Preparatory phase in Parliament
2018/2008(INI) Dual quality of products in the single market
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | AGRI | NEKOV Momchil (S&D) | |
| Opinion | ENVI | BORZAN Biljana (S&D) | |
| Lead | IMCO | SEHNALOVÁ Olga (S&D) | ŠTEFANEC Ivan (EPP), SULÍK Richard (ECR), CHARANZOVÁ Dita (ALDE), MAŠTÁLKA Jiří (GUE/NGL), ŠOLTES Igor (Verts/ALE) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Documents
| 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 #
Ca. whereas President Juncker stressed in his 2017 State of the Union Address that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe, people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15c. Strongly disagrees with arguments on the need to optimize composition and/or quality of branded products in order to meet consumers’ price expectations;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11that strengthens investigation and enforcement powers, improves information and data exchange and access to any relevant information and establishes harmonized rules setting out the procedures for the coordination of investigation and enforcement measures in this regard;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11 as well as of the proposed SMIT Regulation as a crossborder tool to collect information in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Observes that, in the case of consumer products such as food, one and the same brand may be subject to altered recipes and flavour profiles on account of the desiderata imposed by local markets within the European Union; relevant local conditions range, inter alia, from taking account of national legislation (e.g. taxes, national customs with regard to the composition of a food) to disparate local consumer tastes (e.g. with reference to spiciness) regarding the use of local ingredients or production facilities, compliance with reformulation objectives or local price levels; such differentiations do not result in different qualities and are perfectly legitimate, provided that they are not misleading and accord with product information and statements made in advertising;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Stresses the need for products containing different substances (materials), and/or with different manufacturing formulations, to be packaged differently, with different brand names and different labels, even when they are intended for the same type of consumption and have the same producer;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Recognises the usefulness of the sweeps as important form of enforcement coordination carried out under the CPC Regulation and calls on the Commission and Member States to further strengthen them and broaden their scope;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Is convinced, that in case a company intends to place on the market of different Member States product that differs in certain characteristics, such a product cannot be labelled and branded in a seemingly identical manner;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas there have been substantial differences in the implementation of the UCPD from one Member State to another, while the methodological approaches and effectiveness of the resolution and enforcement of the UCPD varies significantly between Member States;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes or the use of a single production standard at EU level; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition and quality and its changes;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of broad and timely public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of broad and timely public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency and clarity with regard to product composition
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 – point 1 (new) (1) Welcomes the launch of the Knowledge Centre for Food Fraud and Quality operated by the Joint Research Centre and emphasises the importance of further coordination of market surveillance on the composition and sensory properties of food offered under the same packaging and branding on several markets across the EU;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Considers that providing accurate and easy-to-understand information to consumers is key for tackling the issue of dual quality of products and calls therefore for the establishment of a clear labelling in order for same-branded products with different composition to be marketed under different labels that are clearly identifiable for the consumers; stresses that selling products with different composition or characteristics should only be fully justified by the sourcing of local ingredients or by effort to improve public health;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Believes that it is in the interest of all relevant stakeholders, both private and public, to identify as soon as possible workable solutions which would enable European consumers to access same quality products within the entire single market; recalls that consumers´ confidence in suppliers and retailers and, above all, in the functioning of the EU internal market is at stake;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas generally, manufacturers of food and other consumer goods can take advantage of diverging interpretations of EU legislation and/or its poor implementation and enforcement by national competent authorities to adapt their products at the detriment of consumers;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls on the Commission to incorporate a price differentiation factor, including different VAT rates for food in individual Member States, when evaluating the results of product comparisons; stresses that the tests published concerning the Member States did not pay attention to prices and thus led to misleading conclusions about the relationship between the composition and the price of the products;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organisations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organisations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers; is convinced that consumer organisations could make a significant contribution to tackling the problem of dual quality by carrying out comparative tests and publishing their results, which would indicate where the dual quality problem was uncovered; calls on the Commission and the Member States to create suitable conditions for consumer organisations to perform these comparative tests;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote and strengthen through financial and legal mechanism the role of consumers associations and to establish regular communication on this issue; believes that enhanced cross- border exchange of information between consumers associations, but also relevant authorities should be promoted;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play a
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations and the notified national bodies responsible for enforcement of the UCPD and other relevant legislation to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations and other civil society's organizations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the brand often plays the most important role in deciding on the value of the product;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Invites consumer organisations to play
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organizations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Stresses the need, in the interests of consumers, to make public the details of producers who use unfair trade practices involving the dual quality of products;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that in the light of previous experiences
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; calls on the Commission to launch a cooperation platform for national authorities to deal effectively with cases of dual quality that involve a cross-border dimension;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; reiterates therefore the need for an effective cross- border cooperation and calls on the Commission and Member States to engage in it more intensively;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level, or have attempted to do so only to a minimum extent, without testing methodologies or evaluations of the results, and without methodologies for the enforcement process;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; stresses the need for further cooperation and data-sharing between competent authorities;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D b (new) Db. whereas a strengthened and more efficient enforcement cooperation framework would also boost consumer trust and reduce consumer harm;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level, also due to absence of an explicit legal provision on EU level;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Is convinced that any legislative or non-legislative proposal must be preceded by a detailed assessment of the issue of dual quality in the single market; calls, therefore, on the Commission to come up with a study to clarify what parts of a range being sold are affected by the issue of dual quality and what real enforcement options are available under current legislation;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Stresses that any action taken against business operators by enforcement authorities must be proportionate and non-discriminatory;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 b (new) 19b. Points out that amending the legislation does not remove the issue of double quality, because misleading consumers is already prohibited under current legislation; recalls that the factual nature of unfair practices will always be judged only on a case-by-case basis, since the extent of the act of misleading the consumer when comparing similar packaging is always a matter of subjective judgment;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, preferably via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market; in this regard, urges the Commission to introduce common minimum standards for food and non-food products in the EU;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of alleged dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, preferably via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas in
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level,
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to assist national enforcement authorities in identifying unfair commercial practices in the marketing of food products on the basis of the EU harmonised methodology being developed by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission as this issue is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the Single Market and consumer trust;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Calls for action to be taken at EU level by conferring the tasks to an existing agency or dedicated new unit to monitor, analyse and publish the findings of tests based on the common methodology via a public database, as well as ensure the cooperation among national competent authorities and support them in their enforcement duties;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Notes that in addition to harmonisation at EU level and developing a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement, testing should also be carried out at Member State level;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty; underlines together with the Commission that the free movement of goods does not necessarily mean that every product must be identical in every corner of the Single Market; emphasises that business operators are permitted to market and sell goods with different composition and characteristics based on consumer preferences and food reformulation provided that they fully respect EU legislation; however, stresses that these products should not lead to their different quality when they are offered to consumers on different markets;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty, increased consumer protection and fair competition among producers on the market;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recalls that
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Welcomes the European Commission's communication titled 'A New Deal for Consumers' of 11April 2018, regrets however, that the proposed amendment to Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) may not lead to greater legal certainty; believes that the preferred option should be adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist of commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair under Annex I of the UCPD;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Welcomes the amendment to the 2005/29/EC Directive by introducing dual quality of products as a misleading practice in its Article 6; Regrets however that the Commission did not take this opportunity to amend the Annex I of the 2005/29/EC Directive that defines the practices prohibited in all circumstances and make it a non-exhaustive list;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’ and explicitly mention dual quality of identically branded products when discriminatory and not respecting consumer expectations;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas an effective solution to the problem of the dual quality of products can partly be sought through primarily non-legislative means at national level, for instance through the introduction of methodological approaches on the enforcement of UCPD, recommendations, the sharing of best practices, open public debate and the raising of public awareness;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Welcomes the Commission´s New Deal for Consumers presented by the European Commission on 11 April 2018 which will tackle dual quality of consumer products by updating the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices involving the marketing products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to adapt products on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons, where consumer preferences are among these reasons;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Emphasises that the outcome of the legislative process should be a clear definition of what can be considered as dual quality and how each case should be assessed and addressed by competent authorities;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products in the near future; JRC should also reach out for a cooperation to Member States authorities which has already undertaken their own testing of products for exchange of best practices in this area;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a European-wide harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products
Amendment 185 #
23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products in the near future and to evaluate the results of tests using a clear definition of 'significant difference';
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Calls on the responsible national authorities of the Member States concerned to pay increased attention to the enforcement of the UCPD and to issues of dual quality, and to specify the specific problems they face in enforcing the UCPD;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Considers that the competent national authorities ought to monitor compliance with the applicable law on food effectively;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Calls on the Commission to come up with new tolls to fight also non-food products, such as detergents as soon as possible;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 b (new) 23b. Calls on the Member States to exchange experiences and information on possible unfair practices in the food sector, as appropriate, in order to improve and approximate the enforcement of existing legislation following the best practices approach;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas products differentiation and innovation should not be restricted as such but consumers should not be misled;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 c (new) 23c. Calls on the Member States to inform consumers as far as possible of their rights and options as regards the enforcement of existing legislation and the obligations of vendors to inform them of the composition and origin of products;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 d (new) 23d. Recalls that the adequate enforcement of the UCPD is fully in the hands of the Member States, and it is thus their duty to provide consumers with a space for the submission of complaints and their further investigation;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Stresses that EU law on fair business practices (Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD) ) and the numerous harmonised provisions on food labelling provide an appropriate legal basis for combating practices designed to mislead consumers (Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers);
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Rejects attempts to standardise the taste and recipes of food throughout the EU or to prescribe to manufacturers the exact composition of the various products, as a result of which they can no longer respond to the wishes of consumers on their local markets;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 c (new) 24c. Calls on the Commission to provide a legally secure definition of the concept of an ‘EU reference product';
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 d (new) 24d. Considers that an amendment to define 'dual quality' as an unfair commercial practice under Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices should not be made until a method has been developed, with a lead role being played by the Commission's Joint Research Centre;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 e (new) 24e. Is opposed to the creation of an agency or a specialised unit to monitor the consistency, the composition and the proportional use of ingredients in identical branded products and packaged foodstuffs, since the existing legal and monitoring structures are sufficient;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 f (new) 24f. Calls for the work to develop a methodology, led by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, to result in clear formulations, in order to avoid contradictory interpretations by the competent national authorities;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 g (new) 24g. Calls on the Commission, after EU-wide tests have been conducted in accordance with the standards developed by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, to publish the results in a report and if necessary to draw conclusions;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 h (new) 24h. Points out that the results of EU- wide testing in accordance with the common testing methodology developed by the Commission's Joint Research Centre will enable Member States to provide their people with objective and factual information;
Amendment 2 #
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 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas the purchasing power divergence in the EU leads to food market practices, which are detrimental to consumers and to low-income citizens;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F b (new) Fb. whereas there is a continuous need to strengthen the role of consumer associations in this regards; whereas consumer associations play an unique role in guaranteeing consumers 'confidence and need to be further supported through additional legal and economic measures and capacity building;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging; Notes that according to a survey10a conducted for a national competent authority, a vast majority of consumers are bothered about such differences; _________________ 10a Survey of the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority conducted in 2016. http://www.szpi.gov.cz/clanek/tz- 2016-vyzkum-cesky-spotrebitel-zada- stejne-kvalitni-potraviny-jako- evropsky.aspx
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging with varying prices; points out that these results cause concern that some Member States are treated differently from others;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States in Central and Eastern Europe have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging; Those differences are also proven in regard to the prices;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that results of
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging, to the detriment of consumers' rights;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that the results of these laboratory tests, which were carried out in several Member States, cannot serve as credible and objective proof of the existence of dual product quality, or as a basis for a new legislative initiative, as Member States did not follow the same methodology, did not always compare the reference products, and the results were not assessed under the same definition of a 'significant difference' that would point to significant differences in composition and not, for instance, merely to sensory differences;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 23 a (new) – having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018) 183),
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Highlights that the results of the tests show that same-branded products are often composed of lower-quality ingredients or differ significantly in its composition, i.e. less of the main ingredient or use of less-healthy ingredients; Stresses such differences in ingredients, often of a lower quality, can impact on a long term consumers' health;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that based on these findings, consumers are concerned about discrimination between different Member States markets; underlines that any type of such discrimination is not acceptable and all EU consumers should enjoy access to the equivalent level of quality of products;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights that the cases reported concern not only food products but also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies; notes that these too have not been tested using the same methodology;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights that the cases when such significant differences were reported concern not only food products but frequently also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights that the cases reported concern not only food products but also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies and people with special dietary needs;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights that the cases reported concern not only food products but also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that Parliament called on the Commission
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Welcomes the approval by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess various aspects of disparities between products; stresses that the results of these investigations are not yet available;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets that the European Commission decided not to sufficiently change EU legislation to tackle the issue of dual quality, despite the multiple evidence for its existence;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to deliver
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 23 b (new) – having regard to the proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernization of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018) 185/3),
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes,
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology, which will contribute to an overall assessment of how serious and widespread the issue of dual quality on the Single Market is, and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Welcomes the Commission's approach in the recent New Deal for Consumers, which in the section revising the UCPD adequately addresses the dual quality phenomenon by proposing to supplement Article 6(2) of the UCPD; recalls that the conformity assessment does not quantify the cases or products concerned by this phenomenon;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Welcomes the recent submission of the proposal for Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business- to-consumer commercial practices; notes, however, that it contains an unclear and thus difficult-to-use definition of dual quality and will therefore require clarification;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop a code of conduct with business representatives, in particular food producers and retailers, on how to ensure greater transparency on product composition that exceeds the current legal obligations;
Amendment 47 #
4c. Stresses that product quality is closely linked to the price that the consumer is willing to pay; points out that the problem of double quality cannot be assessed independently of different living standards and wage levels;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Takes note of the mandate given by the European Council to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence; Stresses the need for active involvement of parties representing consumers' interests, including representatives of consumer organizations and research organizations that have conducted product tests in Member States; Regrets that the European Parliament has been neither involved nor properly informed of the progress made so far;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence; emphasizes that the key for tackling this problem in practice is an effective and swift cross-border cooperation of relevant authorities including information exchange on potentially non-compliant products;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas when promoting, selling or supplying products, companies should provide consumers with accurate
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of d
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recommends that the Member States concerned draw up their own assessment of the methodology and effectiveness of enforcement of the UCPD and other existing legislation on the issue of the dual quality of food and other products and submit them to the Commission for an objective assessment of the seriousness of the problem;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; Believes that this pilot project should continue in 2019 to deepen the knowledge and cover also non- food sector; Calls for stronger involvement of Members of the European Parliament to oversee this pilot project;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; expects the project to be launched, conducted and published in time, as initially planned;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; expects the project to be launched, conducted and published in time, as initially planned;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the adoption by the European Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that comprehensive information on the public authority responsible for taking action and on relevant administrative or judicial proceedings, including the possibility for members of the public to file online complaints, is vital for the effective enforcement of the UCPD; views as negative, therefore, the lack of information in the Member States concerned which, in spite of the concerns expressed by the Member States about the need to address the dual product quality issue, do not make this information available on the websites of the responsible authorities;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Encourages the Parliament, Commission and Member States to make use of all available tools, including pilot and national projects to further asses different aspects of dual quality of foods;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas when promoting, selling or supplying products, companies should provide consumers with accurate information, also on local products and recipes, to enable them to make an informed buying decision;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Encourages the Parliament, Commission and Member States to make use of all available tools, including pilot and national projects to further asses different aspects of dual quality of foods;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that the Commission has already received notification of a new national labeling measure
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Welcomes the fact that, in order to further improve consumer protection in the EU and provide support for businesses, the Commission has launched an online training programme to help companies better understand and enforce consumer rights in the EU;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out that the safety and quality of food, as well as protection of consumers from being misled, are matters of the highest priority;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Considers it important to approach dual quality solely from the point of view of the possible misleading of consumers through visually similar packaging; stresses that the intention is not to lay down or harmonise food quality requirements, because quality has no legislative definition and cannot be objectively defined in terms of the subjective perception of the consumer;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Notes that, despite numerous requests, the testing and analysis methods used by national authorities to study dual quality of products, particularly foodstuffs, have so far not been communicated to the national authorities of other Member States;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Stresses that dual quality can now be regarded as an unfair practice if a product of the same brand is potentially capable of interfering with the consumer's economic behaviour by its similarity to the reference product of the same brand;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 d (new) 7d. Recalls that food safety standards are set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/200210a, and the identified dual quality cases meet the defined requirements and that, therefore, the issue of dual quality of food products does not relate to their safety; _________________ 10aRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 e (new) 7e. Recalls that the obligation to indicate the composition of products is set out in Regulation (EU) No 1169/201110b of the European Parliament and of the Council, and that the identified dual quality cases meet the defined requirements and that, therefore, the issue of dual quality of food products does not relate to the issue of insufficient information on their composition; _________________ 10bRegulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Commission Notice and application of EU consumer protection law to issues of dual quality of products
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas a key principle for brands should be the confidence that consumers put in the composition, value and quality of a product, manufacturers should ensure that their expectations are lived up;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that this notice is intended to help national authorities to determine whether a company is breaking EU food and consumer laws when selling products of dual quality in different countries; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable without further guidelines, common testing methodology and enhanced information exchange at EU level;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable, meaning that consumers' rights are being violated;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Takes note of the Commission
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that the Commission Notice of 29 September 2017 entitled ‘The application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products – The specific case of food (2017/C 237/01)’ refers to the relevant EU legal provisions and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2006/2004) concerning cooperation between authorities and its direction and use;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to differ from each other when the packaging and the brand are identical;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand and/or identical in appearance to be identical also in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Agrees with the Commission that in the
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that the Notice is perceived as primarily intended for foodstuffs; believes that provisions on the application of consumer protection law should be applied to all products in general, and that the product label must be legible and contain full information on the product;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that the Notice is perceived as primarily intended for foodstuffs; believes that provisions on the application of consumer protection law should be applied to all products available in the single market in general;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that the Notice is perceived as primarily intended for foodstuffs; believes that provisions on the application of consumer protection law should be applied to all food and non- food products in general;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that the Notice is perceived as primarily intended for foodstuffs; believes that provisions on the application of consumer protection law should be applied to all food and non-food products in general;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that setting of the so- called “product of reference” could impede the assessment as it might be difficult to determine which of the two (or more) products is the one from which all the others differ;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes that there may be different requirements for the control methods of the national competent authorities
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Notes that the methodology itself cannot provide a unified approach to dual quality assessment unless it also includes guidance on the uniform evaluation of test results, including a definition of 'significant difference' that clearly determines what sort of difference in composition is serious enough to be qualified as 'dual quality';
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Underlines that the aim of such methodology is to ensure the collection of reliable and comparable evidence by the Member States on a common basis to assess the extent of dual-quality products in the EU and propose adequate enforceable measures to ban such practice;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas all EU citizens deserve equal treatment in regard to food and non-food products sold on the Single Market;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to instruct the Joint Research Centre to devise a common test method and carry out uniform tests throughout the EU in accordance with agreed standards, in order to assess how justified the accusations are;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 b (new) 12b. Calls, in connection with the test procedures to be developed by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, for manufacturers to be given the opportunity to deliver opinions before the results are published;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes that the Commission invites competent authorities to perform market tests that involve product comparisons across different regions and countries; highlights, however, that according to the Commission, such tests should be carried out with a common testing approach which has not been adopted yet; Stresses the need to stick to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by end of this year;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses the need to stick to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by end of this year and shared with the public in order to raise awareness of consumers with regard to dual-quality of products;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses the need to
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls on the Commission to establish a public database in charge of registering same-branded products that are sold with a different composition within the Single Market in order for consumers to have access to the relevant information when making a buying decision;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Reminds the European Commission of its commitment to better monitoring and enhancing the correct application of EU legislation;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Reminds the European Commission of its commitment to better monitoring and enhancing the correct application of EU legislation
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 source: 620.776
2018/04/23
ENVI
134 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Citation 2 a (new) – having regard to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market2a, _________________ 2a OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 d (new) – having regard to the European Parliament major interpellation of 15 March 2017 on the differences in declarations, composition and taste of products in central/eastern and western markets of the EU (O-000019/2017);
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that, on occasion, foods of the same brand may differ in taste and recipe on account of certain conditions on local markets within the European Union; the use of local raw materials and production facilities, as well as the need to take into account national law or reformulation objectives can result in differences; differentiation of this type does not imply different quality and is legitimate, so long as it is not misleading for the consumer;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Encourages the Commission to put forward a proposal for a regulation at European level on the labelling and packaging of products that differ from the original recipe of the product, in keeping with the provisions of the Regulation on the provision of food information to consumers (Food Information to Consumers Regulation);
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Strongly condemns the argument that optimisation of composition and/or quality results from consumers' price expectations; highlights that various studies have shown that products of lower quality are often more expensive than their counterparts of higher quality elsewhere in the EU;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that different recipes for food also reflect the diversity of regional taste preferences in the EU;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Stresses that it is the task of the competent national authorities to monitor compliance with the applicable EU law on food and fair commercial practices;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 e (new) – having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 11 June 2013 on a new agenda for European Consumer Policy (P7_TA(2013)0239);
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition and quality in every Member State
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes the European Commission's communication titled 'A New Deal for Consumers' of 11 April 2018, regrets however, that the proposed amendment to Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) may not lead to greater legal certainty; Believes that the preferred option should be adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist of commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair under Annex I of the UCPD;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Encourages the Commission to set up a specialised directorate under the coordination of the competent agency, with professionals in the field, that would carry out checks in manufacturers’ factories and conduct audits of the production flow in order to verify whether the composition of the recipe given by the manufacturer is being followed in cases where a suspicion of dual quality arises;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Strongly encourages the use of the circular economy principle for product packaging and stresses that if packaging for a product in one Member State adheres to this principle, then concerted efforts should be made by the producer to ensure that this is the case for all their products marketed under the same brand in the same type of packaging across the EU and beyond;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. 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 117 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organisations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses that some cases of dual quality products result from a lack of enforcement of EU law; calls on Member State authorities to urgently enforce existing EU rules on food labelling, including in relation to, for example, mechanically separated meat;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have proven that there
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that national authorities
Amendment 123 #
7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to consider amending Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of unjustified dual quality of goods to the blacklist
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Acknowledges producer's rights to produce different products within the single market; stresses at the same time producer's obligation to inform consumers correctly by means of clear labelling. Demands, therefore, full compliance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Food Information Regulation, especially article 7 of the latter Regulation: 'Fair information practices', in order to avoid misleading practices;
Amendment 127 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Welcomes the new point c) of par. 2 of Article 6 of UCPD, which stipulates : Any marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, while those products have significantly different composition or characteristics; is however strongly convinced that this provision should be listed in Annex I in order to ensure a greater legal certainty;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. 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 129 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that their legislation requires products marketed throughout their territories and products for export to be of identical quality, in particular where fat and sugar levels are concerned;
Amendment 13 #
A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes that dual quality of products concerns not only food products but also extends to many different sectors such as cosmetics and the car industry; calls for further efforts in establishing non- discriminatory practices between Member States and rules for all products on the internal market;
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that the purpose of this report is not to reduce the diversity of foods in Europe but simply to ensure that branded products are of the same quality;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Highlights the need to have effective and comprehensive legislation with clear instructions on how to tackle the issue of dual quality;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to adapt products on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons, where consumer preferences are among these reasons;
Amendment 134 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to offer products of the same brand in same packages of different weight or volume in different geographical markets on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have proven that there are significant differences in the composition and quality of certain specific food products marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging, and that are advertised in the same way across the EU; whereas those differences are
Amendment 15 #
Aa. whereas, at the above meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, several Member States presented the results of studies showing that products were being sold in the EU with the same name and the same packaging but with different levels of quality, taste and/or ingredients, and pointed out that this practice may mislead consumers and creates unfair competition;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. 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 production, specific local requirements, or differences in sourcing of raw materials due to their geographical or seasonal availability;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of applicable EU food law requirements, for instance in the labelling of mechanically separated meat1a or the use of food additives2a, have regularly been reported by the European Commission’s Health and Food Audits and Analysis services; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=76 2ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=115
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the presence of product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, while those products have significantly different composition or characteristics on the one EU's single market completely denies basic principles on which the EU's single market should be based on;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. 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 2 #
Draft opinion Citation 2 a (new) – having regard to Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the protection of intellectual property,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. stresses that the safety and quality of food, and protection of consumers from being misled, are the top priorities;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas food that has been tested complied with EU provisions concerning food safety and labelling;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable; whereas, furthermore, those proven differences in ingredients could also be harmful to the environment, for example where palm oil is used in the composition of foodstuffs;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable, thereby contributing to a deterioration in the well- being of citizens, the damage caused to their social and economic interests and the decline in consumer confidence in the Member States in the single market;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas proven differences in ingredients are not only unacceptable for consumers, but could, in the long term, affect
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable such as children and people with dietary and/or health issues;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Citation 3 a (new) – having regard to the joint letter of Republic of Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic of 23 March 2018 to the European Commission concerning the issue of dual quality of products within the context of the New Deal for Consumers;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas in the Member States and regions of the EU in which consumer products contain higher levels of fat and/or sugar than elsewhere, including the outermost regions, the rates and level of seriousness of chronic illnesses (e.g. diabetes and obesity) are also higher;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the varying content of products which are marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging diminishes consumer trust and undermines the reputation of the EU regulatory framework;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas reformulation activities to reduce fat, sugars and salt contents in food are lagging behind in many Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principle and current methodology of adjusting products to local preferences;
Amendment 36 #
Bb. whereas consumers in the internal market should benefit from the same level of protection in all Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas European consumers
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas consumers in different Member
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas consumers do not expect a priori that the branded products sold in different countries within the single market might have different characteristics; whereas consumers in different Members States are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 – having regard to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech of 13 September 2017, where he stressed that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and the branding being identical;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas consumers in different Members States, and/or travellers between Member States who believe they are purchasing the exact same product in those states, are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. D(a) new. whereas generally, manufacturers of food and other consumer goods can take advantage of diverging interpretations of EU legislation and/or its poor implementation and enforcement by national competent authorities to adapt their products at the detriment of consumers;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand and/or identical in appearance to be identical also in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas insufficient information on the differences in products marketed under the same brand in different Member States may distort the economic behaviour of consumers by influencing purchasing decisions;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas labelling that does not correspond to the additives used or to the number of substitutes replacing basic ingredients misleads consumers and may pose a risk to their health;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers lays down strict rules on the protection of consumers against being misled;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas several public opinion surveys have shown that consumers are agitated by such differences in quality, and feel as second class citizens of the EU;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas the Joint Research Center is supposed to come up with a common methodology to improve food product comparative tests;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas the brand has a significant impact on consumer perception of the product, its value and its quality;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 a (new) – having regard to the conclusions of the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 6 March 2017,
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas there are no legislative regulations on dual quality at European Union level;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Recital C c (new) Cc. whereas the absence of European rules on dual quality means that it is not possible to compare or identify dual quality and there are no instruments that might be used to remedy the situation;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph –1 (new) -1. Welcomes the recent Commission initiatives to address the issue, in particular the updating of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process; highlights the importance of in-depth and timely analysis of food but also non-food products;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process and to integrate this methodology into their working practices;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on producers who place dual quality products on the single market to take immediate measures to provide information on the composition of their products, differences in composition as well as reasons for such differences and to make this information clear and visible to consumers on the products' packaging; Calls on the Commission to establish an EU public database of these products so that this information can be easily viewed in one place for easy comparison;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the urgent need to develop a common testing methodology; highlights the commitment that EU-wide testing results should be available by the end of this year; calls for stronger involvement of the Members of the European Parliament in the process;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasizes that, in addition to a uniform methodology for testing of dual quality of food and drink products, it is also necessary to develop a uniform methodology for evaluating the test results and interpreting the findings;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 a (new) – having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018)183):
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that in addition to harmonisation at EU level and developing a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement, testing should also be carried out at Member State level;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain and calls for complete transparency for consumers on this issue;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain; stresses the need to involve as many interested actors as possible;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that although there are many proven differences in the composition of products that are essentially similar and sold under the same marketing labels(principally foodstuffs), any legal or political action should be based on clearly proven cases and not on press or social media coverage which may be misleading;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to improve the transparency of scientific studies in the field of food safety in response to public concern, in order to boost access to the relevant information that is needed in order to take purchasing decisions backed by a reliable, science- based risk assessment;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. welcomes the new European Commission's proposal on consumers protection called New Deal for Consumers;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Regrets the lack of cooperation between countries and emphasises that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition,
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed; stresses that clear guidelines need to be published on Commission websites with a view to promoting transparency and informing consumers;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 b (new) – having regard to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018)185/3);
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed in order to combat discriminatory practices against consumers;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Remind 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 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses the need to boost the level of transparency with regard to the information provided to consumers by manufacturers through a regulation that will apply across Europe, through which all products marketed in the EU market are included in an online platform in the form of a European register of products marketed in the European market containing, for example, the information to be found on the product label, the name under which the product is marketed in each Member State, its nutritional characteristics and physiochemical parameters and a photo of the product, ensuring that the platform is readily accessible for the purposes of informing consumers;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Agrees with the Commission that there may be objective factors that affect the resulting composition of products, as well as legitimate factors such as the place of manufacture or consumer preferences in the destination regions; insists, however, that these factors can in no way be used as justification for marketing identically branded products of different quality;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission to urgently investigate business to business (B2B) practices, such as when suppliers force supermarkets to source their products from a particular factory, which may prevent consumers from buying potentially higher quality products from another country within the single market;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is concerned about territorial constraints for traders when purchasing goods; calls on the Commission to examine such cases to enable consumers to fully benefit from the single market;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to differ from each other, and that they are unable to assess the potential differences in the composition of certain products, which undermines their ability to make purchasing decisions;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, calls on the Commission to determine whether dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 b (new) – having regard to the results of the comparative studies carried out by consumer protection authorities and organisations in several EU Member States,
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information; also highlights the need to require firms in the food industry to be transparent in their communication with consumers and to ensure that they do not place dual quality products on the market;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes but believes that providing this vital information should not be just a voluntary action, but needs to be mandated; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information; calls on the Commission and the appropriate national bodies to organise consumer education;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information and the urgent need to draw up a code of ethics for manufacturers;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information and restoring lost trust;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the importance of
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Underlines the importance of civil society in analysing, challenging and raising awareness about dual quality practices and calls for more support for consumer groups, particularly in Eastern Europe, as well as better protection for institutional and individual whistle-blowers in the field of food safety and consumer rights;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Citation 4 c (new) – having regard to the Commission proposal to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices that involve the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that is it is not appropriate to standardise the taste of food across the EU and recipes used to make it, because it would then no longer be possible to take local markets and the wishes of consumers into account;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the need, in the interests of consumers, to make public the details of producers who use unfair trade practices involving the dual quality of products;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Acknowledges the argument that products might differ due to consumer preferences, stresses however that consumers should be clearly and timely informed of such differences;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market; calls on the Commission to declare those arguments null and void, given that they do not reflect the general consumer interest and that consumer preferences are not determined transparently:
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation are false and should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market;
source: 621.007
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2018-09-12Show (10) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| committees/2/shadows/5 |
|
| other/0 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
IMCO/8/11992
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052New
Rules of Procedure EP 52 |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2018-01-20Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|