Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.5.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to extend the four minutes allotted to me to six minutes, because this dossier is so huge that otherwise, it will not be possible to speak adequately on the matter.
The GDA model – the industry’s model for labelling – has obvious shortcomings. It is incomprehensible because it contains too many figures. It is misleading because it only describes the daily requirement of a 40-year-old woman and provides no recommended daily amount whatsoever for the amount of sugar consumed, for example. It is difficult for SMEs to implement the GDA model. That would once again provide big business with a competitive advantage. That is another good reason why GDA labelling should not be made mandatory.
We also need to protect our traditional food production. Only then can we ensure the continued existence of the regional specialities and our food diversity in the EU that we are so fond of. We therefore need extensive exemption of non-prepackaged products from this regulation, since traditional products are precisely those that have not been standardised. These manufacturers can still provide information on allergens, for example, verbally when making the sale.
Then a few words on country of origin labelling. The question is whether consumers really want to know where all the ingredients in their foods come from or whether there is actually a protectionist agenda at work here. I would firstly like to know whether it is feasible, which is why I am calling for an impact analysis.
Lastly, it should be stated that food labelling can never be a manual for good diet. We need information campaigns and we need to educate people in the Member States about balanced diets and healthy lifestyles.
It is not the job of the legislator to nanny its master, which, in this case, is the citizen. It must provide assistance, but our citizens are responsible for themselves and it is not for us to take over that responsibility. Finally, I would like to express my great thanks to all those involved, the shadow rapporteurs, even if they were not always prepared to compromise, everyone who has supported me, particularly my …
(
)
Consumers have a right to know what foods contain. Only if they have information on the composition and nutritional value of foods can they make an informed purchasing decision. Although Community law contains a great many regulations and directives on food labelling, there has not, until now, been a comprehensive mandatory labelling system. It has now become difficult for food manufacturers and distributors to maintain an overview of the multiplicity of existing laws – whether these are EU laws or national laws of the Member States. There is legal uncertainty, distortion of competition and obstacles to trade in the internal market. The present draft regulation is intended to deal with all these issues by providing uniform EU-wide food labelling. The aims are improved information to consumers, better regulation, harmonisation and less bureaucracy.
The Commission draft does not live up to these requirements, however, since it is based on assumptions and suppositions concerning consumers’ wishes and requirements, imposes unrealistic labelling requirements – such as the 3 mm font size, which does not even ensure that the information is legible, and favours big business to the detriment of SMEs – which actually make up 80% of the food sector. In so doing, it contravenes the Small Business Act. It also runs counter to the goal of harmonisation in the internal market, in that the intention is to expressly allow 27 additional national labelling systems. Extensive amendment of the Commission text is therefore called for.
That is what we have attempted to do. Information must be legible. However, font size is only one of many factors in this. We need rules on the font, line thickness, contrast, etc. We need binding guidelines on legibility. Information must be comparable and therefore it must always relate to 100 grams or 100 millilitres, without an option of only stating the nutritional value per portion. Then, when shopping, people will be able to see at a glance which is the ‘lightest’ yoghurt – regardless of the size of the yoghurt pot.
Information must be understandable. It is time to get rid of the kilojoule at last, which nobody can work out. We want to concentrate on kilocalories again; that is what consumers are interested in, and it is what they understand. Stated portion sizes must reflect reality and be realistic and understandable to consumers and, if possible, should be uniform throughout the EU. Information must not be allowed to mislead consumers concerning the content of the products or their origin or their actual nature. Imitation foods such as cheese analogues and processed meat that is made up of small pieces pressed together should be labelled as such on the front of the packaging. Consumers need to know what they are buying.
In the final event, however, consumers will no longer bother reading if we in fact overload the front of the products with further information. Consequently, I am proposing that the only nutritional value stated is the number of kilocalories per 100 grams or 100 millilitres. Then they will read it – it is what interests them, and I believe that is a realistic solution.
I also think we should remove nutritional profiles. I hope that we can stop them. These profiles are superfluous because the new regulation labels nutritional values in any case. Nutritional profiles discriminate against basic foods, and the threshold values for salt, sugar and fat are entirely arbitrary – having been thought up by Commission officials on no scientific basis whatsoever.
The real aim of the regulation on the provision of information on nutritional values and health properties of foods is to provide truthful health information, and for this, we do not need any additional assessment of individual foods or their classification into good and bad foods. In the end, it is overall diet and lifestyle that count. We should ask ourselves why the big food corporations are currently lobbying so hard for nutritional profiles. That is something we should really question.
The so-called traffic light system proposed here has the same kinds of shortcomings as nutritional profiles. Once again, it incorrectly forces us to classify products as good or bad. The threshold values for the colours are arbitrary and the breadth of each colour category is too great. It discriminates against basic foodstuffs, favours imitation foods, and also favours products containing artificial ingredients; in other words, those containing sweetener rather than sugar and flavour enhancers rather than salt. That really cannot be in the interests of consumers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples