Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.16.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the vote on the report concerning the labelling of foods, I am pleased to inform the House that, following intense negotiations, we have arrived at a common text that I hope will enable us to avoid the conciliation procedure.
On the other hand, the simplified procedure will not apply to some labels that are particularly dangerous insofar as they are very appealing, such as those that boast of being effective in reducing health risks and those that refer to children’s development. Those labels will instead have to be subject to the full authorisation procedure that will guarantee greater control, not only in scientific terms on the part of EFSA and the Commission, but also on the part of the Member States in the context of the comitology procedure.
As regards the controversial subject of nutrient profiles, or the notorious Article 4, I should like to point out that, until last Wednesday, the Council was against any derogation from the text. In essence, the common position stipulated that no type of labelling – neither nutrition nor health labelling – could be used on a product that did not comply with the nutrient profiles established by EFSA. For example, a sweet with a high sugar content could never bear a health or nutrition claim. The compromise text accepted by all of the groups and the Council now provides for the option to affix labels containing nutritional information even when a substance exceeds the nutrient profile, provided that a statement is added on the same side of the packaging to warn the consumer of the high levels of the substance exceeding the nutrient profiles. In that way, the consumer is guaranteed accurate information, which can be seen at a glance on the same side of the packaging, while, at the same time, the food industry is given the opportunity to use this type of claim.
I regard this text as a victory for Parliament on a point that the Council had initially thought untouchable. In relation to brands, we have succeeded in ensuring that existing brands can continue to be used for 15 years without any further requirements. Once that period has expired, they may continue to be used provided that they are accompanied by a corresponding claim that complies with the provisions of the present regulation. I believe that this is a sufficiently long transitional period for the industry, enough, at any rate, to enable it to adapt to the Community regulations.
Furthermore, we have safeguarded the use of generic names that traditionally accompany food products such as ‘aperitif’, ‘digestive’ and ‘cough sweets’: those terms will be granted special exemptions and may be readily used. I would also point out to the House that all the systems of negative labelling, the so-called ‘traffic light’ or ‘red stamp’ systems, which are already in use in some countries, remain outside the scope of the regulation and will therefore be regulated at national level.
In our role as Parliament, we have won some important victories in the negotiations concerning the protection of SMEs. What we had initially been told was impossible on technical grounds has instead been granted to us. Two recitals highlight the importance of making it easier for SMEs to use the labels, insofar as they represent ‘important added value for the European food industry’. Under the new Article 15, the Commission will have to commit itself to making instruments and guidelines available to SMEs in order to make it easier, in particular, to apply the present regulation.
Furthermore, by reducing the data protection period to five years, compared with the seven planned initially, we have shortened the waiting times for claims to be used by those small and medium-sized enterprises that do not have the financial resources needed to fund their own research into labels. Thanks to Parliament’s amendment, SMEs will soon be able to use all of the labels that have already been authorised and that are available in the list provided for in Article 13. They can be used free of charge and without any formalities. Those who do not have the financial means to fund research into a claim will therefore also be able to use it easily and at no extra cost.
As regards the protection of children – a matter of great importance in this House – we have succeeded in ensuring that all labels that refer to children’s development or improved health are assessed under the full authorisation procedure, so as to ensure that thorough checks are carried out, including by the Member States, on whether the label is scientifically valid and whether it can be understood by the consumer. Claims made by medical, dieticians’ and nutritionists’ associations will be accepted, but not those made by individual doctors.
As regards alcohol, nutrition labels had already been accepted in the common position. Beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol were authorised to bear labels marked ‘reduced alcohol content’ or ‘fewer calories’. As a further, albeit final, offer, the Council has also allowed the use of the wording 'low alcohol content'. We have also obtained significant recognition of the importance of safeguarding the variety of culinary traditions, as well as the possibility for those who sell foods loose to receive special conditions.
To conclude, I call on you all to support the amendments forming part of the compromise signed by all of the groups, and those amendments alone, so that the legislative process for this report – which has been so controversial that it has remained before this House for more than three years – may be brought to a successful conclusion. I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to everyone, including my colleagues from the groups and the support staff.
Before going into detail, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, Mrs Sommer, Mrs Corbey, Mr Maaten, Mrs Evans, Mrs Breyer, Mrs Liotard and Mr Blokland, for their decisive contributions and for their willingness to negotiate, even in the most trying times.
In a state of deadlock, in which the Council did not seem willing to grant us anything further, we succeeded in putting a compromise package together: a final text that, bolstered by the support of all the parliamentary groups, prompted the Council to accept the proposals on the table. All that remains is for tomorrow’s vote to put the seal on matters and, in that regard, I call on all of my fellow Members to support the compromise with the aim of reaching the qualified majority that we need to amend the common position.
I believe that, overall, this is a balanced text that effectively pursues the objective of guaranteeing consumers accurate, clear and understandable information, so as to enable them to make a balanced and informed choice about their diet.
Everyone in this House agrees on the need to promote a healthy and balanced diet for Europeans, and to prevent a situation in which a tempting label promising extraordinary benefits for a person’s figure or, worse still, for his or her health, in reality disguises a high-calorie foodstuff, without the consumer having the opportunity to identify it as such.
In a Europe in which, according to the WHO, one in five children is obese, and in the light of the recent studies demonstrating the link between advertising and junk food consumption, this regulatory measure can no longer be postponed.
I believe that the primary objective of consumer protection has been fully achieved in the text resulting from the compromise. I should like to add that, through Parliament’s intervention, we have succeeded in following up and responding to the requests for clarity and definite timescales that were worrying the food industry. This compromise has not been easy, partly because the Council’s position on some points remained very inflexible – practically rigid – until the end of the negotiations. That is precisely why I regard it as a great success that we have won concessions on these very points: I refer, in particular, to Article 4 and to the measures relating to alcohol that we will address later on.
I should, however, like to point out straight away that the agreement with the Council relates to a package that must be supported
I therefore call on you straight away to reject Amendments 90 and 49, which fall outside the package agreed on with the other European institutions.
As for the placing on the market of so-called 'health' labels, the Council has agreed to introduce a simplified and faster procedure that will guarantee our businesses more certainty. Ever since we cast our unanimous vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, it has been clear that shortening the timescale should not mean sacrificing a thorough scientific assessment of the authenticity of the claims made on labels. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should have exactly the same amount of time to assess claims under both procedures. The Council has supported us in this proposal and the final outcome is that Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that health labels presenting no particular problems will be able to receive a definitive marketing authorisation in eight months."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples