The ambiguous categorization of risk concerning the traditional foreign products
Résumé
The last project of modification of the regulation on new foods contained a categorization of the risk, which included traditional non-European products. This categorization established the characteristics of what was defined as "new food". In particular, reference was made to the requisite of counting with a "sure use history" of the product. The product's sure use history should be documented and proven. This situation could affect the marketing of food products, the ancestral consumption of which in Latin American, African, Asian, or any other non-European country is not proved "objectively", and in many cases is not documented. These are foods that form part of the culture of the people themselves, which consumption has been taught from generation to generation and transmitted in many cases by means of oral tradition. The documentation of the history of sure use of a product has as purpose the evaluation of the risk to categorize it, as established in the principle of risk analysis. Nevertheless, have traditional European products been subjected to these evaluations? Which criterion permits the establishing that one traditional European product is surer than a non-European product? Why do we part from the assumption of uncertain risk of non-European traditional products? Even if the project of modification of the Novel Food Regulation is filed, the following depth discussion continues in force: if the European food legislation establishes the principle of equivalence for imported products, why are the requisites for placing a product in the market not the same for traditional non-European and European products? If traditional European products are not considered within the Novel Food Regulation as products with an uncertain risk , why is it considered that traditional non-European products do.
Domaines
Droit
Origine : Accord explicite pour ce dépôt
Loading...