Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | IMCO |
SEHNALOVÁ Olga (![]() |
ŠTEFANEC Ivan (![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Committee Opinion | ENVI |
BORZAN Biljana (![]() |
Mireille D'ORNANO (![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Committee Opinion | AGRI |
NEKOV Momchil (![]() |
Ivan JAKOVČIĆ (![]() ![]() |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 464 votes to 69, with 17 abstentions, a resolution on dual quality of products in the single market.
The shortcomings of dual quality of products : although the brand name, packaging design and marketing look at a first glance are the same, several researches conducted in different Member States have revealed in the EU Single Market products, which have clearly different compositions from the point of view of the recipe, the basic raw material used or its share in the product, all this depending on the country of their purchase.
Cases of such significant differences concern not only food products but frequently also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies. Consumers are concerned about such differences.
Parliament underlined that any such kind of discrimination is unacceptable and that all EU consumers should enjoy access to the same level of product quality.
Members welcomed the Commission's recent announcement of initiatives to address this issue , including the commitment to delivering a common testing methodology, to allocate a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for the collection of further reliable and comparable evidence, and to updating Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. They encouraged Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives , including the development and integration into their working practices of a common testing methodology and the collection of further evidence.
Commission notice : Parliament took note of the Commission notice on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of dual quality of products. It shared the Commission opinion that in the single market, where
consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, they do not, a priori , expect branded products sold in different countries to be differentiated.
Members are not proposing to standardise the products circulating within the single market or to prescribe manufacturers to change the compositions of their products or to determine the exact composition of the individual products.
However, they consider that the quality of products should not diverge when offered to consumers on different markets and that consumer preferences should not be used as an excuse to lower quality or offer different quality grades on different markets.
The resolution therefore emphasised the importance of informing consumers in a precise and transparent manner that the product they buy or know of from another Member State is different in order to avoid misleading them and distorting the impression given by the purchase product.
Recommendation and further steps : Members stated that the issue of double quality standards required an EU-wide solution via directly enforceable measures. They emphasised the importance of a public debate to raise consumer awareness of products and their characteristics and highlighted the role of industry in improving transparency and clarity in the composition and quality of products and any changes made to them. They welcomed the Commission's initiative to develop a code of conduct in this regard.
Parliament welcomed the Commission's proposal on the New Deal for Consumers , which seeks to tackle dual quality of products by amending Article 6 of Directive 2005/29/EC to designate as a misleading commercial practice the marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, when those products have a different composition or characteristics. They noted, however, that the proposal also contains some unclear provisions that require clarification in order to ensure proper interpretation and application.
Members remained convinced that an amendment to Annex I of the Directive introducing another item onto the ‘ blacklist ’ defining the practices prohibited in all circumstances that explicitly mentions dual quality of identically branded products when discriminatory and not respecting consumer expectations would address unjustified cases of dual quality in the most effective way. The legislative process should provide a clear definition of what can be considered dual quality.
Lastly, Parliament invited manufacturers to consider placing a logo on their packaging to indicate that the content and quality of a product of the same brand are the same in all Member States in order to allow European consumers to have access to products of the same quality throughout the single market.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted an own-initiative report by Olga SEHNALOVÁ (S&D, CZ) on dual quality of products in the single market.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, exercising its prerogative as an associated committee in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report.
The shortcomings of dual quality of products : although the brand name, packaging design and marketing look at a first glance are the same, several researches conducted in different Member States have revealed in the EU Single Market products, which have clearly different compositions from the point of view of the recipe, the basic raw material used or its share in the product, all this depending on the country of their purchase.
Cases of such significant differences concern not only food products but frequently also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies.
Members underlined that any such kind of discrimination is unacceptable and that all EU consumers should enjoy access to the same level of product quality.
The report welcomed the Commission's recent announcement of initiatives to address this issue , including the commitment to delivering a common testing methodology, to allocate a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for the collection of further reliable and comparable evidence, and to updating Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. It took note of the mandate given by the European Council to the High Level Forum on Better Functioning Food Supply Chain in order to address the issue of dual quality. It also welcomed the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 providing for a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products in order to assess the different aspects of the dual quality.
