Romano Prodi made one of his first policy statements on food safety yesterday in the European Parliament. It may seem surprising that with such issues as East Timor, Kosovo, EU enlargement and the euro in the news, the Commission President chose this issue as one worthy of a major policy statement.
Since the previous Santer commission in February was nearly sacked by the European Parliament over its handling of the BSE crisis, the new president is obviously taking no chances with a newly-invigorated parliament.
He is also obviously concerned that food-safety issues are undermining not only consumers' confidence in food but also public confidence in the entire European Union.
Ireland's new Commissioner, David Byrne, reaffirmed yesterday that food safety is to be his No 1 priority. He is to be commended on his early initiative, but more still needs to be done to reform EU food law.
The BSE crisis undermined the existing food regulatory regime in Europe. In its wake, the entire EU regulatory regime is undergoing radical change.
The pre-BSE approach to food law was articulated in the famous Cassis de Dijon court case which enshrined the "mutual recognition" principle whereby, if a food product was marketed in one member-state, it would be given free access to the entire Single Internal Market.
The EU has decided that, in future, enhancing food safety and consumer protection, rather than free movement of goods, is to be the cornerstone of a new EU regulatory regime for foodstuffs.
In recent days Mr Byrne has threatened legal action over the French government's decision to retain the ban on British beef imports because a report from its national food agency (AFFSA) concluded that there were insufficient scientific guarantees to lift the ban.
This case puts in stark terms the dilemma facing the Commission in relation to food safety. Mr Byrne must, under EU law, defend the principle of free movement of goods. Yet, he is doing this in the face of the French government's concern for consumer health, the very issue the Commission believes is now paramount in EU food law.
The only option available to Mr Byrne is to bring a case against France before the European Court of Justice, which will take up to two years to prepare a judgment. The Single Internal Market having been established, it is now imperative that a system be established whereby an expeditious legal decision can be made on such matters, particularly where they affect food safety.
Unless such a system is established the Commission will continue to be unable to enforce EU food law adequately in all member-states.
In relation to genetically-modified foods, the EU and the Commission in particular have lacked any clear policy. The failure of the EU to introduce an adequate, uniform labelling scheme for GM foods has created an enormous political vacuum whereby food manufacturers have had to revert to utilising labelling schemes devised by national authorities or trade associations to allay consumer fears.
The EU legislation on GM foods is a patchwork of different directives and regulations which needs urgently to be rewritten into one major piece of law.
The crisis over dioxin contamination of animal feed in Belgium demonstrated that the EU has a role to play in food emergencies. The Commission activated its Rapid Alert System, which is used when food emergencies have the potential to threaten the health of consumers in more than one member-state.
MR Byrne intends streamlining the rapid-alert system so as to make it more effective and improve the exchange of information between the Commission and member-states. It was shown in the dioxin case that the Belgian authorities withheld information from the Commission about the contamination for several weeks.
If the Commission wants this system to work effectively, then there must be a way of fining or sanctioning member-states which refuse to provide information of paramount importance to the health of consumers.
These issues all point to the need for the EU to establish an independent European food agency.
Mr Prodi signalled his intention to establish such an agency yesterday, but the precise modus operandi of any new agency is not yet known. What is clear is that EU consumers require an agency along the lines of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Mr Prodi said that the FDA model was "one of many" which will be considered in the forthcoming White Paper on food safety.
Any new agency clearly should take over the Commission's present inspection and enforcement functions in relation to EU food hygiene, and veterinary and plant health legislation.
Additional responsibilities could include the rapid-alert system, the EU's scientific committees, GM trials, the authorisation of GMOs/GM foods and health/nutrition promotion campaigns. The agency could be held accountable to the EU institutions through the ability of the European Parliament's committee on environment, consumer and public health to request the director of the agency to appear before it to answer questions.
This scenario would leave the Commission with the responsibility to draft new food legislation and ensure existing EU food law is adequately enforced.
Mr Prodi promised bold initiatives in his speech yesterday, but what is really needed is action. The Commission needs to make radical proposals on legal remedies in such cases as the French beef ban, GM foods, fines for member-states not fulfilling their obligations under the rapid-alert system, and the establishment of a truly independent European food agency, to study the lessons of the BSE and dioxin crises.
Mr Byrne has highlighted many of the problems in relation to food safety, yet it is only by taking radical actions like those mentioned that he will truly tackle the problem of consumer confidence.
If these decisions are not taken, the EU will continue to approach food safety issues in a crisis management fashion, attempting to rectify the situation after the damage has been done.
Raymond O'Rourke is author of European Food Law and works as a food lawyer for Mason, Hayes & Curran, solicitors, Dublin
