Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.6.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the common position on cocoa and chocolate products is the result of long and involved discussions. It constitutes a delicate compromise which was difficult to achieve but which is well-balanced.
Through the common position, the free movement of cocoa and chocolate products was introduced, but with strict conditions governing production and consumer information. It is permitted to add vegetable fat other than cocoa butter to the minimum quantity of cocoa required in accordance with the Directive, but no more than five per cent. Only those substances listed in the annex may be used. They are all of tropical origin and produced in ACP countries. The presence of these substances must be indicated separately but in the same area of the packaging as the product name and list of ingredients. Consumers will then be able to choose and to distinguish these products from those which are manufactured exclusively from cocoa.
These conditions and restrictions, which are not linked to health issues, are the fulcrum of the common position. The common position also provides answers to the questions and concerns of consumers, of cocoa-producing countries and of countries which produce chocolate, with or without vegetable fats. Any change would seriously upset the balance of the agreement which the Council has agreed upon and would be doomed to fail.
Parliament’s recommendation on second reading contains two amendments. The first amendment reiterates the Commission’s policy, and this can be approved. The second really does not belong in a separate Directive because releases of genetically modified organisms onto the European market must be handled in a uniform and comprehensive way, which is what happens within the framework of the provisions governing the voluntary spread of genetically modified organisms in the environment and in the regulation concerning new foods and new food ingredients. The second amendment may nonetheless be approved in principle. There must be a more thorough examination of the consequences of these amendments against the background of the World Trade Organisation’s pronouncements and the Montreal protocol. The other amendments, which were rejected by the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment, concern questions of special significance to the balance of the common position and cannot therefore be approved.
The common position involves a real compromise and is a clear advance on the legislation currently applicable. This hails back to the 1970s and is very incomplete, especially when it comes to labelling and consumer information. To summarise, it is only Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which may be approved, and this for the aforesaid reasons."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples