findings in slaughterhouses and they show their experience and they will find a common position.

The same is done by the scientific committee on phytosanitary and environment. You can see, they deal, for instance, with risk analysis; they also deal with the possibility of terrorist attacks on the food chain; they control allergens in cereals.

I wish to present you some examples of the work of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition. There are natural toxins in animal nutrition and infection diseases of animals. I can refer to genetically modified food and feed, in which cases the committee discusses the application of other countries of other products that are to be placed on the European Market. I have to add that the Czech Republic is more tolerant towards genetically modified food and feed.

The Scientific Committee on Food discusses, for instance, alimentary diseases or food supplements or they discuss the very difficult case of Enterobacter sakazzakii in infant dairy soft food.

So I have presented you very briefly the role of 5 scientific committees. They try to find scientific evidence for food safety or products. But to find evidence is not sufficient. You must discuss it and explain it to the consumers. You must also have the risk communication and you must involve all parts of the society, not only State Institutions, but also the people that would like to buy the products, to persuade housewives, to persuade non governmental organisations, that’s why we established the so-called food safety information centre. It is operated by an institute that is responsible to provide agricultural and food information. We have published web pages where everybody can find information. We also have a special hot-line, and the consumer can call if he has certain troubles. We organised seminars, lectures and we publish and print leaflets, we publish news and information on food safety and control committees. You kind find all important information. If you call the “Infopult”, your questions will be answered at once or if they are too difficult within three days. They try to find consultation of the Scientific Committees and if you are a consumer, if you are suspicious, they will give you an answer within three days.

There is a web page in English version and I perceive that these pages are very popular and used by our consumers. We also tried to discover what the consumer really thinks. The result of the public opinion pool, and the result of what the European consumer thinks, is that food safety is really unsure. 47 per cent of consumers find that food safety measures are appropriate, which a good result is. We see the result in the Czech Republic: they are more or less satisfied with the food safety information and control. And our public opinion poll discovered that the Czech consumers trust Czech products quite well, they like to bye Czech products and they prefer these products.

They main source of information is television, daily press and magazines, friends and radio.

They know how we try to control food safety, how we try to assess the risky food products, how we coordinate the difficult task.

I wish Romania good luck and good success in processing products of high quality, of excellent quality, and good success on the Common EU market. Thank you.

Head of Safety and Control of Raw Materials and Food of Animal Origin, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply, Bulgaria

My presentation will treat food safety in Bulgaria and food and feed control issues.

On this first slide you can see the global approach toward food safety . The basic principles in the food safety policy are the traceability of products at all stages of the food chain and the detailed approach for the control of the whole food chain. There must be a clear definition of the role of all units of the food chain, such as producers, traders, carters, farmers, food business operators, workers and relevant associations.

It is important to assure the traceability of feed, feed components, raw materials, food stuffs and their ingredients.

Therefore there is the importance of plant and animal welfare controls related to the pharmacy, the biological and environmental requirements, risk assessment and know-how. But the basic principle is that the producers are responsible for the product safety and they have now more freedom to control the processes.

However in Bulgaria, there is risk analysis, risk assessment, organisation for prevention and risk communication, applying preventive measures for the prevention of risk deriving from contamination.

In Bulgaria, the official controls are the veterinary controls, that control products of animal origin, the protection of public health and the control of products of non animal origin, grain and feed. The consumer is to received by the competent authority for information on safety of food stuff. The National Council on Food Safety has been established within the Council of Ministers to coordinate the State policy with respect to food safety and to carry out the risk management. This Council is directed by one deputy minister of agriculture, one minister of economics, the President of the Bulgarian association of food and drink industry ( This association represents the old association of food and drink), and one representative of the consumers’ protection association. These are the members of the National Food Safety Council. The Council is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Health and by the deputy minister of agriculture in charge for six months each. The next Council is for coordination and control. It is established under the National Food Safety Council to ensure the efficient and effective coordination and operation to perform official controls. The Council for coordination and control is chaired by the National Food Safety and the members are the Chief State Health inspector under the Ministry of Health, the Chief State Veterinary Sanitary inspector under the Ministry of Agriculture, the Director of the General and National plant protection service under the Ministry of Agriculture, the Director General of the National Grain and Feed Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Director of the Consumer Agency and the Director of the National water Policy. The basic function of this important coordination and control council is to control and coordinate that the regulations, at all manufacturing stages, enter into force including the regional direct line. You can see, the Regional Control Authority which this Control Council manages, includes the joined inspection on regional level of the plant protection, animal and non animal products with the regional veterinary services. This council exchanges information on control independently of the policy of the State Health Control and State Veterinary Sanitary .

The Export Council is for risk assessment. It is established by the Ministry of Health and this Council is responsible for the function related to risk assessment. The export council is basically a scientific committee and panels of working groups. The representatives of the export council take part in an advisory forum of the European Food Safety Authority.

The main activities of all these councils are the training, prevention, quality control as a result of the Food Safety System, rapid risk assessment, traceability system of animal products.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply and of Health are responsible of the Food Safety control system. The Ministry of Health has on National level 28 regional inspectors, they are responsible for the protection and control of public health and of non animal products. But the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply has the Food Safety Directorate which coordinates the National Veterinary Service, the National Service for Plant Protection and Feed Control. The safety control of the Feed Directorate is established under the Council of Ministers. Their main responsibility is to develop the food safety strategy in Bulgaria, coordination and control of the competent authority within the Ministry, training of the Control Authority within the Ministry, preparation of national policy, collection and coordination of the information between both the Ministries.

In our Directorate there are four departments: the department which is responsible for products of animal origin (this is my department), the department for feed, the department for GMO and Control Units. The Experts of the Safety and Control of Food and Feed Directorate within MAFS are conducting audits and verifications of the official control authorities in accordance with the Regulation 882/2004/EC and Commission Decision 677 regarding the Statutory Regulations of MAFS and SCFFD that are responsible for the performance of internal and external audits with the purpose to verify the National Veterinary Service and the NGFS control activities in the area of food and feed safety.

As to our legislation, we have the Framework legislation, the special legislations and the ordinances: as you can see, we have the law on food, veterinary activities, feed law, law on plant protection, law on genetically modified organisms and ordinances. The European Regulations and Decisions are directly applicable in Bulgaria. The Directives are harmonised in ordinances.

Now, I explain you the system of the National Veterinary Service. This service is responsible for the official control of animal health, we have 27 regional services, subdivisions with official veterinarians and inspectors. The veterinary public health directorate manages, organises and coordinates veterinary public health. When it is necessary, it performs independent or joint inspections in the field of safety of food of animal origin and verification of the establishments of production or trading of products of animal origin. The total number of the staff of the Veterinary Public Health is 711 . This is an expert staff. The total number of the official veterinarians in Veterinary Public Health is 650.

The inspections of the establishments regard firstly the implementation of the HACCP system, the second is the traceability system available which includes accepting of animals for slaughtering and or incoming raw materials and food ready to eat. Then, if the requirements of health and identification marks the national and EU market are satisfied.

Forth, separate storage, marketing and traceability of raw materials and food imported from third countries which are not approved to be imported to the EU. Last, if the requirements of the strategy for upgrading the quality of raw cow milk and separately purchasing and processing of compliant and non compliant milk are satisfied.

The Directors of the Regional Veterinary Service authorise the official veterinarians for auditing of HACCP system. The official veterinarians assigned by an order have completed different trainings for auditing of HACCP system at regional and national level and most of these trainings are under joint projects under Phare or with other member states. The frequency of these audits per establishment are from 1 to 5 per year. Within January of this year there have been 518 audits.

There is a National register of establishments developed in accordance to the modes of the registers of the member states and it is presented on the web site of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply of Bulgaria.

The Ministry has developed and published a guidance for inspection and questionnaires for performing inspections of enterprises and audits of the HACCP system.

The National Veterinary Service has developed instructions for the veterinary inspections.

As to the coordination between the intergovernmental and control bodies, the MAFS in Bulgaria works together with all stakeholders involved in food safety: the National Veterinary Service, the Ministry of Health, MEE, NGFS, NPPS, consumers, etc. In particular, they coordinate, discuss, suggest, they take the decisions on the problematic complaints and signals.

The last point, as to the implementation of the Food Safety Policy: we implemented projects under the Phare program of the European Union “Strengthening Food Safety Policy” and “Transposition and implementation of the environmental Acquis on GMOs at national level”, and the food safety training coordination and support centre (Dutch-Bulgarian project) were very helpful and useful.

University La Tuscia of Viterbo and Jean Monnet Excellence Centre (Italy)

There are three Regulations, n. 852, n. 853 and n. 854/2004 belonging to European Community legislation on the subject of food product hygiene.

These represent the group of legal acts, proposed by the European Commission, which deal with the hygienic requirements of food products. These bring about a systematic approach to hygiene during food production, as a fundamental aspect of their safety.

The first Regulation, n. 852/2004, deals with food hygiene, the second, n. 853/2004 is especially about food of animal origin whilst the third, n. 854, regards the organisation of official controls concerning products of animal origin intended for human consumption. In addition to these is Regulation n. 183/2005 regarding fodder hygiene.

Let’s focus on Regulation n. 852/2004 due to the fact that it is of general importance and because it is applied to products of vegetable origin, given Egypt’s particular interest in the exportation of fruit and vegetables to Europe. This Regulation annuls and substitutes Directive n. 43 issued in 1993.

The Directive issued in order to guarantee the wholesomeness of products foresaw the implementation of hygiene regulations throughout all phases of preparation, transformation, processing, packaging, storage, transport, distribution, handling and sales or the supply to the final consumer; and it also foresaw the need for hygiene regulations to be based on analyses, control and risk evaluation by means of the Haccp system (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points).

The first deals with the type of legal act adopted or rather the adoption of a “regulation” instead of a directive, that is the adoption of a legal act which can be directly implemented throughout all State Members and therefore it can guarantee a uniform implementation throughout the entire European Union territory. The State Members only have the duty of anticipating sanctions should community regulations be violated.

The second innovation concerns the extension of the field of application regarding the discipline of food product hygiene, also including the so-called “primary sector”; whilst with the Directive the expected measures included only the phases following the primary application.

As for primary production, according to the definition given in Art. 3 of Regulation n.178/2002 (on food safety) one refers to “the phases of production, farming, the cultivation of primary products, including harvesting, milking and zootechnical production prior to butchery, including hunting, fishing and the harvesting of wild products”.

Rules which are applied to primary production are contained in enclosure I, part A, point 1 of Regulation n. 852.

- Associated operations, or rather: the transport, storage and handling of primary products on the production site, on the condition that this does not significantly alter their aspect;

- The transport of live animals, where necessary in order to carry out the objectives stated in the Regulation;

- As regards vegetable products and those coming from fishing and hunting activities: the transport operations for the delivery of primary products, the aspect of which has not yet been significantly modified.

Therefore by concentrating on products of a vegetable origin, these become part of the primary production: the production and the cultivation of cereals, fruit, market-garden produce, herbs and fungi; the harvesting of wild products such as fungi and berries, their transport, storage and handling without substantial alteration of their nature, within the Commercial farm and their subsequent transport to a factory.

We have highlighted that within the primary production sector; the primary products may be transported, stored and handled on the condition that these procedures do not substantially alter their aspect (Enc. I, part. A, point I.1.a). Under this profile the operations intended to improve product presentation such as the washing and defoliation of fruit and vegetables, the selection of fruit, the desiccation of cereals are all considered to be normal operations which do not require the observation of food safety regulations apart from those regarding primary production.

In primary production, according to Enclosure I (in particular point 5 deals with vegetable products), the main hygiene risks are caused by air, soil, water, fodder, fertiliser, phytosanitary product and pesticide contaminations, by the lack of hygiene within the industrial plants or transport containers, by contact with animals or insects or due to the use of contaminated water, by the non-observation of sanitary regulations on behalf of the staff or problems caused by bad management of refuse on behalf of the company itself, etc.

As regards the implementation of hygienic regulations, correct operative practice manuals are used. These are practical guides, tools of a voluntary aspect.

The manuals have been elaborated by the food industry in collaboration with the consumer’s association, taking into account the relative Codex Alimentarius guidelines (Food Safety Commission) or carried out under the guidance of one of the national standardisation authorities (in Italy there is UNI).

The evaluation of the suitability of the manuals is the duty of the Member States which once they have considered them to be appropriate, they send them to the European Commission which registers them and subsequently puts them at the disposal of the other States.

Such manuals indicate: the field of application, definitions and instructions; they take into consideration the premises (the description of the structures, pest control procedures and maintenance etc.); the equipment and the instruments (cleansing and maintenance procedures); the production phase (the entire productive and distribution cycles); the staff (personal hygiene and training); guidelines for the drafting of process control system plans (group structure, descriptions of process phases, identification of danger); risk analysis as well as the identification of critical points, corrective actions and inspection procedures. So, in Italy, we have the manual regarding the fruit and vegetable-citrus fruit sector and for the processing and packaging centres of fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, etc.

Regulation n. 852 foresees that manuals may also be elaborated at a community level, the validity of which is pronounced by the permanent food chain and animal health Committee, which is an auxiliary body belonging to EFSA – the European Authority for Food Safety, Art. 58 Regulation n. 178/02.

The Committee, upon invitation by the European Commission periodically checks the validity of the manuals in the light of technological and scientific developments.

In enclosure 1, part B of Regulation n. 852 indications are given regarding information that the manuals must contain dealing with possible hazards caused during primary production, actions associated with these and activities to be carried out in order to control such hazards (e.g. control of microtoxin contamination, the correct usage of water, etc.).

Operations deriving or not from primary production, the transformation of products within the commercial farm (such as fruit juice extraction) are not included amongst primary production activities and so as regards these, hygiene regulations as of Enc. II of the Regulation are implemented and, as concerns food products deriving from animal origins, also the legislation contained in Regulation n. 853/2004 is applied.

Other operations, even if they are carried out in the commercial farm, may alter the products and/or cause new risks for the food product, such as the peeling of potatoes, the slicing of carrots, the packaging of salads as well as the addition of preserving gases. Such operations cannot be considered normal operations at a primary production level, according to the indications given by the Guidance Document on the implementation of Regulation n. 852 regarding the European Commission Department of Health and Consumer Protection (21^st December 2005).

The operations of peeling, cutting, cleaning and packaging in plastic containers or closed bags of fresh and raw fruit and vegetable products intended for the final consumer are closely linked to the primary production sector, due to the fact that the product is not transformed, but is characterised by such, and these operations are carried out by the food industries, which are part of the “food enterprises” according to Regulations n. 852 and n.178/2002. To these operations the rules of hygiene contained in Enc. II of the Regulation are applied. In such cases the contaminating sources may refer to microbial agents, fungi, etc.

Both in primary production and in subsequent activities, so as to apply the community legislation on the theme of hygiene, it is sufficient to carry out one of the phases of the foreseen activities in order to be considered a food-producing enterprise.

The food enterprise is defined by Art. 3, n. 2 of Regulation n. 178/02 as any public or private entity, profit-making or not, which carried out any activity whatsoever connected to one of the phases of production, transformation and distribution of food products.

From the reading of such legislation, one evinces that it must be an enterprise, a concept which implies a certain continuity of the activities and a certain degree of organisation, and so for this reason, as of the consideration 9) of the Regulation, private individuals who occasionally handle, prepare, preserve and distribute food products within the food-producing enterprises are excluded.

Within the food-producing enterprise, the control functions are carried out by the food sector operator which is the individual or legal entity responsible for guaranteeing the respect of such legislation.

Both the farm managers and those involved in phases not linked with the primary activity itself must therefore carry out the risk evaluation and control. Hygiene rules must be both respected and applied to the entire food chain in order to guarantee the safety of food but it occurs, as already mentioned, in a different way as regards the primary activities with respects to those which are carried out subsequently.

In fact, Art. 5 of Reg. n. 52 exonerates the commercial farms and all the primary production from the compulsory implementation of the Haccp system (the process control system based on the risk evaluation and analysis). Therefore the operators involved in the primary phase must imperatively apply only the rules mentioned in Enc. I of the Regulation, part A) n. 1.

As for the operators, it is compulsory for them to keep a register of the measures taken in order to limit the food risks and to put all information contained in these at the disposal of the other operators and competent authorities; they also have the duty to notify the plants which they are in charge of.

In short, hygiene regulations must be implemented by “all operators belonging to the food sector”. Those which carry out primary production activities and production phases associated with these, must respect the hygiene regulations contained in Enc. I of the Regulation. They are exonerated from attaining to the Haccp system or rather from:

Finally, we must highlight that the rigour of the hygiene regulations which we have illustrated, is weakened by the presence of instructions in the text using terms such as “wherever necessary”, “wherever it is considered to be opportune” or “sufficient”. Therefore, as of Art. 4, the food sector operators adopt specific hygienic measures only if necessary such as those relating to the respect of microbiological criteria, sampling and analysis as well as that regarding the requirements stated by the control of food temperature, etc.

This means that it is the duty of the food sector operator to establish whether a regulation is necessary or adequate or sufficient in order to achieve the objectives mentioned in the Regulation and in doing so he must take into account the aspect of the food product and he must justify the choice made. Such justification must result from the documentation which each operator must prepare.

In this evaluation, it is actually the manuals illustrating the correct operative procedure which are of fundamental importance so as to indicate which is the best procedure for the operator to carry out in order to avoid risks at a production level and, at the same time, respecting Haccp principles.

Hygiene regulations are also applied, as is common knowledge, to products coming from Third-party countries which are destined for the European market. As regards these, the possibility that they have been obtained according to the equivalent hygienic regulations is accepted (Art. 10 of Regulation n. 852 which refers to Art. 11 of Regulation n. 178/02 ). Letter e) of Art. 2 of the Regulation states that for “equivalent” and with reference to different systems this must mean “capable of achieving the same objectives set by the Regulation”.

Art. 10 of Regulation n. 852 must be read interrelated with Art. 11 of Regulation n. 178/02 according to which only the products which result as being in conformity with community provisions can be launched onto the European market. In case of other provisions being applied then these should however guarantee characteristics which are “at least equivalent” to those stated by the community discipline, recognised as such by the European Community, or that result as being the fruit of a specific agreement between the Community and the exporting Country. In this latter case the actual possibility of derogation from community standards cannot however be arranged.

The food operators’ responsibility is disciplined by Art. 19, Regulation n. 178/02.

We wish to conclude with a summary of the normative references on the subject of hygiene, taking into account all that is expressly contained in the Department of Health and Consumer Protection’s Document-guide of the Commission dated 5.1.06 on “Fundamental questions relating to importation requirements and new food hygiene rules and controls”.

With specific reference to products of vegetable origins, the hygienic requirements requested are mentioned in Arts. 3-6 of Regulation n. 852/04.

a) a general obligation of guaranteeing that all food production, transformation and usage phases under their control satisfies the prescribed hygiene requirements as of Art 3;

b) requirements foreseen in part a), Enc. I of the Regulation as of Art. 4, p. 1, during primary production and associated operations,

c) requirements for phases subsequent to primary activities foreseen by Enc. II of the Regulation, as of Art. 4, p. 2;

d) microbiological requirements for certain products as of Art. 4, p. 3 (Reg. 2073/2005);

Apart from requirements which have already been described, products of a vegetable origin must also respect phytosanitary requirements.

With reference to importation procedures, it is the importer’s duty to ensure conformity with the requirements stated by the regulations as well as recognised equivalent Community conditions.

Food products of a vegetable origin can be subject to controls carried out by the competent authority as in Art. 15, § 1, Regulation n. 882/04. Such controls must be carried out in conformity with the national laws of the different Member States. This may take place upon entry, free practice (or rather upon free circulation), upon reception of importation permits, at the retail market, etc.

Regulation n. 183/05 completes the system, ordering primary fodder production operators to respect the regulations of Enc. 1 of the Regulation and all the other operators of the sector to respect the Haccp procedure.

Consumer’s protection in the food safety system. Consumption of food stuffs in the enlargement countries in relation to the community acquis

In the context of the economic development, the consumer’s figure reveals itself as an expressive synthesis that is useful to represent not only the abstract part of a contractual relationship around which turns the demand and that has as an opposing party that one that provides goods or services, yet it has the benefit of expressing a body of interests that conditions the legislative iter accompanying the building of a unique European market.

If in addition to that, one assumes that the food law takes shape as a body of legal rules of national origin, as well as communitarian and international, having the aim of protecting the food stuffs consumer and one becomes aware that the entire legal system related to the food safety was born, it was based and it was developed on the general principle of the consumer’s protection and of his health’s protection, it is possible to understand the utility of focusing on the reasons that represent the basis of the speciality of food stuffs consumer notion within the area of the general phenomenon of consumer’s protection.

In fact, in the light of a general scenario that was developed on the argument of the constant reference to the “weak” contractor of the trade, in the capacity of agent in relation to a contract having aims that do not fit into the business activity or in the professional activity, in the communitarian background, a normative process that led or is leading to the definition of legal rules of “protection” was developed and it influences the qualifying moment of the final markets structure by means of the consumption act discipline. At a general level, it is possible to highlight by means of normative interventions, as well as by legal judgments, a constant reference to the body of the interests that are legally relevant afferent to the consumer’ area that influences a lot the market rules, as well as the contractual rules. However, it is necessary to underline that on the legal definition of the notion of consumer, the interpreters usually bring back the theoretical justification of a legal system that is moreover an expression of the weak contractor, where the so-called weakness of the consumer is to be found under the contractual profile in which any person can find itself concerning certain aspects and in respect to certain opposing parties. In other terms, the definition of the consumer is mainly determined with regard to the contractual moment, meaning its qualification, it is useful to underline, is subjectively oriented, meaning that it does not correspond to the structural characteristics of the person, yet it is originated in his position in the dynamic of the parties of the legal relationship (professional and consumer), which reveals the deserving interests of protection in the game of values.

In the light of an approach to the discipline of consumer’s protection out of which it comes out a complex and fluent normative background that is a synthesis of a plurality of normative sources, as well as the different centres of interests that are legally relevant, public or private, individual or collective, it is useful to highlight the peculiarity of the norms intended for the food consumer’s protection since the fulcrum around it grew bigger and the entire normative system of food safety developed. Under a different aspect, if one is aware of the food stuffs to which the food safety law refers and the guiding lines relate to this latter that defines the terms of the consumer’s protection (with regard to the informing process, to advertising, to the safety of the product), then we have to highlight the importance of the goods (the food) within the definition of the legal profiles that determine the consumer’s protection within the system of food safety.

By saying that, we do not wish to anticipate a profile of the argument, but rather to opportunely highlight the direction of the survey that seems to have to move in this subject from the product to the subject within the delimitation of the interests at stake, and of the obligations of the private and public entities. In fact, finding out that the common factor that determines that stimulus of the process that led in our organisation to the explicit acknowledgment of the consumer’s rights and of the user at their direct protection is represented by the activity carried out by the communitarian institutions by means of a constant assessment of the consumer within the background of the market and regarding the trade, thus defining a particular connection which ties consumer-contract-market, with regard to food law seems to have to be highlighted that the subject reflects a protection discipline, that, as one can see, operates in a direct way with respect to the goods, meaning the food stuffs, being the centre of interests that is legally relevant. One adopts, in this way, the utility to confront, not only the notion of tout court consumer generally extended to any trade with that restriction to food stuffs consumption, but equally, especially this last perspective of relevance of the notion of “person” and not of individual-consumer, in the market in the definition of the interests themselves. If it is like this, a correct approach of the matter leads to widen the optic of the same interests involved and, moreover, to confront indices that cannot appear to be comparable, nor leading to the common denominator of the legal dimension of the persons, essentially assessable according to the category of being, the identified criteria of the market, measurable, instead, in the logic of the subject- agent, of the res, and in general of having.

The reconstruction of the consumer’s protection in the light of the communitarian normative evolution

Without being able to retrace every stage of the itinerary that led to the centrality of the consumers’ politics in the European background, it is useful to highlight the stages that are mainly relevant distinguishing an iter by no means finished.

The Treaty of Rome, as it is known, does not mention the consumer; this finds confirmation in the fact that the first stage of the communitarian discipline was more focused on the building of a unique European market for facilitating the trade between the Member States without weighing too much with its own rules on the internal normative systems. In other terms, the initial objective should have been focused on the pursuit of competitive finalities taking away the technical and juridical barriers the impeded, or obstructed, the movement of goods, as well as of persons and capital, and contextually facing toward the anti-competitive agreements.

The uniformity of the norms of the different Member States was mainly reached by means of the actions undertaken by the Court of Justice – rather than the normative process – and, in particular, establishing judgments on the joint provisions of art. 30 and art. 36 through which the communitarian judges passed judgment that the diversity of the technical disciplines concerning agricultural products of each country, in consideration of their legal product denomination, couldn’t be invoked to impede or encumber the free movement of goods coming from the Member States. The Cassis de Dijon case lawfulfilled the objective of encouraging the movement of goods through the mutual acknowledgment of each Member State of the product and of the related technical disciplines, yet not succeeding in harmonizing uniformly the entire system of rules influencing each system of each national market.

It is with the Single European Act of 1986 that it is reached a deep intervention of the same objectives of the Community. In fact, the definition of an economic politics intended for the identification of the building of a unique market that coincides with the entire territory of the European Union led, in the light of a slow and progressive alternation of the single internal markets to encourage the structuring of a complex normative system intended to equalize the legal discipline of each Member State. In such a historical moment, the protection of the consumers’ interests becomes increasingly relevant turning into an aim of the communitarian politics (it was hoped for, in fact, a high level of protection to concede to costumers)is a constant benchmark for the legislator as a means of ensuring a correct and transparent functioning of the market. In the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992, it is expressly mentioned the consumers’ protection, which is raised at the level of communitarian “politics”. Subsequently, with the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 and, finally, the Treaty of Nice of 2002, in addition to confirm a high level of the consumers’ protection, as an explicit objective of the communitarian politics, the institutions of the European Union undertake to take into account the exigencies concerning the consumers’ protection in the definition of the different activities. In this way, the consumer’s protection gradually becomes acting- out not only of a single autonomous politics, but rather of a finality institutionally followed at a general level. In the end, it is then useful to make reference in the normative reconnaissance of the consumer to the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union of December 7th 2000 (art. 38), as well as to the present “draft” of the European Constitution. (art. II-98).

If one carefully looks into it, the above-mentioned evolutionary stages synthesize a complex itinerary that led to the definition of centrality of the European politics of the consumers’ protection that determined a general approach, which was no longer focused on considering this latter as a weak contractor, but rather as a fundamental subject of the dynamics of the market, not only capable of interfering with the demand, but rather as a legal subject reflected by expressed and profound interests. In these terms, a system of consumers’ protection was followed, one that would be capable of involving each and any subject of the market by virtue of the rules able to grant the movement of safe products in relation with predefined measures that are equal and homogeneous for the safety and protection of goods, and by virtue of a dialectics between the consumer and the producer that developed in the definition of the contractual norms based on the principles of correctness and good faith, on the information and transparency of the trade, as well on forms of protection based on a successive remedy of the damage, rather than preventive and diffused.

In this perspective, the consumer’s protection was developed, being capable ofinvolving each and every profile of the market, like the subjects, the products and the legal instruments of the movement of goods, that is the contract through which goods and services, but in the same way, also the same means of communication and information, as well as the techniques of protection and risk prevention. In these terms, one should believe that the consumer’s protection does not assume as a cause, but rather as a mere effect of the imposing process of approach towards the objectives determined by the Treaty; the protection of the subject assumed, in fact, the immediate objective for the fulfilment of a competitive market, and which, therefore, continuously, requires the protection this latter, to adjust the protection to new and different requests demanded by virtue of its own evolution.

Concerning the normative technique of the communitarian legislator, we should highlight how this latter is developed into compartments, that is, yet following the same finalities, was mainly directed to discipline each sector, and therefore, concerning goods or services, where, as it can be seen, the centre of the consumer’s interests was long time ago identified in relation to the protection of the subject’s health and safety.

“The Green Paper” concerning the revision of the acquis communautaire on the consumers’ protection.

The issues set forth above will be confirmed further on in the recent “Green Paper” presented by the European Commission with respect to the revision of the acquis communautaire related to the consumers’ politics, by means of which the Commission proceeded to the revision with the purpose of fulfilling better its objectives in the field simplifying and completing the existing normative background. The revision, which mainly concern eight different directives oriented to protect the consumers, intends to fulfil an efficient internal market of the consumers that could obtain the appropriate balance between a high level of protection of the consumers and the competitiveness of companies, ensuring at the same time a strong observance of the subsidiarity principle.

For this purpose, it is useful to highlight that the Green Paper does not represent an isolated act of the communitarian politics, but it has to be placed in the evolutionary iter above-mentioned in the perspective of the most recent development of the consumers’ protection in action for a long time, its objectives are set forth in the most recent Communication of the European Parliament concerning the strategy for the consumers’ politics for the time frame between 2007 and 2013.

The content of the communication highlights a double order of problematic afferent to the general European politics of consumer’s protection. In fact, most of the directives which are a part of the acquis have got prescriptive character rather than a character of principle, and the majority of these latter do not seem to be fully appropriate for the requests of the daily markets that are in an increasingly rapid evolution. In addition to that, the Communication underlines how it has been possible to assist the fragmentation of the normative system for a long time: in fact, the present directives on the consumers’ protection, which are reviewed, are based on a minimum harmonization, that is they contain clauses in virtue of which the Member States have the capacity to dispose of higher levels of protection than those set forth by the directives and many Member States used this possibility to ensure a high level of consumers’ protection. Secondly, many issues are regulated in an incoherent way between several directives and they were left open. From here, the attempt of the communitarian legislator emerges to settle the problem following the itinerary of revision of the acquis concerning the consumer with the aim of reaching a complete harmonization. This involves the fact that any of the Member States could apply the more rigorous rules than those established at a communitarian level. A complete harmonization would not imply only the abrogation of the clauses of minimum harmonization, but it would also require the removal of the normative options on specific aspects enjoyed by the Member States in virtue of certain dispositions of the directives, meaning that it could modify the level of consumers’ protection in some Member States. Otherwise, another different option being aimed at, could consist in order to reach this end, in the combination of a minimum harmonization with a clause of mutual acknowledgment, on the basis of which the Member States would maintain the possibility of introducing more rigorous rules on the consumers’ protection in their national legislation, but they would not have the right to impose their most rigorous requirements to the companies set up in other Member States according to the modalities that would create more unjustified restrictions on the free movement of goods or on the freedom of providing services. In the end, a last option underlined in the Communication would consist of a minimum harmonization eventually combined with the approach of an origin country. This combination would involve a that Member State should maintain the possibility to introduce more rigorous rules on the consumers’ protection within their own national legislation, but that the companies set up in other Member States are bound to observe the rules that are applied in the country where they are set up.

Looking into it, without entering the merit of the three orientations to be followed and underlining that only through a complete harmonization it would be possible to reach the simplification and the rationalisation of the entire normative context that involves the consumption of food stuffs or of services in many Member States, this touches the reader noticing the terms expressed by the Communication is the constant reference to the reaching of trust of the consumer by means of the pursuit of safety (of the product) of a high level of informing and ensuring an efficient application of the normative writs through direct measures intended for guaranteeing the observance of the norms and of the means of resort. This is not meant for bringing about amazement, because the reference to “trust” of the consumer represents a standing preoccupation for the communitarian legislator that synthesizes the importance of the subject-consumer in the market area as a key of advantaged reading of the reliance of the market subjects and significantly in its subjects, products or services and legal instruments of exchange, as well as, obviously, in each communitarian institution.

The progressive evolution of the communitarian politics in the field of food safety in the light of the consumers’ interests.

One cannot doubt how this kind of assumptions are also well adjusted to the primary products, where however, looking into it, the consideration of food by the communitarian and national legislator, as well as of the particular and natural relationship of dependence that exists in this latter and the man seems to have extended the web of contents of the food products protection. In fact, in the light of the food movement guaranteed by the “mutual acknowledgment”, with the passing of time, the areas of protection focused on the damage prevention became important, especially by means of control mechanisms on the undertaking of production on the entire productive chain, but also in relation with the communication of information concerning the product, as well as with determined levels of quality intrinsic to the product expressed by appropriate collective marks. For this purpose, it is then possible to underline how, under a normative profile, the e