Commission notice : the report took note of the Commission notice on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of dual quality of products. Members shared the Commission opinion that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, they do not, a priori , expect branded products sold in different countries to be differentiated.
Members are not proposing to standardise the products circulating within the single market or to prescribe manufacturers to change the compositions of their products or to determine the exact composition of the individual products. Moreover, they are also aware that there may be objective factors that affect the resulting compositions of products. However, they considered it essential to provide consumers with accurate and easy-to-understand information to consumers is key to tackling dual quality of products. Consumer preferences should not be used as an excuse to lower quality or offer different quality grades on different markets.
The report therefore emphasised the importance of informing consumers in a precise and transparent manner that the product they buy or know of from another Member State is different in order to avoid misleading them and distorting the impression given by the purchase product.
Recommendation and further steps : Members drew attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the principles of the functioning of the single market and consumer confidence, both of which are at stake, and therefore requires, in particular, an EU-wide solution , in the form of enforcement measures.
The report emphasised the importance of a public debate to raise consumer awareness of products and their characteristics. They highlighted the role of industry in improving transparency and clarity in the composition and quality of products and any changes made to them. They welcomed the Commission's initiative to develop a code of conduct in this regard.
Members welcomed the Commission's proposal on the New Deal for Consumers , which seeks to tackle dual quality of products by amending Article 6 of Directive 2005/29/EC to designate as a misleading commercial practice the marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, when those products have a different composition or characteristics. They noted, however, that the proposal also contains some unclear provisions that require clarification in order to ensure proper interpretation and application.
The legislative process should provide a clear definition of what can be considered dual quality and specify how each case should be assessed and handled by the competent authorities.
Members recalled that Member States are responsible for the application of Directive 2005/29/EC and should ensure that this is done to ensure that consumers are not misled by unfair commercial practices.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)829
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0357/2018
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A8-0267/2018
- Committee opinion: PE619.208
- Committee opinion: PE616.687
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE620.776
- Committee draft report: PE618.324
- Committee draft report: PE618.324
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE620.776
- Committee opinion: PE616.687
- Committee opinion: PE619.208
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)829
Activities
- Norbert ERDŐS
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Doru-Claudian FRUNZULICĂ
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Olga SEHNALOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Georgios EPITIDEIOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Filiz HYUSMENOVA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jiří MAŠTÁLKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Momchil NEKOV
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Monika SMOLKOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Dobromir SOŚNIERZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Igor ŠOLTES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Theodor Dumitru STOLOJAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Dubravka ŠUICA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mihai ŢURCANU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
Votes
A8-0267/2018 - Olga Sehnalová - Am 1 13/09/2018 12:33:57.000 #
BG | SE | RO | IT | ES | HR | DE | PT | AT | EL | HU | LV | BE | IE | MT | CY | CZ | ?? | DK | SI | SK | LU | EE | FI | LT | GB | FR | PL | NL | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
14
|
18
|
21
|
56
|
44
|
10
|
75
|
18
|
17
|
11
|
13
|
6
|
18
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
16
|
2
|
11
|
7
|
10
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
9
|
56
|
65
|
44
|
23
|
|
![]() |
157
|
3
|
Sweden S&D |
9
|
Italy S&DFor (24)Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Enrico GASBARRA, Flavio ZANONATO, Giuseppe FERRANDINO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Patrizia TOIA, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ
Against (2) |
2
|
Germany S&DFor (20)Arne LIETZ, Birgit SIPPEL, Constanze KREHL, Dietmar KÖSTER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Gabriele PREUSS, Iris HOFFMANN, Ismail ERTUG, Jakob von WEIZSÄCKER, Jens GEIER, Jo LEINEN, Knut FLECKENSTEIN, Maria NOICHL, Michael DETJEN, Norbert NEUSER, Peter SIMON, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Udo BULLMANN, Ulrike RODUST
|
Portugal S&DFor (7) |
Austria S&D |
3
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (17) |
3
|
||||
![]() |
43
|
4
|
Spain Verts/ALEFor (5) |
1
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom Verts/ALEFor (6) |
4
|
1
|
|||||||||||||
![]() |
35
|
1
|
2
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (6) |
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |
17
|
2
|
Greece NIAbstain (1) |
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
31
|
Italy EFDDFor (1) |
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (13) |
France EFDD |
1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
32
|
Italy ENFAgainst (6) |
1
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
2
|
4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
61
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
Spain ALDEAgainst (6) |
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Belgium ALDEFor (2)Against (3) |
1
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
France ALDEAgainst (3) |
Netherlands ALDEAgainst (6) |
||||||||
![]() |
54
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (14) |
Poland ECRAgainst (17) |
2
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
172
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (5)Against (2) |
3
|
Romania PPEAgainst (5) |
11
|
Spain PPEAgainst (12)
Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE,
Carlos ITURGAIZ,
Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS,
Francisco José MILLÁN MON,
Gabriel MATO,
José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA,
Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL,
Pilar del CASTILLO VERA,
Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO,
Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT,
Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ,
Teresa JIMÉNEZ-BECERRIL BARRIO
|
4
|
Germany PPEFor (2)Against (25)
Albert DESS,
Axel VOSS,
Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN,
Christian EHLER,
Daniel CASPARY,
Dennis RADTKE,
Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH,
Elmar BROK,
Hermann WINKLER,
Ingeborg GRÄSSLE,
Jens GIESEKE,
Joachim ZELLER,
Karl-Heinz FLORENZ,
Manfred WEBER,
Markus FERBER,
Monika HOHLMEIER,
Peter JAHR,
Peter LIESE,
Rainer WIELAND,
Renate SOMMER,
Sabine VERHEYEN,
Sven SCHULZE,
Thomas MANN,
Werner KUHN,
Werner LANGEN
Abstain (1) |
Portugal PPEFor (1)Against (5) |
5
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
Czechia PPEFor (3)Against (3) |
1
|
4
|
Slovakia PPEAgainst (6) |
3
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
France PPEAgainst (17) |
Poland PPEFor (13)Against (6) |
Netherlands PPEAgainst (5) |
A8-0267/2018 - Olga Sehnalová - § 37 13/09/2018 12:34:09.000 #
A8-0267/2018 - Olga Sehnalová - § 42 13/09/2018 12:34:20.000 #
A8-0267/2018 - Olga Sehnalová - Considérant E/2 13/09/2018 12:34:36.000 #
IT | SE | ES | PT | RO | AT | LV | HR | PL | HU | BG | BE | IE | MT | CY | SK | DK | EL | CZ | ?? | DE | LU | EE | FI | LT | SI | FR | GB | NL | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
56
|
15
|
45
|
19
|
21
|
17
|
6
|
10
|
44
|
12
|
14
|
18
|
7
|
5
|
1
|
10
|
10
|
8
|
16
|
1
|
76
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
9
|
7
|
65
|
54
|
22
|
|
![]() |
154
|
Italy S&DFor (22)Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Giuseppe FERRANDINO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Patrizia TOIA, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA
Against (3) |
Sweden S&D |
Portugal S&DFor (8) |
9
|
Austria S&D |
1
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
Germany S&DFor (20)Arne LIETZ, Birgit SIPPEL, Constanze KREHL, Dietmar KÖSTER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Gabriele PREUSS, Iris HOFFMANN, Ismail ERTUG, Jakob von WEIZSÄCKER, Jens GEIER, Jo LEINEN, Knut FLECKENSTEIN, Maria NOICHL, Michael DETJEN, Norbert NEUSER, Peter SIMON, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Udo BULLMANN, Ulrike RODUST
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (17) |
||||
![]() |
43
|
4
|
Spain Verts/ALEFor (5) |
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
United Kingdom Verts/ALEFor (6) |
1
|
|||||||||||||
![]() |
35
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (6) |
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |
32
|
Italy EFDDFor (11) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
France EFDD |
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (13) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
16
|
2
|
3
|
Greece NIAgainst (3)Abstain (1) |
1
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
32
|
Italy ENFAgainst (6) |
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
15
|
4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
59
|
1
|
Spain ALDEAgainst (6) |
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
Belgium ALDEFor (2)Against (3) |
1
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
France ALDEFor (5)Against (2) |
1
|
Netherlands ALDEAgainst (5) |
||||||||
![]() |
53
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
Poland ECRAgainst (17) |
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (12) |
2
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
167
|
11
|
1
|
Spain PPEFor (1)Against (11) |
Portugal PPEFor (1)Against (5) |
Romania PPEFor (5)Against (3) |
5
|
3
|
4
|
Poland PPEFor (17)Agnieszka KOZŁOWSKA, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Jan OLBRYCHT, Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Marek PLURA, Michał BONI, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
Against (3) |
5
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (5)Against (2) |
3
|
2
|
2
|
Slovakia PPEFor (1)Against (5) |
1
|
Czechia PPEFor (3)Against (3) |
Germany PPEAgainst (29)
Albert DESS,
Andreas SCHWAB,
Angelika NIEBLER,
Axel VOSS,
Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN,
Christian EHLER,
Daniel CASPARY,
David McALLISTER,
Dennis RADTKE,
Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH,
Elmar BROK,
Hermann WINKLER,
Ingeborg GRÄSSLE,
Jens GIESEKE,
Joachim ZELLER,
Karl-Heinz FLORENZ,
Manfred WEBER,
Markus FERBER,
Markus PIEPER,
Monika HOHLMEIER,
Peter JAHR,
Peter LIESE,
Rainer WIELAND,
Renate SOMMER,
Sabine VERHEYEN,
Sven SCHULZE,
Thomas MANN,
Werner KUHN,
Werner LANGEN
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
France PPEAgainst (17) |
1
|
Netherlands PPEAgainst (5) |
A8-0267/2018 - Olga Sehnalová - Résolution 13/09/2018 12:35:15.000 #
DE | IT | ES | PL | FR | RO | PT | BE | AT | SE | CZ | BG | HU | HR | SK | NL | LT | IE | FI | SI | LU | MT | LV | EE | EL | DK | ?? | GB | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
69
|
50
|
40
|
40
|
62
|
21
|
19
|
18
|
16
|
14
|
15
|
14
|
12
|
10
|
10
|
20
|
7
|
7
|
9
|
7
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
3
|
8
|
9
|
1
|
53
|
|
![]() |
156
|
Germany PPEFor (25)Albert DESS, Angelika NIEBLER, Axel VOSS, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, David McALLISTER, Dennis RADTKE, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Elmar BROK, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Manfred WEBER, Markus FERBER, Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Peter JAHR, Peter LIESE, Rainer WIELAND, Sven SCHULZE, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN, Werner LANGEN
Against (1)Abstain (1) |
Italy PPEFor (8) |
Poland PPEFor (18)Adam SZEJNFELD, Agnieszka KOZŁOWSKA, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Michał BONI, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
|
France PPEFor (17) |
9
|
Portugal PPEFor (6) |
3
|
4
|
1
|
Czechia PPE |
Bulgaria PPEFor (7) |
5
|
4
|
Slovakia PPE |
Netherlands PPEFor (5) |
3
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|||
![]() |
143
|
Germany S&DFor (18) |
Italy S&DFor (23)Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Giuseppe FERRANDINO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Patrizia TOIA, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ
Abstain (2) |
2
|
8
|
Portugal S&DFor (8) |
4
|
Austria S&D |
5
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (16) |
||||
![]() |
51
|
3
|
France ALDEFor (7) |
2
|
1
|
Belgium ALDE |
1
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
Netherlands ALDEFor (5) |
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|||||||||
![]() |
39
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (8) |
Spain Verts/ALEFor (5) |
4
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom Verts/ALEFor (6) |
||||||||||||||
![]() |
34
|
Germany GUE/NGL |
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||
![]() |
52
|
4
|
1
|
16
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (12) |
|||||||||||||
![]() |
16
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
Greece NIFor (1)Against (2)Abstain (1) |
1
|
3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
30
|
1
|
Italy EFDDFor (9)Abstain (1) |
France EFDDFor (3)Against (2) |
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (13) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
28
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
15
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
Amendments | Dossier |
448 |
2018/2008(INI)
2018/03/02
AGRI
115 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital Α A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State; whereas the creation of this associative link is the goal of the common (global or European) brand.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas products of the same brand may have different characteristics deriving from legitimate factors such as consumers preferences in the destination regions, the place of manufacturing, specific local requirements, or differences in sourcing of raw materials due to their geographical or seasonal availability;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of added ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Calls on the common development of a food control system targeted to filter products under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance but with different quality. This system would be based on three level control: - it is advisable to complete the tasks by ensuring the standard quality of products under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance but produced by the same food operator of those persons who are responsible for the quality at a given food operator. Furthermore, the internal control procedure of food operators may be completed recovery plan in case of products in dual quality. - food safety authorities in Member States or regions should carry comparative laboratory analyses including organoleptic and other necessary tests every year concerning products sold in different Member States under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance. They should send their results to the European Food Safety Authority. In case of fraud in food quality they should notify the other Member States and the European Commission via the Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed. - it is necessary to create a new unit in the European Food Safety Authority which would collect and analyse the results of the comparative laboratory analyses by Member States, as well as store these in a publicly accessible EU database. It would immediately launch a common food safety action in this field if needed.
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that the origin of food, especially in the case of prepared foods, is an important decision factor for the consumer; calls therefore for the labelling of the place of origin of food and its location and method of processing (including slaughter methods) to be harmonised at European level to recognise the specificity of each national production, and to meet consumer expectations, which sometimes vary from one country to another.
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Calls for better cooperation of national authorities within the framework of already existing legal provisions like the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, if needed with the support of existing European institutions, in particular the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the varying content of products diminishes the consumers' trust in the product, thus undermining the reputation of the whole European food chain – from agricultural workers, producers and processors, up to retailers and advertisers, as well as the overall EU regulatory framework;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Recognises that when agricultural food items and their quality are called into question, it reflects negatively on farmers and the food processing system, highlighting the significant role played by the Geographical Indicators and Protected Destination of Origin labels as well as the importance of traceability and thorough labelling of food items.
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that, if the provisions of the New Deal are infringed, with unjustified product disparities from between one Member State and another, serious penalties must be imposed, such as barring the product concerned from the single market for a specified period.
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Underlines the importance of civil society in bringing producers' unfair practices into public awareness and calls for more support for civic activity, institutional and individual whistle- blowers in the field of food safety and consumers' rights;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Is concerned that "no or slow action" from the side of the EU runs the risk of alienating the citizens from the EU by not taking concrete actions in short terms to tackle this issue.
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Member States to make available the requisite additional financial resources for such an agency or specialised unit.
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Calls on producers - first and foremost large multinationals, marketing their brands in different countries and markets both within and outside the EU - to take immediate measures to ensure transparency on the composition of their products, differences in composition and reasons behind such differences, and make this information easily available to all consumers.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas all farmers in the European Union produce products to the same high standards; customers expect this uniformity of quality to be offered by the other elements of the food chain, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they reside;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas such unfair practices have to be cut out to avoid any misleading for consumers and considering that only a strong synergy at the EU level can solve this cross-border issue;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principles and claims of adjusting to local preferences;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the dual quality of products can conceal fraudulent practices by the producers and/or distributors of food products;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia; whereas products were compared with the same products from countries such as Austria and Germany among others;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas comparative organoleptic tests and analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have recently been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand with the same label, the same ingredients and the same proportional composition to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) B a. whereas the Member States are not in a position of comparing on their own all food products in the remaining Member States at a given moment;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Recital B b (new) B b. whereas a common EU body or a common system of notification or data sharing can guarantee instant access to information about the products' composition and ingredients;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Recital B c (new) B c. whereas some producer representatives have agreed to amend their product recipes in some countries so that identical products are offered in the Single Market;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain produc
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’, which even though does not breech the principles of the free market economy indicates misuse of the brand perception;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’, thus hindering the principle that all consumers are treated equally;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other, often higher-quality, ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so-
Amendment 3 #
A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand marketed under the same label to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas a robust European methodology accepted by all actors in the food supply chain is necessary to determine whether the problem is systemic or anecdotal; whereas the involvement of Member States, the agrifood industry and consumer associations is essential to ensure that test results are accepted by all;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas the analyses showed no infringement on current rules on labelling or other food law, these practices can therefore not be considered as food fraud in the narrower sense, rather showing certain discomfort and varying perceptions of what and how certain products should or should not contain;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas these analyses also show that certain products include less of the main ingredient, or ingredients that are considered to be less healthy and of poorer quality, or ingredients that have different taste, consistency and other sensory characteristics;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas current laboratory findings for dual quality products confirm that the lower quality products contain ingredients presenting a higher health risk to consumers;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas this unacceptable practice involves well-known agri-food multinationals seeking to maximise their profit margins by exploiting the differences in purchasing power from one Member State to the next;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas objective differences in supply due to the regional and/or seasonal availability of raw materials are possible;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas the varying quality of products causes concern that some Member States are treated differently from others;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, agricultural or food product and quality and expect agricultural or food products of the same brand to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Recital C b (new) C b. whereas, if they exist, differences in ingredients or compositions of food products marketed within the single market do not automatically induce a lower quality but may be linked to product reformulation and market segmentation strategies related to consumer taste, the existence of specific national legislation and different supply in agricultural raw materials;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Recital C c (new) C c. whereas existing European legislation covers the practices mentioned, since it already protects consumers against deceptive practices which have or are likely to substantially alter the economic behaviour, in relation to the product, of the consumer whom it affects or to whom it is addressed;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Recital C d (new) C d. whereas the European Union has already developed distinctive labels in order to meet the particular expectations of consumers and to take account of production specificities through the optional quality terms;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph –1 (new) -1. supports the gradual approach of the European Commission, namely: a. the preparation and publication in September 2017 of guidelines to facilitate and improve the application of the EU legislation in force by the national authorities with a view to protecting European citizens; b. the development by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) of a robust European methodology accepted by all actors to test and compare agricultural and food products;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; notes that high level analyses have already been conducted, which should be taken into consideration in designing and implementing the said methodology; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018; calls on the Member States' relevant authorities to actively take part in this testing and integrate this methodology into their working practices
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018, with a view to introducing specific measures as soon as possible to ban these unfair practices;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Reminds that free movement of goods does not necessarily mean that every product must be identical in every corner of the Single Market. Goods may be sold with different composition or characteristics, provided that they fully respect EU legislation. Even products under the same brand may have different characteristics, due to legitimate factors such as the place of manufacture or consumer preferences in the destination regions. Recalls that when different compositions of identically branded goods are marketed in a way that has the potential to mislead the consumer must be avoided. Outlines that consumers have a certain perception of the main characteristics of branded products and that differences in legitimate specific expectations from a product must be highlighted, in particular when a product significantly deviates from these expectations;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Calls on the Commission to continue the discussions with the stakeholders – consumer organisations, manufacturers and national authorities within the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network – and awaits development of the common methodology for the comparative tests of food products in different Member States, which should permit greater clarity on the scope of the problem;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission, in view of the allocation of European funding for analyses, to make it compulsory for the findings thereof to be made public in all official EU languages, so that consumers can be properly informed about the quality of the products in question and make their choices accordingly;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Welcomes the public interests towards the topic in the countries, where analyses were conducted and notes that the citizens' trust in the functioning of the Single Market is at stake, which could have negative impact both for the Union and for the various stakeholders involved, including the producers;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Welcomes the efforts of the Joint Research Centre to establish guidelines for a harmonised testing approach, and urges the Member States to grant financial support to national competent authorities in order to carry out studies, based on these guidelines, in suspected cases of dual quality;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Welcomes that the Joint Research Centre is working on guidelines for a common testing methodology that will permit to carry out EU wide tests on a common coordinated basis across the EU countries;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Notes that the Single Market is accessible to the producers, but at the same time it is very competitive, with some brands ubiquitously known or well perceived across the Union;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, which is due among other reasons to lack of sufficient resources or market access and serious competition on the market;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, and considering the detrimental effect of this practice on the functioning of the Single Market, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped immediately by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices; recalls that business operators are permitted to market and sell goods with different composition or characteristics, provided that they fully respect EU legislation, but stresses that such differences should be fully justified by the sourcing of local ingredients, by locally-adapted taste preferences or by efforts to improve public health through nutrient reformulation, and that such differences must be made clear to the consumer;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices; strongly advocates that legislative changes be introduced to ensure that products of the same brand but of different quality or with different ingredients are marketed under different labels and that economic operators guilty of continued unfair practices be severely penalised and possibly banned from certain markets;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to be identical in quality and composition, whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, Member States Authorities and Consumer Protection Organizations should make good use of the already possible legal action as outlined in Commission Notice of 26.9.2017 on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products (C(017)6532 final); and only failing this to improve the situation it should be envisaged to consider stopping the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products having deceptively identical appearance but different quality and/or ingredients being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Firmly believes that, in response to
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Calls on Member States, their respective Authorities and laboratories to conduct and interpret analyses comparing composition of foods - in particular products of international brands and private label products - according to commonly agreed standards as those developed by the EUs Joint Research Centre within the framework or the paragraph above, to give producers the possibility to comment on findings before their publication and to communicate results in an objective and transparent way, making full reports accessible to the public;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Views that, this should be accomplished by means of an amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005, inter alia, to incorporate the ‘product of reference’ measure, as detailed in the non-binding Commission notice on ‘the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products’ (2017/C 327/01);
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Urges the EC to propose amendment to Article 6 of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by reference to the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Urges the Commission to implement all the necessary measures in order to avoid any disruption of the European single market, taking into due account the existing differences in market conditions, purchasing powers and fiscal regimes among Member States;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas some consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Urges the EC to propose amendment to the list of practices under Annex I of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by the inclusion of the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Is concerned that national authorities have refused to provide the test reports and that food samples were not collected as part of official controls and were not tested as official samples;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that,
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products; supports the active involvement of citizens in containing the spread of this practice by setting up a European alert system to identify dual quality products;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products; it is desirable for consumer information purposes to publish a public database that a product with "different recipe" that a producer have made in a given Member State is based exactly on what kind of criteria;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products, combined with the obligation to spell out the reasons for employing such strategies;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes , a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, th
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to
Amendment 80 #
