STARTING AN IMPORT SAFETY DIALOGUE - AUSTRIAN REACTION

UNCLAS VIENNA 002320 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EEB/TPP/ABT (PAUL SAXTON) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO AU SUBJECT: STARTING AN IMPORT SAFETY DIALOGUE - AUSTRIAN REACTION REF: STATE 114788 Summary -------------- ¶1. Austria maintains product safety regulations for imports and cooperates closely with EU authorities, as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Our Austrian interlocutors proposed focusing the product safety dialogue with EU Member States at the EU level. The GoA recommended that U.S. and EU companies, which import from production sites in developing and emerging countries, should take on more responsibility for product safety at the point of production. The GoA favors including product safety as an issue for the Transatlantic Economic Council. End Summary. ¶2. On August 29 emboffs discussed reftel talking points with Disa Medwed, Head of the Consumer Protection Department in the Ministry for Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, and with her deputy, Helmuth Perz. Embassy FAS office discussed the food safety aspects of reftel with Franz Vojir, Deputy Head of food safety, consumer protection, legal issues, and inspection/enforcement control in the Ministry of Health. We also discussed the issue with the MFA's Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Relations Department. ¶3. The Ministry for Social Affairs and Consumer Protection has the lead on product safety issues, while the Ministry of Health is responsible for food safety. Our interlocutors from the Social Affairs Ministry told us that inspection and enforcement suffer from a lack of personnel and resources. Customs authorities have an enforcement function. However, as Customs has several more pressing responsibilities at ports of entry, product safety review of third country imports remains a low priority. ¶4. According to Medwed, the Austrian authorities cooperate closely with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),the EU's DG for Health and Consumer Protection, the Product Safety Enforcement Forum of Europe (PROSAFE) and within the EU's information system for the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission (RAPEX). However, Medwed noted that in Austria and at the EU level, there was no central product safety authority. ¶5. Perz pointed out that the EU lacked a uniform risk assessment mechanism, which CPSC utilizes for the U.S. market. The 27 EU Member States maintain different product safety standards and risk assessments based on cultural peculiarities and historical reasons. Medwed and Perz concluded that it would be more productive to focus the product safety dialogue at the EU level. Perz opined that the USG, EC, and Member States should press U.S. and European companies, importing from developing and emerging country production facilities, to take on more responsibility for product safety at the point of production. ¶6. Vojir stated that GoA measures to control the safety of imported food products are highly product specific and conform to all relevant EU regulations. Special procedures apply to imports of animal and plant products. Specialized veterinarians control imports of animals and animal products at Austria's borders, while customs officials are responsible for food products deriving from plants. Product-specific requirements also exist, including sampling frequency, testing requirements, and quarantine measures. ¶7. Marcus Bergmann from the MFA's Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Relations Department suggested to us that the U.S. and EU should strive to eventually harmonize U.S. and EU product safety regulations. Such an effort could yield substantial trade benefits for all. Bergmann recommended including the U.S.-EU product safety dialogue on the agenda of the Transatlantic Economic Council. MCCAW