Reform of the General Food Law

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's 2018 proposal to reform the General Food Law and EFSA's functioning could inadvertently restrict transparency. The analysis highlights risks that new proactive disclosure rules might override the right to access documents upon request and that the definition of 'confidential information' is too broad, potentially allowing industry to keep critical health and environmental data secret. It calls for the maintenance of existing lists of non-confidential information and the preservation of broad 'transparency safeguards' to ensure public trust and meaningful consultation in risk assessments.

• The Proposal risks restricting the right of citizens to access documents upon request by creating a conflict between proactive disclosure rules and triggered disclosure regimes, potentially allowing EFSA to refuse requests even when an overriding public interest exists.
• The Commission's proposal deletes existing lists of information that can never be considered confidential across most sectoral legislations, which ClientEarth argues removes necessary clarity for citizens and EFSA.
• The proposed definition of 'confidential information' in Article 39(2) is too broad and includes categories not previously recognized as commercially sensitive by the Court, such as quantitative composition and methods of manufacture.
• The Proposal incorrectly lists trademarks and tradenames as potentially confidential information, which contradicts the legal purpose of trademarks to be public identifiers.
• The proposed 'transparency safeguards' in Article 39(4) are narrower than existing ones because they introduce an 'emergency' component, which conflicts with the EU's principle of prevention regarding health and environmental protection.
• The wording of the new Article 38.1a regarding intellectual property rights is vague and could be misinterpreted as providing additional grounds for claiming confidentiality beyond the exhaustive list in Article 39.
• Despite the criticisms, the document identifies several positive elements in the Proposal, including the immediate publication of data upon receipt, the use of searchable data formats, and the creation of a register of studies.

APA

Roger, A., & Bernard, A. (2018). Reform of the General Food Law. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/bn4l2qjg/reform-of-the-general-food-law-analysis-of-the-new-provisions-on-transparency-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

Roger, Apolline, and Alice Bernard. Reform of the General Food Law. ClientEarth, 2018. https://www.clientearth.org/media/bn4l2qjg/reform-of-the-general-food-law-analysis-of-the-new-provisions-on-transparency-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Roger |first1=Apolline |last2=Bernard |first2=Alice |title=Reform of the General Food Law |publisher=ClientEarth |date=August 2018 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/bn4l2qjg/reform-of-the-general-food-law-analysis-of-the-new-provisions-on-transparency-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{roger2018reform, author = {Roger, Apolline and Bernard, Alice}, title = {{Reform of the General Food Law}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2018}, month = aug, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/bn4l2qjg/reform-of-the-general-food-law-analysis-of-the-new-provisions-on-transparency-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }