BETA


2013/2091(INI) Food crisis, fraud in the food chain and control thereof

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ENVI DE LANGE Esther (icon: PPE PPE) PARGNEAUX Gilles (icon: S&D S&D), LEPAGE Corinne (icon: ALDE ALDE), STAES Bart (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), GIRLING Julie (icon: ECR ECR), ANDERSON Martina (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion IMCO CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria (icon: PPE PPE) Matteo SALVINI (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion AGRI RODUST Ulrike (icon: S&D S&D) Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI (icon: PPE PPE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2014/05/26
   Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2014/01/14
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/01/14
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 659 votes to 24, with 8 abstentions, a resolution on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof.

The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002 , prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer.

The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground.

At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. Foods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Parliament also recalled the massive-scale fraud of horsemeat meals throughout Europe is the symptom of an uncontrollable globalised supply system.

Food fraud: scope and definition : Parliament deplored the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU and national level. It called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases.

The resolution noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level .

Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety.

Lessons learned and recommendations

- Institutional framework : Parliament welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. It encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 .

Members are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team.

The resolution noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally.

- Legislative framework : Parliament considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. It welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. It, on the other hand, rejected any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators . Members stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud.

The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence.

Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient .

The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory .

There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports.

Parliament is concerned at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals.

- Corporate responsibility : Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain.

It noted that food business operators currently do not always know the source of the ingredients they use. In this connection, they noted that short supply chains (local and regional) can guarantee greater transparency and can replace the long and complicated supply chains which played a major role in the food fraud crisis.

- Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term.

Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively.

- Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Parliament believed that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity.

It deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn.

The Commission is called upon to obtain an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation.

Members also called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.

Documents
2014/01/14
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/01/13
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2013/12/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted the own-initiative report by Esther de LANGE (EPP, NL) on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof.

The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002, prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer.

The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground.

At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. F oods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Problems are also found in the implementation of the current legislation and there is a need to have more effective official controls on food of animal origins at each stage of the food chain.

Food fraud: scope and definition : Members deplored the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU and national level. They called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases.

The report noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level .

Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety.

Lessons learned and recommendations

- Institutional framework : Members welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. They encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 .

They are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team.

The report noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally.

- Legislative framework : Members considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. They welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. They, on the other hand, reject any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators. They stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud.

The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence.

Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient .

The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory .

There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports.

As regards cloned animals, Members expressed concern at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals and called on the Commission to honour its undertaking and submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal on animal cloning.

- Corporate responsibility : the report called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain.

- Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term.

Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively.

- Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Members believed that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity.

They deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn.

The Commission is called upon to obtain an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation.

They called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.

Documents
2013/11/27
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2013/11/27
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2013/11/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2013/11/06
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2013/11/05
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2013/10/08
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/07/04
   EP - Committee Opinion
2013/06/10
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2013/05/29
   EP - Committee Opinion
2013/04/18
   EP - Responsible Committee

Documents

Activities

Votes

A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/1

2014/01/14 Outcome: +: 597, 0: 53, -: 38
DE IT FR PL RO PT GB SE EL HU BE AT BG NL IE FI SK CZ DK HR ES LT LV SI LU EE MT CY ??
Total
91
64
59
47
26
21
68
20
20
21
20
18
16
25
12
12
12
19
11
11
48
9
8
7
6
6
5
4
2
icon: PPE PPE
244

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2

PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
178

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
78

Greece ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Spain ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

Greece EFD

2

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
27

Italy NI

2

France NI

2

Romania NI

1
5

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Spain NI

1

NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
52

Italy ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Hungary ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/2

2014/01/14 Outcome: +: 377, -: 243, 0: 52
FR IT EL IE DE SE NL CZ AT GB FI HR SK PT CY DK BE LT MT LV ?? LU HU SI EE BG RO ES PL
Total
59
64
20
12
86
19
25
18
18
65
12
11
12
20
4
11
21
10
5
7
2
6
20
7
5
15
26
47
45
icon: S&D S&D
173

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Cyprus S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

France NI

2

Italy NI

2

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

5

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

1

Romania NI

1

Spain NI

1
icon: ECR ECR
49

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Greece ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

4

Austria ALDE

1

Finland ALDE

3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Spain ALDE

2
icon: PPE PPE
238

Czechia PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Latvia PPE

2

PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/3

2014/01/14 Outcome: +: 361, -: 269, 0: 53
FR IT EL IE CZ GB FI AT SE DK HR BE NL LT SK CY MT ?? LV HU SI PT EE DE LU BG RO PL ES
Total
59
64
19
12
17
67
11
18
20
11
11
21
25
10
12
5
5
2
8
20
7
20
6
90
6
16
27
46
48
icon: S&D S&D
176

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Greece Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

France NI

2

Italy NI

2

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

5

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Romania NI

1

Spain NI

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
50

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Greece ALDE

1

Finland ALDE

Against (1)

2

Austria ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

4

Denmark ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Spain ALDE

2
icon: PPE PPE
243

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - Résolution

2014/01/14 Outcome: +: 659, -: 24, 0: 8
DE IT FR GB ES PL RO BE HU SE CZ PT AT EL NL BG IE FI SK HR LT LV SI DK EE LU CY MT ??
Total
89
65
60
68
48
47
27
21
21
20
19
21
18
19
25
15
12
12
12
12
10
8
7
11
6
6
5
5
2
icon: PPE PPE
245

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

Abstain (1)

3
2

Malta PPE

2

PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
179

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
77

Austria ALDE

1

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

Against (2)

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
52

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
50

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

1
icon: NI NI
27

Italy NI

2

France NI

2

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

NI

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
241 2013/2091(INI)
2013/10/09 IMCO 15 amendments...
source: PE-519.774
2013/11/05 ENVI 143 amendments...
source: PE-522.842
2013/11/07 AGRI 73 amendments...
source: PE-514.774
2013/11/27 ENVI 10 amendments...
source: PE-524.582

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

activities
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PARGNEAUX Gilles group: ALDE name: LEPAGE Corinne group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: GIRLING Julie group: GUE/NGL name: ANDERSON Martina responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2013-05-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
  • date: 2013-11-27T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PARGNEAUX Gilles group: ALDE name: LEPAGE Corinne group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: GIRLING Julie group: GUE/NGL name: ANDERSON Martina responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2013-05-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
  • date: 2013-12-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-0434&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0434/2013 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140113&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23778&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0011 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0011/2014 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Agriculture and Rural Development commissioner: CIOLOŞ Dacian
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2013-04-18T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DE LANGE Esther group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AGRI
date
2013-07-04T00:00:00
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
rapporteur
group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2013-05-29T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
ENVI
date
2013-04-18T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
rapporteur
group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2013-07-04T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: RODUST Ulrike group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2013-05-29T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
docs
  • date: 2013-10-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE519.759 title: PE519.759 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE522.842 title: PE522.842 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE516.893&secondRef=02 title: PE516.893 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE514.773&secondRef=02 title: PE514.773 committee: AGRI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE524.582 title: PE524.582 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2014-05-26T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=23778&j=0&l=en title: SP(2014)320 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-27T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-12-04T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-0434&language=EN title: A7-0434/2013 summary: The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted the own-initiative report by Esther de LANGE (EPP, NL) on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof. The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002, prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer. The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground. At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. F oods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Problems are also found in the implementation of the current legislation and there is a need to have more effective official controls on food of animal origins at each stage of the food chain. Food fraud: scope and definition : Members deplored the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU and national level. They called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases. The report noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level . Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety. Lessons learned and recommendations - Institutional framework : Members welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. They encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 . They are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team. The report noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally. - Legislative framework : Members considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. They welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. They, on the other hand, reject any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators. They stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud. The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence. Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient . The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory . There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports. As regards cloned animals, Members expressed concern at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals and called on the Commission to honour its undertaking and submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal on animal cloning. - Corporate responsibility : the report called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain. - Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term. Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively. - Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Members believed that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity. They deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn. The Commission is called upon to obtain an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation. They called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140113&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23778&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0011 title: T7-0011/2014 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 659 votes to 24, with 8 abstentions, a resolution on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof. The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002 , prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer. The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground. At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. Foods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Parliament also recalled the massive-scale fraud of horsemeat meals throughout Europe is the symptom of an uncontrollable globalised supply system. Food fraud: scope and definition : Parliament deplored the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU and national level. It called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases. The resolution noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level . Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety. Lessons learned and recommendations - Institutional framework : Parliament welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. It encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 . Members are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team. The resolution noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally. - Legislative framework : Parliament considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. It welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. It, on the other hand, rejected any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators . Members stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud. The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence. Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient . The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory . There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports. Parliament is concerned at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals. - Corporate responsibility : Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain. It noted that food business operators currently do not always know the source of the ingredients they use. In this connection, they noted that short supply chains (local and regional) can guarantee greater transparency and can replace the long and complicated supply chains which played a major role in the food fraud crisis. - Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term. Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively. - Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Parliament believed that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity. It deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn. The Commission is called upon to obtain an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation. Members also called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.
  • date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/ title: Agriculture and Rural Development commissioner: CIOLOŞ Dacian
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
ENVI/7/12251
New
  • ENVI/7/12251
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.10.10 Foodstuffs, foodstuffs legislation
  • 4.60.02 Consumer information, advertising, labelling
  • 4.60.04.04 Food safety
New
3.10.10
Foodstuffs, foodstuffs legislation
4.60.02
Consumer information, advertising, labelling
4.60.04.04
Food safety
activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000
New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000
New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000
New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010
activities
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PARGNEAUX Gilles group: ALDE name: LEPAGE Corinne group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: GIRLING Julie group: GUE/NGL name: ANDERSON Martina responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2013-05-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
  • date: 2013-11-27T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PARGNEAUX Gilles group: ALDE name: LEPAGE Corinne group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: GIRLING Julie group: GUE/NGL name: ANDERSON Martina responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2013-05-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
  • date: 2013-12-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-0434&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0434/2013 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140113&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23778&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0011 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0011/2014 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike
  • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PARGNEAUX Gilles group: ALDE name: LEPAGE Corinne group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: GIRLING Julie group: GUE/NGL name: ANDERSON Martina responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2013-04-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PPE name: DE LANGE Esther
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2013-05-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/ title: Agriculture and Rural Development commissioner: CIOLOŞ Dacian
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
ENVI/7/12251
reference
2013/2091(INI)
title
Food crisis, fraud in the food chain and control thereof
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject