27 Amendments of Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ related to 2018/2008(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4
Citation 4
– having regard to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech of 13 September 2017, where he stressed that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and the branding being identical;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018)183):
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018)185/3);
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
– having regard to the Commission proposal to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices that involve the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament major interpellation of 15 March 2017 on the differences in declarations, composition and taste of products in central/eastern and western markets of the EU (O-000019/2017);
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 11 June 2013 on a new agenda for European Consumer Policy (P7_TA(2013)0239);
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of applicable EU food law requirements, for instance in the labelling of mechanically separated meat1a or the use of food additives2a, have regularly been reported by the European Commission’s Health and Food Audits and Analysis services; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=76 2ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=115
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable such as children and people with dietary and/or health issues;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerablethe quality and composition of products that go unnoticed by consumers, particularly in terms of the level of fat and/or sugar in the product concerned, may pose a risk to consumers’ health;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas reformulation activities to reduce fat, sugars and salt contents in food are lagging behind in many Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principle and current methodology of adjusting products to local preferences;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas several public opinion surveys have shown that consumers are agitated by such differences in quality, and feel as second class citizens of the EU;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the brand has a significant impact on consumer perception of the product, its value and its quality;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)
Paragraph –1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the recent Commission initiatives to address the issue, in particular the updating of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process; highlights the importance of in-depth and timely analysis of food but also non-food products;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the urgent need to develop a common testing methodology; highlights the commitment that EU-wide testing results should be available by the end of this year; calls for stronger involvement of the Members of the European Parliament in the process;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain; stresses the need to involve as many interested actors as possible;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on thsince consumer protection legislation should apply to all products in general, and it proposes steps that are insufficient in order to tackle the problem of dual quality of products in the single market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Agrees with the Commission that there may be objective factors that affect the resulting composition of products, as well as legitimate factors such as the place of manufacture or consumer preferences in the destination regions; insists, however, that these factors can in no way be used as justification for marketing identically branded products of different quality;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned about territorial constraints for traders when purchasing goods; calls on the Commission to examine such cases to enable consumers to fully benefit from the single market;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to differ from each other, and that they are unable to assess the potential differences in the composition of certain products, which undermines their ability to make purchasing decisions;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, calls on the Commission to determine whether dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Acknowledges the argument that products might differ due to consumer preferences, stresses however that consumers should be clearly and timely informed of such differences;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food re, when they are not accompanied by sufficient and suitable informulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market; , do not provide an acceptable argument to justify placing products with significant differences in composition and quality on the market under the same brand, with the same packaging and advertised in the same way, but that this constitutes misleading action within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Strongly condemns the argument that optimisation of composition and/or quality results from consumers' price expectations; highlights that various studies have shown that products of lower quality are often more expensive than their counterparts of higher quality elsewhere in the EU;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the need to have effective and comprehensive legislation with clear instructions on how to tackle the issue of dual quality;