In a not entirely unexpected move, Rapporteur Renate Sommer invoked rule 185 (article 5) to effectively halt the Regulation until the next legislature.
There will be a new report once the new Parliament has been elected, and, as such, the whole outlook for the regulation in the Parliament could change.
Previously, on 16 February 2009, the ENVI Committee had failed to have a comprehensive debate owing to the large number of amendments tabled.
The Council will continue to discuss the Commission’s proposals.
EPHA will now develop a reviewed advocacy strategy with its members working on the issue.
Background
EPHA has been following the progress of the proposed Regulation through the parliamentary committtees, and has submitted proposed amendments to MEPs regarding the provision of mandatory nutritional information on both the front of pack and back of pack.
Many EPHA members are concerned that, given the nature of the amendments and the viewpoints of the rapporteur, this Regulation might prove to be a missed opportunity in the fight against obesity and other diet-related non-communicable diseases. Failing to include all alcoholic beverages within the remit of the Regulation would also represent a missed opportunity to provide the information that consumers demand.
The EPHA amendments reflect our position, and advocate for mandatory front and back-of-pack labelling, including a traffic light system (multi-colour interpretative element). Research has shown that consumers understand and make active use of this traffic light system, and it has contributed to their ability to make healthier choices. EPHA is please to see that there have been numerous amendments submitted that support our position.
Debate on 16 February 2009
The rapporteur for the ENVI Committe Dr. Renate Sommer said that whilst few committee members had had the chance to read through all the amendments, a second debate would allow the Committee to hear the opinions that the shadow rapporteurs bring from the other political groups.
Dorette Corbey (PSE) agreed that a discussion between political groups as to the broad guidelines of the Regulation was important at this stage in order to see what compromise amendments may be distilled from the vast amount that have been tabled.
The interpretation of figures is a key point of contention, and Corbey noted that many members do want to see some form of colour coding in the Regulation. She also commented on the strange exemption of alcohol from the proposal, and insisted that ingredients on alcoholic beverages be included as a minimum. Regarding the national provisions, Corbey said that she is aware of the implications for the internal market, but stressed the need to allow Member States to go above and beyond the legislation with stricter measures.
Corbey supported the need for another general debate on 16 March.
Jules Maaten (ALDE) criticised the "desperately complex" proposal from the Commission. He examined some of the main issues, such as the per portion question and the value of symbols and pictoral interpretation. He discussed whether a national system such as the Key Hole System used in Finland could be used at Community level. He also expressed concern that national exemptions and waivers could create obstacles for the internal market.
Kathelijne Buitenweg (Greens) said that whilst there are a number of pressing health issues to be dealt with, this Regulation cannot be seen as an early warning system. She did insist on the inclusion of all alcoholic beverages, asking why Coca Cola would be included and not beer ? She said that the question of traffic lights needed to be discussed, and said that she did not want a green symbol to give consumers the impression that a product is necessarily healthy.
Kartika Liotard (GUE) said that by this stage the committee members should be familiar with each others’ positions She emphasised the need to facilitate consumer choice, and that the Regulation should ensure that consumers are able to easily identify what is in a product. For this reason, she insisted, key ingredients should be mandatory on the front of pack, and further information must be put on the back of pack. One other point that she highlighted was the need to preserve Article 4 in the Health Claims regulation, and that any amendment that suggesting otherwise must be rejected.
Glennis Wilmott (PES) agreed with most of the points presented by Liotard, and supported the need for traffic lights on certain products. A possible compromise that she proposed would be to use the traffic lights on processed foods only. She also insisted that alcohol be included, with energy content provide at the very least.
Christa Klass (EPP-ED) dismissed the traffic light system as "unrealistic." She also said that compulsory references should be kept to a minimum, and alcohol should not be included.
The Vice-Chair of the ENVI Committe, Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE) then took to the floor. He asked that this Regulation not be reduced to a piece of legislation for tackling obesity, and also said that it would not be appropriate to say we are "representing the consumers." He also spoke in favour of deleting the national schemes and maintaining the exemption for alcohol.
The representative from DG SANCO focussed primarily on the question of salt vs sodium and the distinction between naturally occurring fatty acids vs those that have been manufactured. Regarding salt, the Commission believe that as consumers understand the word salt better than sodium, salt should be left on the label.
A speaker from the Czech Presidency gave an update on the Council timeframe. The Council has two working groups planned ; one will discuss general labelling provisions and one will discuss nutrition labelling in particular. Regarding this Regulation, the speaker confirmed that certain Member States are concerned with the obligation to comply with strict labelling provisions, and said that the Council needs the compulsory elements to be clarified. The Czech Presidency will prepare as clear a text as possible for the Council in advance of the Swedish Presidency.
Renate Sommer did not speak in too much detail about her position as the Committee have been informed on a number of occasions already. She did however clarify her position on Article 4 in the claims directive by saying that this should not be something EFSA deals with as it is a political issue.
To conclude the discussion, Dr. Sommer invited the shadow rapporteurs to meet together with her to discuss compromise amendments.
Timeline
New report to be drafted in the new Parliament from mid-June onwards.
For more information
Related articles
EPHA Attends ENVI Committee, 8 December 2008
ENVI committee meeting on food information to consumers, June 24th, 2008
Public Hearing on Food labelling at the European Parliament, 28 August 2008
BEUC Briefing to MEPs on Food Labelling, Strasbourg
