Commission's Proposal on Labelling at the European Parliament: 1st Debates and Public Hearings

Committee responsible: ENVI Committee

Rapporteur: Renate Sommer (EPP-ED, DE)

Timetable:

· August 28: Public hearing organised by the rapporteur.

· Early October: report ready

· October 15: deadline for tabling amendments (tbc)

· December: vote in ENVI

· March/April: vote in plenary session

11 June 2008. Public Hearing on labeling organised by the ALDE Group of the European Parliament

The ALDE Group held a public hearing on using food labelling in the fight against obesity. Speakers discussed this issue, looked at different types of food labelling schemes and the impact that the proposed legislation will have on retailers and the industry.
Magor Imri Csibi (ALDE, RO), the shadow rapporteur for the liberals in the IMCO committee, opened the hearing stating that its objectives were to examine how to better use labelling to combat obesity. He stated that there were people representing from across the board the industry, consumers, retailers and the commission.

The representative of the Commission, Basil Mathioudakis (head of unit on food law, nutrition and labelling) explained that the discussion on alcohol labels had been going on for the last 20 years. He stated that it was the intention of his service to have some sort of labelling on alcoholic beverages. He acknowledged the particularities of the sector and that work needed to be done on the kind of information consumers want / need to see on the labels of alcoholic beverages. He added that the Commission would come back to this issue in 5 years time.
Kees de Winter, food policy adviser at the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) called for labelling of alcoholic drinks.

Eurocare's representative was disappointed that alcohol was exempt, and considered that a list of ingredients was very important, not only because it would enable consumers to assess the quality of the product, but because this kind of information is of great importance for allergy sufferers. She also highlighted that the high caloric value of alcoholic beverages justified the need for providing this information on the labels. Finally, she pointed out that the deadline provided in the text of the proposal (i.e. that the Commission shall produce a report concerning the application of the rules for labeling ingredients and nutrition information on alcoholic beverages after “ five years of the entry into force of this Regulation” ) seemed rather odd as a deadline and that effectively they had avoided fixing a deadline.

De Winter stated his support for the inclusion of alcohol and suggested BEUC was willing to lobby on this issue.

Mathioudakis pointed out that the exemption only applied to beer, wine and spirits, whereas mixed alcoholic beverages, like alcopops are part of the proposal. He explained that the Commission wanted to introduce labels on all alcoholic beverages; three previous attempts had consistently faced stern opposition from the Council, and as a result, had halted any further attempts on the part of the Commission.

Scibi wound up the debate stating that discussion was just a first step; the role of the EP, he highlighted, is to listen to the citizens and formulate meaningful messages for citizens. He understood that obesity was complex and that labelling could not be expected to be a panacea. He argued that there was a need for education, clearer labelling and more physical activity. He stressed the main focus should remain the consumer; however, it should also be ensured that the industry was not overburdened.

2 4 June 2008. Exchange of views on Food information to consumers in the ENVI Committee
The ENVI Committee had a long first discussion on the issue, which illustrated the difficulties involved in reaching an agreement. The rapporteur Ms. Sommer (EPP-ED, DE) stressed she had more questions than answers at this stage, and that many issues needed further consultations. She did not plan to draft her report until mid September, and was unlikely to be translated until early October; this could incur a tight deadline for amendments, which may have to be extended.
She said that the new regulation was intended to simplify the existing rules and cut red tape and that she did not feel the proposal lived up to these objectives.

Corbey (Shadow rapporteur for the Socialists) (NL):

• welcomed the fact Sommer seemed to be open and still asking questions – this was a complicated proposal
• alcohol should not be exempted

Csibi (ALDE, RO) (Shadow rapporteur for the liberals in the IMCO Committee):

• consumers must be able to make healthy choices, but not at the expense of burdening the industry
• ALDE hearing organized with Mr Jules Maaten (ALDE shadow but absent) had concluded that a mandatory labelling and a common system were necessary
• Label per serving rather than per 100g
• 3mm could be burdensome and bureaucratic, but minimum requirements should be in place
• No system will work without education of the public
• If this applies to alcohol, then should apply to all alcoholic beverages, or risk of sending the wrong message

Roth Behrendt (PES, DE):

• unlikely to reach a first reading agreement given divergent views; this is likely to end up in the next Parliament
• Allergies need to be considered
• Alcohol not a priority for me
• Don't try and tell MS to use colour coding or size etc or we will never get their support

Doyle (EPP-ED, IE):

• portions easier to understand than 100g
• If alcohol included, then it must be all of them – and why is cider not grouped with wine/beer etc?

Willmott (PES, UK):

• education on nutrition is key, to prevent curable diseases
• Agreed portion size better than 100g

Bowis (EPP-ED, UK)

• agree portions not 100g but portion sizes do differ
• agree with Doyle why cider left out – it is alcopops that should be treated differently

Myller (PES, FI):

• diabetes of growing concern and sufferers need information
• need ability to compare products – 100g would allow this whereas portion size would need to be defined
• all alcohol should carry energy content on label

Poudelet (DG SANCO)

• legibility is key and we are stringent on need for 3mm size – some labels in a large number of languages and question of space
• portion vs 100g – we just want something comparable and might be complicated to agree on portions for different age groups
• alcohol is a problem because of the alcohol not the sugar and labeling won't deal with underage drinking etc

Sommer in conclusion

• suggested Commission officials go shopping to see how unrealistic 3mm is
• alcohol: a problem for SMEs to label every product – how can a small wine producer label a wine that's changing every year?
• National exemptions – subsidiarity vs harmonization – this is a real problem and there is a need for more discussion

25 June 2008. Exchange of views on a draft opinion on Food information to consumers in IMCO Committee (Internal market and consumer protection)

Draftsperson: Bernadette Vergnaud (PES, FR)

On the issue of alcohol, the draftsman noted she felt this was confused, and believed that all alcoholic beverages should be covered by the proposal.

Heaton Harris (EPP-ED, UK) (Shadow rapporteur) pointed out that some alcoholic beverages were covered by the proposal, and others not. He expected this to be a major point of discussion.

Csibi (ALDE, RO)(Shadow rapporteur) supported the concept of a better informed consumer, but not at the cost of overburdening industry. On the issue of alcohol, he believed one should include all or none, and favoured the former option.

Roithova (EPP-ED, CZ) noted that she would like to see a hearing on the issue so as to be better informed. On the issue of allergens, her medical background came to the fore as she argued for the maximum standards of labelling.

Schwab (EPP-ED, DE) On the issue of alcoholic beverages, he did not believe these should be viewed as food products and would envisage them excluded from the proposal.

Pietikanen (EPP-ED, FI) he believed that all alcoholic beverages should be excluded from the proposal.

Habour (EPP-ED, UK) agreed that people wanted more information regarding ingredients, but that this was too much information to provide on the label. To this end, he supported the idea of contact phone numbers or websites, to which consumer can refer to in order to obtain this information.

The Commission spokesman noted that overall he was pleased with the comments. He pointed out that the situation on alcohol was as a result of a compromise within the Commission, and that the situation would be reviewed in 5 years time.

On the issue of further information provided by internet or over the phone, he did not feel this was appropriate since not all citizens had access to these.

The draftsman concluded that a hearing would be a good idea.