Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ENVI | DE LANGE Esther ( PPE) | PARGNEAUX Gilles ( S&D), LEPAGE Corinne ( ALDE), STAES Bart ( Verts/ALE), GIRLING Julie ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | AGRI | RODUST Ulrike ( S&D) | Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI ( PPE) |
Committee Opinion | IMCO | CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria ( PPE) | Matteo SALVINI ( ENF) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 659 votes to 24, with 8 abstentions, a resolution on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof.
The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002 , prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer.
The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground.
At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. 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 meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Parliament also recalled the massive-scale fraud of horsemeat meals throughout Europe is the symptom of an uncontrollable globalised supply system.
Food fraud: scope and definition : Parliament deplored 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 and national level. It called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases.
The resolution noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level .
Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety.
Lessons learned and recommendations
- Institutional framework : Parliament welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. It encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 .
Members are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team.
The resolution noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally.
- Legislative framework : Parliament considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. It welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. It, on the other hand, rejected any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators . Members stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud.
The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence.
Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient .
The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory .
There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports.
Parliament is concerned at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals.
- Corporate responsibility : Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain.
It noted that food business operators currently do not always know the source of the ingredients they use. In this connection, they noted that short supply chains (local and regional) can guarantee greater transparency and can replace the long and complicated supply chains which played a major role in the food fraud crisis.
- Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged 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 the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term.
Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively.
- Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Parliament believed 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.
It deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn.
The Commission is called upon to obtain 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.
Members also called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted the own-initiative report by Esther de LANGE (EPP, NL) on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof.
The general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002, prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer.
The EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now. However, current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground.
At the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain. F oods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat. Restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance. Problems are also found in the implementation of the current legislation and there is a need to have more effective official controls on food of animal origins at each stage of the food chain.
Food fraud: scope and definition : Members deplored 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 and national level. They called, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy. It is proposed that data should be collected systematically on fraud cases.
The report noted that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof. Members stressed the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level .
Given the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain , better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud. Greater attention should be paid to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety.
Lessons learned and recommendations
- Institutional framework : Members welcomed the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledged the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud. They encouraged the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity and welcomed the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 .
They are convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards. The Commission is called upon to enlarge the focus of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits to include food fraud and the budgetary authority is urged to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team.
The report noted that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues . It regretted the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally.
- Legislative framework : Members considered that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled. They welcomed the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator. They, on the other hand, reject any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators. They stated that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls. The importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to- consumer labelling is emphasised and called on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud.
The Commission is called upon to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long. It was suggested that labelling the country of origin may help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, thus restoring consumer confidence.
Members also recalled that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient .
The Commission is urged to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory .
There is also the need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates. A centralised European register for horse passports is also proposed in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports.
As regards cloned animals, Members expressed concern at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals and called on the Commission to honour its undertaking and submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal on animal cloning.
- Corporate responsibility : the report called on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases. It believed that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain.
- Enforcement and controls : the Commission is called upon to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud. The Commission and Member States are urged 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 the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term.
Members called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system , based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud. They also called for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively.
- Sanctions : whilst welcoming the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, Members believed 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.
They deemed it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers. In the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration may be withdrawn.
The Commission is called upon to obtain 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.
They called for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)320
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0011/2014
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0434/2013
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE524.582
- Committee opinion: PE514.773
- Committee opinion: PE516.893
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE522.842
- Committee draft report: PE519.759
- Committee draft report: PE519.759
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE522.842
- Committee opinion: PE516.893
- Committee opinion: PE514.773
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE524.582
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)320
Activities
- Paolo BARTOLOZZI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mark DEMESMAEKER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Robert DUŠEK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sari ESSAYAH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Krisztina MORVAI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Rareș-Lucian NICULESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sandra PETROVIĆ JAKOVINA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Pavel POC
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Gianni PITTELLA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Olga SEHNALOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
Votes
A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/1 #
A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/2 #
A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - § 41/3 #
A7-0434/2013 - Esther de Lange - Résolution #
Amendments | Dossier |
241 |
2013/2091(INI)
2013/10/09
IMCO
15 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises the global responsibility of the European Union and highlights in this regard the impact of a cap on biofuel from maize, rape, palm oil and soya as a proportion of total fuel consumption; calls on Member States to ratify the Additional Protocol to the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in which the right to food is enshrined; expects binding rules to be agreed at European level as soon as possible as part of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive in order to curb speculation with food and agricultural land;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Recognize the importance of unannounced and independent controls carried out by well-equipped and trained staff; Calls on Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated for official controls; Underlines that efficient controls and inspections should be carried out in such a way that does not create extra administrative burden or negatively affect SMEs;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission’s review on official controls provides for economical disincentive to fraud; stresses, however, that the penalties currently applied in the food sector are inappropriate to prevent fraud; urges, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to introduce stronger, proportionate and more dissuasive sanctions;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission’s review on official controls provides for economical disincentive to fraud; stresses, however, that the penalties currently applied in the food sector are inappropriate to prevent fraud; urges, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to introduce stronger and more dissuasive sanctions and to provide for unannounced inspections at all stages of the food supply chain;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need for improved information flows to tackle food crime, e.g. creation of specialised crime units, better monitoring and data collection and co-ordinated internet surveillance structure;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Is concerned that instances of fraud rarely lead to legal actions; highlights the need
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Is concerned that instances of fraud rarely lead to legal actions; highlights the need for improved cooperation between all relevant public authorities and the food
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Draws attention to the urgent problem of land grabbing during a global food crisis and, accordingly, calls for the creation of a public European register in which every instance of land grabbing is recorded;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s forthcoming implementing act on origin labelling of all meat and impact assessment on origin labelling for meat used as food ingredient;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s forthcoming implementing act on origin labelling of all meat and impact assessment on origin labelling for meat used as food ingredient; is concerned, however, that further legislation in this area may lead to increased costs for SMEs and consumers; SMEs should get financial support to cope with the additional expenses;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s forthcoming implementing act on origin labelling of all meat and impact assessment on origin labelling for meat used as food ingredient; highlights the importance of clear, harmonised rules and calls on Member States to enforce them swiftly in a coherent way throughout the EU; is concerned, however, that further legislation in this area may lead to increased costs for SMEs and consumers;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to regain consumer confidence in a single market for foods;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to regain consumer confidence in a single market for foods; points out that market self-regulation
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Member States to improve coordination between health authorities in the individual EU countries, as the lack of adequate information exchange often leaves the way open for dishonest actors in the supply chain;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated for official controls including unannounced and independent controls carried out by well-equipped and trained staff;
source: PE-519.774
2013/11/05
ENVI
143 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 – having regard to the five-point action plan1 presented by the Commission in March 2013 following the discovery of a vast network of fraudsters passing off horsemeat
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided the highest level of food safety for EU consumers until now and Europe has the highest food safety standards in the world;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Asks the Commission to come up with legislation on the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat as an ingredient in processed products;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 b (new) 21b. Asks the Commission to establish a centralised European register for horse passports in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of a duplicate passports;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 c (new) 21c. Underlines that any future mandatory country of origin labelling legislation should include provisions for regions within Member States to allow for flexible and regional origin labelling;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that Parliament has previously called
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that Parliament has previously called on the Commission to undertake impact assessments on origin labelling for fresh meat and products containing meat; urges the Commission rapidly to present its impact assessments and report on this issue; stresses that origin labelling is not per se a tool for combating food fraud,
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that Parliament has previously called on the Commission to undertake impact assessments on origin labelling for fresh meat and products containing meat; urges the Commission rapidly to present its impact assessments and report on this issue; stresses that origin labelling is not a tool for combating food fraud, although
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Underlines the unique position of the North of Ireland within the EU and stresses that in line with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, those in the North should remain free to label their produce as Irish if they so wish;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Points out that rules on the indication of the origin of meat play a vital role in reassuring consumers about the products they purchase, making producers live up to their responsibilities more effectively and improving traceability, and therefore calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative text which makes the indication of the origin of meat used as an ingredient mandatory;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Takes the view that making the indication of the origin of fresh meat and products containing meat mandatory would give producers a greater incentive to live up to their responsibilities and ensure that consumers receive more reliable information;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided the highest level of food safety for EU consumers until now; however, the current legislation is still fragile and not always reliable and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to lay down labelling rules concerning the country of origin of non- processed pigmeat, horsemeat, sheepmeat, goatmeat and poultrymeat which take account of the decisive factors in an animal’s life, i.e. the places where it is born, reared and slaughtered;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Calls for the regional indications of origin used in marketing to be given better protection;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Calls for greater account to be taken of animal welfare and for more stringent penalties to be applied if the relevant rules are breached;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 c (new) 22c. Calls for better labelling of processed products which contain fish, in particular as regards the origin of the fish and the fishing techniques used;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 d (new) 22d. Calls for better labelling of fish on sale in fishmongers, in particular as regards the origin of the fish and the fishing techniques used;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 e (new) Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 f (new) 22f. Calls on the Commission to develop a method of tracing and identifying meat from cloned animals, for example by setting up an international database containing genetic information about cloned animals;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 g (new) 22g. Points out that, if they are to meet to the full their intended purposes of providing consumers with information and, above all, of guaranteeing traceability, labels showing the origin of meat must include details of the places where the animal in question was born, reared and slaughtered;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Draws the industry’s attention to the harm caused, in terms of loss of reputation and confidence, when rogue operators from the industry itself commit fraud, and encourages the industry, independently of the development of future EU legislation on fraud, to continue to use tools such as self- monitoring, analysis, product-tracing plans, audits and certification;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Considers it valuable for the food sector proactively to develop private-sector anti-fraud programmes such as product integrity checks, and welcomes current initiatives such as the Global Food Safety Initiative; is however convinced that industry-driven initiatives can only be an additional tool, and never replace official controls;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas problems also lie in the implementation of the current legislation and there is a need to have more effective official controls on food from animal production at each stage of the food chain;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Considers it valuable for the food sector proactively to develop private-sector anti-fraud programmes such as product integrity checks, and welcomes current initiatives such as the Global Food Safety Initiative and the Food Fraud Initiative at Michigan State University;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Believes that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain; deplores the pressure on primary producers from retail and other food business operators to produce ever more cheaply, often at the expense of the quality of the foodstuffs or their ingredients;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Believes that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain; believes it is the responsibility of retailers to check at least the formal compliance with labelling rules; deplores the pressure on primary producers from retail and other food business operators to produce ever more cheaply;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Is convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards; therefore believes that unannounced inspections should be the norm;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Is convinced that a change of attitude is needed within the competent authorities,
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Stresses that
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution 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 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recommends that the
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recommends that the FVO and national authorities include in their audits so-called mass balance checks on input
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system to enable the rapid exchange of information between private control bodies, Member States and the Commission in food fraud cases;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas transparency is a key component of the Commission and Member States’ approach towards food safety controls;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system 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 fraud that have been uncovered, by analogy with the RASFF reports;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Suggests introducing DNA testing as a standard procedure for determining species, especially regarding meat and fish products, and to establish a centralized DNA database to this end;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Calls on the Commission to coordinate better intelligence sharing between Member States in order to improve detection of cases of food fraud and responses to cases once detected;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Urges 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;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to extend the scope of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2008 to cover the fight against fraud, as suggested when the 2012 annual report on the system was published on 10 June 2013; takes the view that this would make it possible to remedy the shortcomings identified following the horsemeat scandal;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 b (new) 29b. Calls on the Commission to address loopholes in existing food safety and traceability rules related to imports of food from third parties, which bear a higher risk of food fraud;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 b (new) 29b. Insists that the free trade agreements negotiated by the European Union must not give rise to changes in European food safety and food security legislation or any scaling down of efforts to enforce that legislation;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 c (new) 29c. Believes that the outcomes of controls should be made public in a way easily accessible and understandable for consumers, e.g. in the form of a rating scheme; is convinced that this would help consumers in making decisions and also give incentives for food business operators to perform well;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution 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; seems it necessary, as an extra deterrent, to set even higher penalties for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered; proposes, furthermore, that in the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration be withdrawn;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the economic advantage sought through the violation, but considers that this is not dissuasive enough; believes that
