Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.5.2-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, as I have said on previous occasions, our aim is to ensure that consumers know what they are buying and what they are eating, thus making it easier to choose a diet for themselves and their families in tune with their needs, their wishes and their goals; citizens – consumers – have a right to the right information. I would appeal to honourable Members to keep this firmly in mind throughout the debate.
The establishment of nutrient profiles does not prohibit or in any way limit the food products that manufacturers can produce. Food manufacturers can continue to produce whichever way they want to. However, it is unfair to our consumers and citizens to allow claims that may mislead them. It is, for me, a question of providing our citizens with honest and full information about the products which they are consuming. Let us not forget that the Claims Regulation was adopted following in-depth debate amongst the institutions. The core principles of the regulation remain valid and relevant. Having said this, I am looking into the establishment of nutrient profiles with an open mind and I am ready to consider positively certain exemptions as they relate to traditional and basic products with an important dietary role.
On this basis, I urge you to support the Commission’s endeavours to ensure that we have a meaningful basis to protect consumers and foster innovation in the food sector.
Thank you for your attention. I now look forward to an interesting debate and hearing your views.
Before turning to the substance of the proposal, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Sommer, for preparing the report, and also the shadow rapporteurs. Whilst being sympathetic to most of her statements, I cannot say I agree with all of them. I should also mention the input from other committees, IMCO and AGRI.
Allow me to briefly highlight the most important issues covered by the proposed amendments.
The question of mandatory origin labelling is very important and needs careful assessment. Indeed, there is a recurrent demand for the mandatory provisions of such information for some foods. The Commission could partially accept the proposed amendment for an extension of the cases of mandatory origin labelling. Origin labelling for basic primary foodstuffs which have not undergone substantial processing and are generally considered as single ingredient products could be a pragmatic option. However, given the complexity of the matter, the application of any mandatory labelling should be subject to the entry into force of delegated measures and be based on impact assessments.
Legibility is a major issue and one of the main complaints that consumers make. This is a key demonstration that we are putting consumers first in our debate and I hope that honourable Members can support the idea of a minimum font size. It is thus regrettable that the amendments tabled would undermine the aim of having measurable criteria as a basis for enforcement.
I share the concerns of honourable Members about imitation foods. I am therefore happy to see Parliament table an amendment containing a provision to explicitly prohibit such misleading practices. However, the introduction of a definition and specific designation of such products would provoke legal problems, and we therefore need to find those designations which give correct and unambiguous information to the consumer. I am also pleased to note the broad support for mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the endorsement of voluntary schemes by Member States.
The principle that consumers should know what they eat should apply not only to prepacked foods but also to food that they buy over the counter or when they eat out. I am therefore not in favour of amendments which would limit the scope of the draft regulation. That said, I am open to changing the text on non-prepacked food so that allergen information alone would be mandatory, while Member States could decide on further mandatory requirements for such food.
Turning to the suggestion for mandatory labelling of nano-ingredients, I am pleased to accept the amendment in principle, although there needs to be a suitable definition.
Finally, on the issue of nutrient profiles, let me state that I cannot accept the amendments to delete or modify Article 4 in the proposed way, as this provision would undermine the existing regulation on food claims. We are all aware that many claims are misleading for consumers; some because they are not substantiated, others because they do not give the full picture of the food in question, claiming only their positive aspects. It must also be stated that claims are made on the sole initiative of the manufacturer for the purpose of selling more products. We are not imposing nutrient profiles on anyone. We are insisting on nutrient profiles where manufacturers choose to market their products through claims, so that consumers can have balanced food information."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples