1

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO audits on food contaminants and undesirable substances in feed carried out in Member States Revision of its main function to guarantee that the EU legislation is implemented in the proper way 2

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Content Introduction on FVO’s role FVO audits on contaminants: - Feed - Food Follow-up procedures 3

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Food Veterinary Office (FVO) Mission The FVO carries out audits, inspections and related non-audit activities to ensure that EU legislation on food safety, animal health, animal welfare, plant health is properly implemented and enforced. The main target is the verification of the “SYSTEM” not of individual premises in the implementation of the EU rules 4

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO deliverables Overview reports Summary of a series of audits conducted in certain sector. This provides information to all stakeholders and contributes to the development of legislation Annual Reports Indication both for Member States and non-EU countries on the compliances and non-compliances with the EU regulation Audit reports Information on the outcome of FVO Audits in Member States 5

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Written audit reports - Last 5 Reports CountryAudit number Title Croatia Poultry meat and products derived therefrom Germany Primary production China Microbiological contamination in seeds for human consumption Spain Evaluation of the use of the TRACES system Ireland Evaluation of the national procedures in place to verify the effectiveness of the import control system 6

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Who decides which countries to visit? Publication of a work program (WP). WP produced after consultation with other Commission services and MS. Prioritisation of visits on the basis of risk and trade factors and status of legislation WP provides a balance between MS and non-EU countries 7

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency 8 WP

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency What happens during an FVO Audit? FVO team organizes an Audit programme with visits to the Control Authority, Regional and Local authorities, laboratories and site visits (farms, processors, feed units, slaughterhouses and retailers). The acquired information on compliances and non-compliances is gathered in a document reporting the findings and recommendations. 9

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency What if the audit identifies deficiencies? Recommendations are provided to assist the Competent Authorities in taking corrective measures. If non-compliances are sufficiently serious, stronger actions may be taken by EU in agreement with MS, including: - legal action, restrictions or even bans on the movement of goods or animals. 10

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency What else does the FVO do? Overview reports are discussed with stakeholders to help the implementation, or may help in the production of new legislation. Overview reports may also be used in training sessions, mainly in the framework of the BTSF (Better Training for Safer Food). 11

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Non-audit activities Support Third Countries’ requests BIP’s facilities’ technical evaluation EUROPHYT notification system The FVO also chairs two separate Networks on: Preparation, implementation and reporting of national MANCPs Implementation of national audit systems on official control activities. 12

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO audits on contaminants 13

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Ok with contaminants regulations FOOD/FEED Legal basis: R. 882/2004 Member State FBO’s own checks Foodstuffs/ Feeds Official control NCP Internal market BIPs FVO 14

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency EU Legislation on contaminants and undesirable substances R. 315/93, 1881/2006, Dir 2002/32 (feed), R. 574/2011 (feed) Framework and MLs R. 401/2006, 1882/2006, 333/2007, 489/2014, 152/2009 (feed) Sampling and analysis Different contaminants and undesirable substances COM Recommendations 15

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Specific audits on contaminants FEED 2012 Latvia, Slovakia, Sweden, Checz Republic, Italy 2013 Austria, Finland, Estonia, Holland, Denmark, France, Poland, Belgium, Spain 2014 UK 16

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FEED) The system of official controls cannot always ensure that operators along the feed chain identify hazards and manage properly the associated risks, since: Not all the risks affecting feed safety are considered when prioritising official controls, It fails to detect shortcomings as regards identification of hazards linked to incoming material or processes during handling of feed, Cannot guarantee that the measures that operators put in place to minimise cross-contamination with veterinary medicine products are effective. 17

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FEED)  There is a system of official controls in place which includes inspection of establishments and taking of samples  Progress in training, follow-up activities of non-compliances and the availability of lists of registered and approved establishments  Weaknesses due to incomplete registration of all feed operators  Very long turnaround times of the laboratories for reporting results of test on feed samples are very long which affects to the effectiveness of the official sampling 18

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FEED)  The requirements for a system for official control are largely complied with, and significant progress has been made regarding the factoring in the reliability of operator’s own-checks when carrying out official controls  There are still gaps in the registration process (food establishments placing their products or co-products in the feed chain are not registered as feed operators)  Deficiencies on requirements along the feed chain, notably concerning:  Feed materials originating in other MSs,  Compliance with the requirements for HACCP-based procedures (still weaknesses in the design and implementation-not all the relevant risks are adequately managed by feed operators). 19

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Specific audits on contaminants FOOD 2012 Hungary, Sweden, Poland, Denmark 2013 Bulgaria, France, Slovakia, Germany, Portugal, Spain 2014 Romania, Estonia 20

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FOOD) The majority of the MS have annual sampling and inspection programmes, covering the: major contaminant groups listed in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 and, also, some non EU-regulated contaminants. Some MS could not demonstrate how: risk assessment was used in sample planning; the number of samples was determined. 21

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FOOD) In most MS the effectiveness of the official controls of food contaminants was hampered due to insufficient specific training, guidance and instructions, as well as insufficient supervision of official control staff. There is a lack of: - official controls at primary production level - adequate training on food contaminant control - sampling equipment - sampling instructions for inspectors 22

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FOOD) In most MS, assessment by the CAs of Food business operators' HACCP- based systems were deficient. The risks arising from the chemical contaminants during production and storage were not always taken into account 23

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Main findings (FOOD) All MS have established a laboratory network for official analysis of food contaminants. However, some deficiencies undermine the reliability of the laboratory results: -inadequate sample quantities accepted for laboratory analysis; -lack of documented control procedures; -non-compliance with EU method performance criteria; -reporting of results not in line with EU requirements (recovery). 24

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Examples good practice!!!  Two MSs, foreseen that a part of the sampling capacity earmarked for sampling in case of alerts  Six MSs, targeted turnaround times were defined and respected - deadlines for the delivery of the laboratory results were met  Two MSs, guides on the planning and prioritisation of official controls which included contaminant issues as a risk factor  One MS, guide on contaminants controls developed to correct shortcomings during audits (mills, bakeries) 25

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Next phases of the series Completion of the series in 2014 with audits to EE and RO. Publication of Overview Report in February 2015, for discussion with MS in SCPAFF (11 th February). Follow-up actions (including input to BTSF training). 26

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO follow-up procedures 27

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO follow-up procedures MS are requested to present action plans (corrective actions) to the FVO on how they intend to address any shortcomings revealed during its FVO audits. Verification of the completion and effectiveness of the corrective actions is an integral part of FVO activity: Response by CAs generally satisfactory Recommendations are to be followed-up in the framework of General Follow-up Audits 28

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency FVO follow-up procedures  Input to BTSF trainings  Improvements in legislation  Audit series on primary production of food of non- animal origin  Specific follow-up audits (to be decided) 29

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency CONCLUSIONS: The FVO is the watchdog of the food safety systems across the EU as well as in Third Countries (export to the EU) Mainly through audits (visits) and reports Continuous process: constant feedback between the FVO and the country concerned 30

31