14 Amendments of Elisabeth JEGGLE related to 2008/2220(INI)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reaffirms that the goal of higher food safety standards should be that of attaining a high level of product quality offering a strong competitive advantage to agricultural producers, and that food safety and the requirements of environment- friendliness must not be allowed to generate significant extra costs for European farmers; believes that a key role needs to be played here by CAP funding, which farmers in Europe should use for ensuring product safety and higher product quality;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
6. Believes that EU quality policy should be closely linked to the post-2013 reform of the CAP; considers that the 'bill of health' for the CAP has not paid sufficient attention to quality standards; is of the view that the EU's role in this policy should be supportive (including financial support) with a view to obtaining quality agricultural and food production in Europe, and not restrictive (i.e. not imposing one- size-fits-all rules which would particularly affect; stresses that more support should be given to producers’ organisations, particularly with a view to not disadvantaging small producers);
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is concerned at the complexity of the European system of basic standards and at the multiplicity of rules which farmers in the EU have to comply with; favours a simplified system and the adoption of rules capable of ensuring adequate standards of food safety at European levelcalls for each new rule to be assessed on the criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned at the fact that the majority of European consumers are not sufficiently well-informed concerning the food chain, especially as regards products' and raw materials' origins; advocates mandatory indication of place ofthe producmotion of primary products via a 'made in the EU' or 'non-EU' label; believes such a system should also apply to processed food products and should account for the origins of the main ingredients and raw materials, specifying their place of origin as well as the place of final processingvoluntary quality programmes with guarantee of origin, in order to raise the profile of regional quality produce;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the optional reserved terms should be promoted as an alternative to compulsory marketing standards; does not find it necessary for the Union to create its own definition of 'optional reserved terms', given that Member States' own legislation codifies those aspects and that the country of origin principle can be applied for the mutual recognition of the standards concerned without distorting the common market;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that there needs to be a more transparent labelling system enjoying broad consumer recognition;, advocates, in addition, indicating place of origin for agricultural and foodnd that, in the interest of transparent labelling of origin, the provenance of essential product-defining agricultural ingredients should be shown both on EU products and for the mon thoste important raw materials in all systems adopteded from third countries;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Favours simplifying the procedure for registering designations of origin and reducing the time required for obtaining them; believes one means of achieving this would be to delegate responsibility to the competent national bodies;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Advocates further action to disseminate information on these systems and popularise them, with Community financial support, both within the single European market and in third countries; believes that the Community cofinancing rate for European information programmes on European products needs to be increased;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Favours preserving and simplifying the system of guaranteed traditional specialities (GTSs); expresses disappointment at the performance of this instrument, under which so far only a small number of GTSs have been registered (20, with 30 applications pending); stresses that producers prefer the national instruments for certifying traditional products, in many cases in order to obtain exemptions from certain obligations (e.g. plant health rules);the register of GTSs mentioned second in Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed1 – the register in which the name of the product or foodstuff is not reserved to the producers – should be abolished since this weakens GTS protection; 1 OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1.
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that organic farming offers European farmers a major growth opportunity; notes, however, that the EU regulation on the subject lays down a single standard, even though the certification procedure varies between Member States and is expensiveMember States apply the certification procedure differently, some of them choosing to delegate expensive inspection tasks to inspection authorities and others to state- accredited bodies;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes the creation at Member State level of offices for traditional and organic products; bBelieves that every Member State should have bodies. whether public or private, that are universally recognised by producers and consumers for purposes of promoting and validating local organic and quality production;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. BelievStresses that if common European quality certification standards are to be guaranteed it is necessary to ensure their evaluation and acceptance at European level; proposes that the Commission should have a service for cexisting certification systems, as well as ensuring compliance with legal rules by close monitoring, also guarantee other important food safety factors such as traceability; stresses that certification requirements reflect the demands of society and that there should therefore be state support for the costs incurred by farmers; advocates the promotion of more active cooperatifying and authorising the use of the relevant systems at European levelon by producers’ associations, since individual farmers are unable to challenge obsolete trade certification rules;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Takes the view that EU rules on the harmonisation of standards are unnecessary;