4 Amendments of Mairead McGUINNESS related to 2018/0088(COD)
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The general plan should identify the key factors to be taken into account when risk communications’ activities are considered, such as the different levels of risk, the nature of the risk and its potential public health impact, who and what are directly or indirectly affected by the risk, the levels of risk exposure, the ability to control risk, risk mitigation measures and other factors that influence risk perception including the level of urgency as well as the applicable legislative framework and relevant market context. The general plan should also identify the tools and channels to be used and should establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure coherent risk communication.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The Fitness Check of the General Food Law identified certain shortcomings in the long-term capability of the Authority to maintain its high-level expertise through expert personnel. In particular, there has been a decrease in the number of candidates applying to be members of the Scientific Panels. The system has and the reason for thuis to be strengtheneddecline should be examined. The system must encourage candidates to apply and Member States should take a more active role to ensure that a sufficient pool of experts is available to meet the needs of the Union risk assessment system in terms of high level of scientific expertise, independence and multidisciplinary expertise.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Studies, including tests, submitted by business operators in support of applications for authorisations under Union sectoral food law usually comply with internationally recognised principles, which provide a uniform basis for their quality in particular in terms of reproducibility of results. However, issues of compliance with the applicable standards may arise in some cases and this is why national systems are in place to verify such compliance. It is appropriate to provide an additional level of guarantees to reassure the general public on the quality of studies and to lay down an enhanced auditing system whereby Member State controls, in collaboration with the Health and Food Audits and Analysis Directorate of the European Commission’s Directorate – General for Health and Food Safety, on the implementation of those principles by the laboratories carrying out such studies and tests would be verified by the Commission.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Food safety is a sensitive matter of prime interest for all Union citizens. While maintaining the principle that the burden is on the industry to prove compliance with Union requirements, it is important to establish an additional verification tool to address specific cases of high societal importance where there is a controversy on safety issues, namely the commissioning of additional studies with the objective of verifying evidence used in the context of risk assessment. Considering that it would be financed by the Union budget and that the use of this exceptional verification tool should remain proportionate, the Authority in consultation with the Commission should be responsible for triggering the commissioning of such verification studies. Account should be taken of the fact that in some specific cases the studies commissioned may need to have a wider scope than the evidence at stake (for example new scientific developments becoming available).