Definition of a yoghurt

Press, 27 December 1985, Page 16

Definition of a yoghurt

From

LIZ BARDER

in Brussels

Harmonisation, the EFC- catchword of the last decade, is a concept that proved as unpopular was unworkable. Country after country reckoned its beer and liatpr or frozen peas were the oufy product worth the name and Hflaad to change them in line with a Entwredpe. Hecetoiy a member of the EuropeM Partiament wrote to the toe civil service of the RKC- artnng for a precise Ffwnemt definition of yoghurt In s££ceyoourt is defined as “a fireto live product containing Sfire tacteriarne Dutch pro a fermer.Ung 2St, wZS France allegetfly rejSTtn import- In answer to the IS MP-’s pte* diktat, Commisswg. FraasAntaM him national defimlive organisms or was * as iDtficati ’ e *

new EEC, approach: harmonisation for the sake Of harmonisation is on its way out The current programme was adopted in 1969 but only got under way 12 years ago. It was complicated: it divided the foodstuffs sector into some 50 areas and wanted national food laws incorporated in EEC. rulings. The Commission hits now told the EEC. Council of Ministers, the

representatives of the member State’s governments, that it is now dropping this tedious method. “We feel,” said a commission spokesman, “it is the consumer rather than the bureaucrat who should decide what food is good or bad.”

With the creation of a genuine common market in mind, the Commission is saying that processed food manufactured and marketed in one country of the FFC must be allowed to compete in the otjjfcr

nine. (Or 11 as it will be in January). Four main “framework directives” win appear before the end of the year. They win deal with food additives, materials in contact with foodstuffs, health foods and food label! mg- By taking this approach, the Commission feels it win adequately cover those areas where EEC. ruling is necessary: health, safety, and fair trading-

Critics say the move away from harmonisation leaves too many loopholes. They point to the fact the Commission limits itself to rulings on processed food only, ignoring raw foodstuffs. Neither has it defined an additive Growth promoters used in fattening beef cattle should be included, they say, if the Commission is serious about a community food law.

In another part of the field, the Commission is trying to get a

blanket ban on the use of hormones in the rearing of all livestock, following revelations in Belgium of a flourishing underground trade in synthetic hormones. Britain, in particular, objects to the ban, arguing that it will affect EEG trade relations. Critics fear the Commission’s sensitivity to trade issues will hold it back when it comes to pushing the hormone ban it is proposing. They also fear the same sensitivity might override health and safety factors when the Commission rules on processed foods.

The strongest criticism of proposed Community food law comes from those who see not health hazards, but a lowering of standards. Keeping out food products from other EEC. countries may be called protectionism, but letting in cheaply produced food at lower prices can, say critics, pervert national tastes to such an extent that they eschew quality products. Look, they say darkly, at the spread of junk food. — (Copyright Jpndon Observer Service).