Tidligare innspel frå norske styresmakter

Publisert under: Regjeringen Stoltenberg II

Utgjevar: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet

Tidlegare innspel frå norske styresmakter

Tidligare i denne revisjonsprosessen spela Noreg inn følgjande kommentarar til EU-kommisjonen (30. september 2002):

COMMENTS FROM THE NORWEGIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE DISCUSSION PAPER: IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION (EC) No 258/97 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JANUARY 1997 CONCERNING NOVEL FOODS AND NOVEL FOOD INGREDIENTS

Norway welcomes the Commission’s deliberations on this important legislation. Answering to the invitation to all interested parties to send their comments on the Commission’s Discussion Paper, we would like to take this opportunity to express our view on some of the issues that have been discussed in this paper.

According to the Norwegian opinion, GM foods should be separated from the Novel Food Regulation. As regards the remaining categories of novel foods, these could benefit from a clarification. A careful definition of novel food will be crucial to the overall effectiveness of the Regulation.

In our view, the novel food category mentioned in paragraph 3.1.2 Production processes should not be removed from the Novel Food Regulation, since new production processes that give rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the foods or food ingredients can have implications for public health. The category should remain in the novel food regulation to ensure that risk assessment is performed for such foods or food ingredients. Norway supports the proposal to make other efforts to reduce confusion about what constitutes a significant change, and consider guidelines as an appropriate measure.

Experience has so far demonstrated that specific labelling requirements for novel food products have been necessary. Provisions to ensure that the consumer is informed of significant characteristics about the novel food are essential. Norway therefore supports the proposal to substitute the current requirement with a more general labelling requirement.

Finally, Norway is in favour of option 2 in paragraph 3.3.3 as regards transparency and public consultation.