3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Firmly believes that the most effective means of combatting abuses linked to branding is the promotion of short supply chains in the food industry and the creation of local quality brands, these can bring benefits such as; Improved negotiating positions for farmers; These supply chains offer farmers greater power during negotiations, especially during those with retailers, Increased communication between producer and consumer; Short supply chains can lead to job creation, especially in rural areas, Reduced transportation costs; Short supply chains typically serve a local area, reducing the energy costs, transportation costs, and CO2 emissions, Increased transparency; It’s easier to make short supply chains with few or no intermediaries transparent than it is longer and more complex ones, Reduced risk; A short supply chain reduces the risk of damage, contamination, Increased quality; Doing business and transporting goods locally increases their overall quality by reducing the need for freezing and use of preservatives, Greater profits; Short supply chains offer farmers with greater profits while keeping the end-price more or less the same for consumers;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Insists on the importance of the notion of a "product of reference", against which consumer expectations are to be measured; highlights that consumers need to be adequately informed if a product differs from their expectations, as when inadequate information leads them to buy a product they would not otherwise buy;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Advocates strongly the distribution to the national authorities and the public dissemination of company market findings regarding regional preferences in the case of products whose composition differs from one region to another;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Calls on the Member States, and in particular national consumer and food authorities, to ensure compliance with the EU consumer acquis and to enforce the European safety and food labelling legislation at national level;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Manufacturers are invited to consider a logo on the packaging that would indicate that the content and the quality of the same brand and packaging product is the same across Member States;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Commends the initiative of those producers, which have announced they would amend their recipes;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Reminds the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of food products (2017/C 327/01) which acknowledges producers' right to sell different products in different parts of the single market, due to local preferences, local and seasonal ingredients, or different places of manufacture; warns however that consumers must not be misled and calls on the national food authorities to establish, on a case-by-case basis, if this practice is illegal, based on the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, and their interplay with the fair information requirements in Regulation No 1169/2011 on Food Information;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls on the European Union, national authorities and single market producers to take all necessary steps to inform consumers of any disparities in product composition through visible and clear labelling;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) A a. whereas no European citizen should be treated as a second-class citizen in the single market and the allegations of double quality of products which would consist in selling products of lower quality under the same brand name in some Member States rather than others, if proven, must be taken seriously; whereas no proven case of double quality of products appears has been the subject of a court judgment in Europe at the moment;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Urges the producers to relaunch brands in the whole Single market in order to guarantee its smooth functioning and not in a case-by-case principle;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Encourages the adoption of a different approach to the preparation of specific products in order to protect consumers and ensure that they are properly informed;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products; considers it would be fitting for the agency or unit to be located in a country, such as Bulgaria, that had been affected by the unfair practice of dual product quality.
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the
source: 618.354
2018/04/18
IMCO
199 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 22 a (new) – having regard to the various surveys, studies and tests carried out in the last years by the Food Inspection Authorities in many Member States in Central and Eastern Europe,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the assessment of whether a commercial practice is unfair under the UCPD must be performed on a case-by- case basis by Member States
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Underlines that private labels have become an essential staple in consumers’ shopping baskets and that their market share has increased across most product categories in most Member States over the past decade; believes that private labels should not give the impression of a branded product so as to prevent consumer confusion; reasserts that the issue of private labels requires particular attention from the Commission, so as to end the confusion between private labels and branded products;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Recalls that the European Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to determine whether a dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production, in particular SMEs; regrets that no data have been presented by the Commission so far;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Underlines that counterfeiting of branded products exposes consumers to health and safety risks, undermines consumer confidence in the brands and leads to loss of revenue for producers; Notes that range of counterfeit products recovered in the EU remains broad and includes nearly all types of goods;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned about restrictions placed on traders when it comes to
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned about restrictions placed on traders when it comes to purchasing goods that
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls that according to the Commission, studies made on brand loyalty demonstrate that brands act in the mind of consumers as a certificate for a controlled and constant quality; agrees with the Commission that this explains why some consumers may expect branded products to be of equivalent quality if not exactly the same wherever and whenever purchased and brand owners to inform them when they decide to change any important element of the composition of their products; considers therefore, that the provision of any additional information, although in the principal field of vision of a package, is insufficient unless the consumer clearly understands that the product in question differs from products of a same brand sold in another Member States;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Invites the European Commission, where appropriate, to make use of competition law to tackle contractual and non-contractual practices that illegitimately restrict consumers’ ability to benefit fully from the Single Market;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Urges the European Commission to make use of competition law to tackle contractual and non-contractual practices that illegitimately restrict consumers’ ability to benefit fully from the Single Market;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Takes note of the arguments that products may differ due to regional consumer preferences; Believes that consumer preferences should not be used as an excuse for lowering quality and/or offering different quality grades on different markets; stresses that consumers must be transparently informed and aware of this adjustment for each individual product and not only in general terms, that this "established practice" exists;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) Amendment 11 #
|