Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.3.3-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The misadventures of the new ‘chocolate directive’ primarily illustrate the extraordinary weight and slowness of the Community’s legislative process. Introduced at the Edinburgh Council in 1992, the ‘simplification’ of the 1973 directive became a Commission proposal only in 1996 and was considered at first reading by this House in 1997. It has taken another two and a half years for the Council to adopt a common position which is before us today.
Has such a long process at least resulted in a practical text? The answer is clearly no. The new directive does not meet any of the relevant needs. The 1973 directive clearly and unambiguously defined chocolate as a product made with sugar and cocoa. To take account of the food customs of certain northern countries, derogations were specified. The situation was therefore satisfactory. So why change it? Why, under the pretext of ‘simplification’, has it actually been attempted to subvert the 1973 directive? Might the rest of the
no longer be untouchable?
In effect, if the content of the directive is being changed, this is due to the pressure of the five multinationals – Nestlé, Suchard, Mars, Cadbury and Ferrero – which already share over 70% of the European market but whose production capacity is hindered by the current dual legislation. A site located in France, for example, cannot produce chocolate which does not meet the French standards. These stipulate that chocolate cannot contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter. However, these multinationals particularly want to minimise the cost of their raw materials and do not care that this will be at the cost of a change in the composition of chocolate. Cocoa butter represents 8 to 9% of the total price of chocolate. Shea butter costs a third of the price of cocoa butter and palm oil butter is ten times cheaper.
By adopting a list of alternatives to cocoa butter and by specifying a percentage, this new directive is opening the door to further changes and this is the heart of the matter. Tomorrow, the percentage will simply have to be increased and then soya, for example, could be added to the vegetable fats proposed today. Shea butter will have played its role as an alibi. Its producers will then experience the same problems which are now going to be suffered by cocoa producers given the fall in prices which will follow the adoption of a directive which resolutely ignores its own development consequences and cynically postpones their examination indefinitely.
To achieve their aim of being able to produce and sell imitation chocolate under the name of chocolate at a lower price throughout the Union, these multinationals have worked ceaselessly to make the 1973 derogations the rule, regardless of the interests of chocolate makers and cocoa producers.
The common position fully grants their demands by proposing to establish, as a uniform and compulsory rule for all fifteen Member States, a derogation which used to correspond to a food custom confined to just a few States. Will this at least increase the level of requirements and quality for all Member States? Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. As usual, harmonisation is occurring at the lowest common denominator. It is the lowest quality level which will be generalised in order to ultimately impose a standardised Euro-taste, to the detriment of taste quality. Paradoxically, the burden of proof for quality will fall on the small-scale chocolate maker who can be comforted by the fact that he is not prohibited from indicating that he has not added vegetable fats other than cocoa butter!
Will the new text at least allow the consumer to easily distinguish between true and imitation chocolate? The answer is no because the text of the directive is dishonest. It specifies the option of introducing into the chocolate manufacturing process an extremely precise percentage of 5% of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, whereas everyone knows that we do not have a reliable method of analysis allowing this percentage to be verified. The Commission is therefore setting a percentage which it knows is unverifiable. This is deceitful.
The text also contains dishonest provisions in terms of labelling. On Mr Lannoye’s initiative, this House rightly adopted at first reading an amendment specifying the obligation to place, on the front of the product, clearly legible wording indicating the presence of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter. As this amendment was not retained by the Council, the consumer will not be correctly informed. In all countries and for all consumers with a taste for real chocolate, the name ‘chocolate’ can now legally cover a completely different product.
Through a Community mechanism which is constantly diluting everyone’s responsibility, the definition of one of our basic foodstuffs is being changed, solely for the purpose of allowing a few multinationals to maximise their profits. Chocolate lovers, religiously savour your next Easter eggs! This will be the last time you can be sure that they have been made with real pre-harmonisation chocolate. What will be next after chocolate?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples