Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.6.2-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, and the members of the committee for all their hard work on this particular dossier.
However, these provisions which allow for some flexibility of labelling presentation are technically justified, given the obligation to list all ingredients, including those used in very small quantities. I cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
Amendment No 4 would abolish a requirement for an explanation as regards repetition where ingredients are used several times in the preparation of a product. This amendment provides for simplification and can be accepted. Therefore Amendment No 14, which would abolish the whole provision, cannot be accepted.
Amendment No 5 aims to remove the provision of not requiring the indication of the composition of compound ingredients used in small quantities – under 5% of the finished product – where the composition in question is covered by current Community legislation which gives the composition corresponding to the trade name. This derogation would not, however, apply in either additives or allergens.
The aim of this derogation is to avoid making a list of ingredients unnecessarily long, while remaining consistent with the objectives of the proposal. I cannot accept its removal and must therefore reject the amendment.
Amendment No 6 aims chiefly to abolish the derogation from labelling provided for in the proposal for ingredients which make up preparations of sauces and mustards constituting less than 5% of the foodstuffs. This derogation is also designed to avoid making the list of ingredients excessively long. The amendment would remove the advantage of keeping lists shorter. I cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 6.
Amendment No 7 comprises two distinct elements. First, it would exempt processing aids derived from allergenic ingredients from the requirement to be indicated on the label, on the grounds that these substances are eliminated during the manufacturing process. However, residues may be present in the finished product and may cause allergic reactions, even where mere residues or traces of allergens are present. This part of Amendment No 7 is therefore not acceptable. Second, it would make the European Food Safety Authority responsible for establishing criteria for updating the annex and for revising it every two years. There is an ambiguity here, because amendment of the annex – which will be necessary – has to be done by the legislator, having consulted the authority on the scientific aspects. We can accept the principle of regular revision of the list annexed to the proposal but the amendment as it is currently worded is not acceptable. Neither is Amendment No 12 on the same issue.
The purpose of Amendments Nos 8, 9 and 10 is to add ingredients to the list in the annex. However, the list proposed by the Commission remains valid and should only be supplemented later on the basis of objective scientific criteria. With a view to subsequent updating of the list the Commission is consulting the Scientific Committee for Food and has made provisions for a rapid procedure to update the list. These amendments are therefore not acceptable.
Finally, I can agree on the principle that, as requested in Amendment No 11, an interpretative guideline for Annex III(a) would have to be laid down, but only if this is necessary. My view is that this annex should be drawn up in such a way that no further interpretation guideline would be needed. I cannot, therefore, accept the current wording of this amendment.
That concludes the summary of the Commission view of the proposed amendments.
The question of food labelling is of great importance, as many people have said this morning. Our legislation must satisfy the legitimate demands of consumers. After all, what could be more reasonable than wanting to know what foods are made up of, in order to make informed decisions in the face of an increasingly wide range of foods from which to choose. But even more important for a sadly ever-growing number of consumers, those who suffer from food allergies or intolerances, is information about the presence of certain ingredients for health reasons.
It is therefore essential that labelling legislation not only ensures that all consumers receive comprehensive information, but also addresses the very real problem of adverse reactions to food. These are the objectives of the proposal we are discussing here today and I am pleased to note that in general it has attracted a broad consensus of support. In view of this, our discussions can focus mainly on the most appropriate means of achieving the objectives.
Labelling issues are often more complex than they at first appear. For example, some flavourings are spice mixtures containing dozens of ingredients. Is it necessary, or even desirable, to list them all? I believe not, except in the case of substances derived from ingredients which can cause allergies or intolerances.
To encapsulate the problem, just how precise does food labelling need to be? It is absolutely essential to avoid an excessive amount of information which would be difficult for consumers to take on board. Quantity cannot be allowed to cloud quality and clarity. Our proposal aims, therefore, to provide information that is sufficiently complete whilst guarding against the omission of any ingredients which might cause allergies or intolerances. At the same time, the obligation to provide detailed labelling must be accompanied by procedures enabling manufacturers to satisfy this obligation without excessive technical difficulties. It was with these considerations in mind that we examined the proposed amendments before us today. As the list is relatively short, I will comment on them all.
Amendment No 1 would abolish the possibility of having technical implementing rules adopted for the special case of alcoholic drinks under the sectoral management committee procedure. However, specific labelling provisions are in force for certain alcoholic drinks – wines, for example. This amendment would create inconsistency with existing legislation and therefore I cannot accept it.
Amendment No 2 would add mixtures of mushrooms to other mixtures, fruit and vegetables, which can be labelled without having to satisfy the rule of descending order of weight and specifies that this option would only apply in the case of mixtures whose proportions may vary. I accept that this point is valid and I therefore accept this amendment.
Amendment No 3 would abolish the possibility of flexibility in the labelling of ingredients used in small quantities – under 5% of the finished product.
Thus it would remove, firstly, the possibility of not strictly respecting the descending order of weight in the list of ingredients and, secondly, the possibility of using the expression "and/or" in the case of ingredients which are interchangeable according to availability. Amendment No 13 would abolish only the first possibility."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples