Europe is about to apply to its food legislation a radical overhaul and harmonisation on a scale similar to that required to bring its single market into being. Parma ham, French camembert, Irish beef and German pork sausage will soon be produced under the same food safety controls and checks. In taking the first steps towards reform later today, the European Commission will set itself a mammoth task to be completed by 2002.
The modernisation of almost all EU food law, which will for the first time include stringent regulations on animal feed, is one of two central elements in a white paper on food safety to go before the Commission. The second is the establishment of a new European Food Authority to complement the reforms and give definitive scientific judgment on all aspects of food safety.
Both initiatives are seen as core policy moves set out by the Commission president, Mr Romano Prodi, for his term, and their implementation will be overseen by Mr David Byrne, Commissioner for Public Health and Consumer Protection. Some measures may sound aspirational, as if thrown at a lingering problem peculiar to Europe of food safety crises and scares, but there are ambitious deadlines attached to proposed amendments and additions to existing legislation.
It remains to be seen if Mr Byrne can ensure that reform includes a mechanism or moral authority so that scientific advice is not cast aside by the perceived interests of member-states. And, equally, harmonisation should not herald a regime that stamps out Europe's unique foods. But nothing less than root-and-branch reform of EU food regulations and directives, combined with the authority of a new advisory body, are considered necessary to end what Mr Prodi has called the occasions when European consumers "no longer felt their food was safe to eat".
The package is also designed to build a rapid response capability when problems arise; to simplify, yet tighten, hygiene regulations from the farm to the table and ensure trace-ability for seed, feed and food. In so doing, the Commission is seeking the kind of assurance (and user-friendly information) European consumers require and are entitled to.
Equally, a more consistent and unambiguous food safety policy in Europe brings the prospect of a trade dividend, and not the risk of a trade war every time the EU takes a stand on a foodstuff.
In short, the new authority will assess risk and provide the best scientific advice.
It is likely to imitate the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) in being able to provide the right advice to the "risk managers" - the Commission, European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and member-governments - in a matter of hours rather than days or weeks.
There will be an independent footing for the authority, though not the kind of independence requiring a change to the Treaty of Rome.
The EU Food and Veterinary Office, based in Ireland, is to get an enhanced role. It is central to EU food risk management through inspections and audits of food safety procedures.
The authority will not be all-powerful like the US Food and Drug Administration (along the lines food industry and EU trading partners have sought). A careful evaluation of the FDA has shown that - notwithstanding its authority and credibility in consumer minds - it too needs reform.
Food safety control in the US is fragmented across 12 agencies. Ironically, it was a report to the US Congress by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council which indicated much of what is needed - "a science-based approach that helps prevent, identify and target the largest threats".
It identified the new food safety stresses: increased reliance on minimally processed fresh fruits and vegetables; emergence of new strains of food-borne bacteria, centralisation and growth of large food distributors, consumer preference for ready-to-eat foods and a growing number of people at high risk of severe or fatal food-borne illness.
Europe, for its part, has correctly identified the implications of such stresses, whether in the form of BSE, E.coli 0157, allergens or environmental contaminants like dioxin, though not all member-states yet accept what is required in response. The battle between sound science and the politics of food is far from settled.