28 Amendments of Esther DE LANGE related to 2013/2091(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas recent fraud cases include, for example, the marketing of horsemeat as beef or the marketing of the meat of horses treated with phenylbutazone as edible horse meat, the use of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt and of horsemeat as beef, and, the use of methanolcontaminated alcohol in spirits, the use of methanol- dioxin-contaminated alcohol in spirifats in animal feed production and the mislabelling of fish species and seafood products;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the food supply chain is often long and complex, involving many food business operators and other parties; whereas consumers are increasingly unaware of how their food is produced and individual food business operators do not always have, and are not required to have, an overview of the entire product chain;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1, 1a, 1b (new)
Paragraph 1, 1a, 1b (new)
1. AcknowledgesDeplores the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU or national level; and national level; 1a. Expresses its concern about the potential impact of food fraud on consumer confidence, food safety, the functioning of the food chain and the stability of agricultural prices and emphasises the importance of quickly restoring European consumers’ confidence; 1b. Therefore calls on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps required to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policies;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
- having regard to Regulation (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 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different approachmethodologies; considers a uniform definition to be essential for developing a European approach to combating food fraud; stresses the need rapidly to adopt a harmoniszed definition at EU level, based on discussions with Member States, relevant stakeholders and experts, including elements such as 1) non- compliance with food law and/or misleading the consumer (including the omission of product information), 2) intent and 3) potential financial gain and/or competitive advantage;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper or lower quality alternatives, wrongly labelling the animal species used in a meat or seafood products, incorrectly labelling weight, selling ordinary foods as organic, unfairly using origin or animal welfare quality logos, labelling aquaculture fish as wild-caught or marketing an inferior variety of fish under the name of a superior category or more expensive species, counterfeiting and marketing food past its ‘use-by’ date;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 c (new)
Citation 1 c (new)
- having regard to Regulation (EC) 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 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that foods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and milkeat;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new) , 22
Paragraph 21 a (new) , 22
22. Recalls that Parliament has previously called on the Commission to undertake impact assessments on origin labelling for fresh me1a (new). Believes that, even though it is not per se a tool for combating food fraud, labelling the country of origin can help ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, more stable relationships between meat suppliers and processors, increased diligence when food business operators choose their suppliers and products and more reliable information to consumers, thus restoring consumer confidence; Recalls that Regulation 1169/2011 stipulates that the Commission will adopt, by December 2013, implementing acts regarding the mandatory labelling of the country of origin labelling for meat from swine, sheep, goats and products containing meat; urgesoultry as well as on voluntary labelling of food after an impact assessment; Calls on the Commission to rapidly to present its impact assessments and report on this issue; stresses that origin labelling is not a tool for combcome forward with these implementing acts on the labelling of fresh meat from swine, sheep, goats and poultry, drawing inspiration from the rules already applicable to non-processed beef and veal, ensuring that consumers are informed about animals' places of birth, rearing and slaughter, while taking into account existing national and regional systems for indicating the origin of meat; 22. Recalls furthermore that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat ing food fraud, although it may indirectly lead to a better-informed and more transparent supply chain processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient; urges the Commission to rapidly present its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory, while taking into account its impact assessments and avoiding excessive costs and administrative burdens;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers it valuable for the food sectorthat, in addition to and not replacing the system of official controls for the food sector, the sector itself proactively to develops and uses private-sector anti-fraud programminitiatives such as product integrity checks, self-monitoring, analysis, product-tracing plans, audits and certifications, and welcomes current initiatives such as the Global Food Safety Initiative and the Food Fraud Initiative at Michigan State University;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. CUrges that coordination and communication between the national authorities responsible for investigating food fraud should be improved, thereby helping Member States to step up their efforts to combat this problem; Therefore, calls on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system, based on the existing RASFF system as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in food fraud cases; calls for the publication of annual reports outlining cases of food fraud that have been uncovered, by analogy with the RASFF reports;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Welcomes the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, but considers that this is not dissuasive enough; believes that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity; sdeems it necessary, as an extra deterrent, tohat Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in case of fraud with products aimed at vulnerable consumers; proposes, furthermore, that in the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration be withdrawn;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the agro-food sector is one of the biggest economic sectors in the EU, providing 48 million jobs and worth 715 billion euro annually;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas individual cases of food fraud have a negative impact on the image of the entire agro-food sector;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas food fraud generally occurs where the potential for and the temptation of food fraud are high and the risk of getting caught and sanctions are low.
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the food supply chain is often long and complex, involving many food business operators and other parties; whereas consumers are increasingly unaware of how their food is produced;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. Whereas after serious food fraud incidents, convicted fraudulent food business operators are sometimes closed down by national competent authorities; whereas these businesses soon after re- register elsewhere and continue their business as before. Whereas information exchange between Member States on convicted fraudulent businesses would improve monitoring of these businesses in order to prevent them from pursuing new fraudulent activities;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas national authorities tend to focus their controls on food safety and do not prioritise food fraud, often due to lack of capacity and resources.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas since 2011, Europol has successfully conducted several OPSON operations on counterfeit and substandard food products; whereas Europol in these operations cooperates with Interpol, Member States’ authorities, non-EU States as well as private partners.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N b (new)
Recital N b (new)
Nb. whereas labelling the country or place of origin of meat and meat products in itself does not prevent fraud; whereas the origin of a food product in some cases partly determines the price of the food product; whereas labelling the origin might even trigger more fraud;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Welcomes the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 in order to raise awareness among relevant actors;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Regrets the limited visibility and uptake of FVO reports and audits by the Commission and Member States; Calls on the Commission to follow up FVO reports and recommendations more vigorously;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Believes that national competent authorities should inform the public, to the extent possible and appropriate, of product recalls and other measures taken by competent authorities in food fraud incidents;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls for greater awareness and improved monitoring of business-to- business labelling of frozen foods. Calls on the Commission to present a proposal on obligatory labelling of meat and fish that indicates whether the meat and fish has been frozen, how many times it has been frozen and for how long;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and fingerprinting of products, and to enable making tests commercially available in the short term. Acknowledges the existing European research projects on food integrity and authenticity, such as TRACE and AuthenticFood;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Regrets that the Commission does not have an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation. Calls on the Commission to obtain such an overview as soon as possible;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Invites the Commission and Member States to also consider other methods that aim to prevent and discourage food fraud, such as naming and shaming through a European register of convicted fraudulent food business operators;