11 Amendments of Renate SOMMER related to 2018/2008(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
– having regard to Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the protection of intellectual property,
Amendment 13 #
A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have proveshown that there are significant differences in the composition and quality of products marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging, and that are advertised in the same way across the EU; whereas those differences are often due to the use of cheaper and of lower quality ingredients, often with a lower nutritional valuedifferent ingredients;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas food that has been tested complied with EU provisions concerning food safety and labelling;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas proventhe differences in ingredients that have been identified 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 vulnerablein comparable products;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas consumers in different Members States are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant informationArticles 18 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, which concern the listing of ingredients and the nutrition declaration on pre-packaged food, enable consumers to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers lays down strict rules on the protection of consumers against being misled;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets thatWelcomes the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the marketand the measures it proposes; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the marketthere are many reasons for differences in the composition of foods; these include consumers’ tastes, the reformulation of foods with reduced fat, sugar or salt content, availability of ingredients on regional markets and national food legislation;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Takes the view that different recipes for food also reflect the diversity of regional taste preferences in the EU;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist. _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.