Food information to consumers: ENVI postpones vote to next parliamentary term

Ahead of the vote the rapporteur had explained that according to her the dossier is too complicated and complex and it has not been possible to agree on any compromise amendments on the key points. Therefore the new Parliament should get the possibility to deal with the dossier in the beginning of the next legislative term.

She was supported by John Bowis (EPP-ED, UK), according to whom one of the main issues to be solved is, which system to apply. He thinks the traffic light system would be too simplistic and a system based on GDA (Guideline Daily Amounts) too complex, and believes the industry will come up with possible solutions if it gets the necessary time. Dagmar Roth Behrendt (PSE, DE) thinks that it would be impossible to come up with a sound piece of legislation if the dossier would be voted this month, since everybody has a different view for example on alcohol labelling, labelling of the country of origin , the traffic light or the GDA system.

On the other hand Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) spoke against a postponement of the vote. He accepted that the dossier was a very complex one but underlined that nonetheless a lot of work had been done and therefore the report should be voted on now. He was supported by Kathalijne Mari Buitenweg (Greens, NL) who underlined that the committee had worked a lot on the dossier and that anyway the new EP would always have the possibility to alter the decision.

Next steps:

The rapporteur will have to submit a new draft report, taking into account as many of the tabled amendments as possible. Since the last ENVI committee meeting in this legislative term is hold on 31. March, it is technically impossible to finalise the work during this legislative term. This implies that the vote is postponed to the next parliamentary term, when a new draft report will be presented and a new deadline for amendments will be set.

Procedure:

The decision was based on rule 185 (5) of the parliaments rules of procedure which says: "In the light of the amendments tabled, the committee may, instead of proceeding to a vote, request the rapporteur to submit a new draft taking account of as many of the amendments as possible. A new deadline shall then be set for amendments to this draft."

Documents: Meeting documents / Oeil

Minutes of the debate:

Sommer (EPP-ED, DE) argued that this had been a long and difficult debate, not helped by the time delays in translating so many amendments, and that there seemed little scope for compromises on the key points. She felt it was not always the case that compromises needed to be negotiated at this stage and it might be better left until the 2nd reading stage. She claimed the vote would risk being a complete mess, made worse by the fact there was already a huge vote planned for March 31st on Patient Mobility. She added that the same rule had been used 5 years ago on the Claims proposal and it should be left to the new Parliament to decide from start to finish.

Davies (ALDE, UK) accepted it was a political report, though not party political but still felt they should vote and not overlook all the work that had been put into this. Better to vote now, however “clumsy” and “contradictory” the result.

Buitenweg (Greens/EFA, NL) also supported voting now and felt there was more chance of compromise than the rapporteur made out. The risk was that they would lose a year on this and the rules already allowed the next EP to decide if they supported the 1st reading or not. Delay would waste all the time and knowledge invested in this.

Bowis (EPP-ED, UK) supported Sommer and the more they looked into this, the more complex it became and more new issues arose, e.g. unintended consequences on their amendments on country of origin on the gin and vodka industry. He had urged industry to talk to each other to try and come up with a solution to the over simplistic traffic light vs. the over complicated GDA argument and he felt solutions were beginning to emerge.

Corbey (PSE, NL) said there was a majority in the PES in favour of labeling country of origin but only on the major ingredients. There was also a majority in favour of labeling the number of calories in beer, spirits etc by the glass, given the problems with obesity. The PES would have liked a 1st reading but if compromise was not possible they could accept delaying the vote. The PES coordinator Sacconi (I-PES), who was absent for the debate, confirmed the Group's position just before the vote.

Roth Behrendt (PES, DE) felt the key question was whether they could produce good legislation and without compromises on the key issues she felt they risked a chaotic vote. She could not believe Davies could support a vote even if it produced contradictory results.

Seeber (EPP-ED, AT) saw no reason to rush and agreed they should postpone. He referred to concerns from psychologists with the traffic light system that red might even encourage some people to eat it.

Drcar Murko (ALDE, SI) felt that ENVI at least should vote to send a signal.

Weisgerber (D-EPP) agreed to delay rather than “railroad” it through. She and Seeber both raised the issue of how much of this would fall under comitology and they had already seen with Claims and Eco Design that the EP should retain more influence. She also wanted to see industry come up with proposals.

Willmott (PES, UK) was surprised by those who claimed there had not been enough debate and felt that more effort could be made to find compromises.

Sommer asked the Czech Presidency how far they had got as she had heard they were “bogged down” and was told that 3 meetings of the working group had taken place and another 3 or 4 were planned. They agreed that more time was needed given the difficulty in finding compromises and that their aim was to as far as they could before passing this on to the Swedes.

Schlyter (Greens/EFA, SE) argued that problems in Council were an even better reason to vote now so that the EP could influence their debate before fixed positions were adopted.

Sommer replied that the Council never took a lead from the EP at this stage. She argued that it would not be a 1 year delay as some had claimed but more like 6 months and they would not be starting from zero