8 Amendments of Karin KADENBACH related to 2018/2008(INI)
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
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 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
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 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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’ 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;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
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 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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).