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas, at the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain, having a negative impact on the agro-food sector, as
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the 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 amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity; seems it necessary, as an extra deterrent, to set even higher penalties for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered; proposes, furthermore, that in the event of
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution 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 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Considers it appropriate to look into ways of adding a supplementary charge to penalties, on top of the amount equivalent to double the estimated profit, where fraud has been committed on products intended for sensitive consumers such as children or people with particular dietary needs (products for diabetics where the fraud lies in the fact that they do not meet the reduced-sugar requirements, low-salt products for people with high blood pressure, etc.);
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution 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) Cb. whereas individual cases of food fraud have a negative impact on the image of the entire agro-food sector;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas EU food law is very detailed in the area of food safety and includes controls and tests for residues and other contamination of food and feed, but whereas there is no framework in place
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include the marketing of horsemeat as beef, of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include the use of dioxin-contaminated fats in animal feed production, the marketing 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 methanol-
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution 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 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include, for example, the marketing 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 methanol-
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include the marketing of horsemeat as beef, ordinary flour as organic
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include the marketing of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas recent fraud cases include the marketing of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt and of horsemeat as beef,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas fraud could be said to have occurred if a manufacturer places on two separate markets an ostensibly identical product manufactured using different- quality ingredients;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution 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 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas the massive-scale fraud of horse meat meals throughout Europe is the symptom of an uncontrollable globalised supply system, cut-price agri- food productivism and an incomplete labelling system;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the food supply chain is often long and complex, involving many food business operators and other parties, and whereas, because there is no cumulative traceability, individual operators have only a very partial view of that chain, a state of affairs which serves to facilitate fraud;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution 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 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the food supply chain is often long and complex, involving many food business operators and other parties; whereas current instruments fall short when it comes to providing oversight in this chain;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution 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 30 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas recent food fraud cases have highlighted the need for better intelligence sharing and cooperation between Member States in order to improve detection of food fraud and to ensure a faster and more effective response to cases once detected.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for checking on compliance with EU food safety and quality requirements, and whereas its audits are typically announced in advance and prepared in conjunction
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L a (new) La. whereas the FVO and Member States should include unannounced official controls for the detection of potential food fraud in their national control plans;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N a (new) Na. whereas the warnings concerning the increase in the number of horses being slaughtered in some EU Member States were completely ignored by the competent authorities, in particular the FVO;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N a (new) Na. whereas Member States are invited to set and enforce serious penalties for commercial operators that commit fraud and cheat with regard to food. Those penalties should be at least as large as the revenue gains from fraud or cheating;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N b (new) Nb. whereas the conclusion of the free trade agreements currently envisaged by the European Union could serve to weaken European food safety legislation;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 a (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, and in particular recitals 19 and 28 and Article 8 thereof;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N c (new) Nc. whereas a fresh effort must be made to see fraud in an economic context characterised by the global financial crisis and by social dumping inside and outside the European Union;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N d (new) Nd. whereas trading and reverse auctions are practices which serve to foster a race to the bottom as regards quality, safety and transparency and which have an impact on the profit margins of the whole sector;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N e (new) Ne. whereas distribution practices and the use of distribution intermediaries are destabilising production markets by cutting producers’ margins;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Food
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new) Stresses that consumer confidence in the food chain is continuously shaken by scandals relating to food safety and that measures must be taken to fight against food fraud in order to strengthen the EU provisions and restore consumer confidence;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants, given its potential impact on consumer confidence, food safety, the functioning of the food chain and the stability of agricultural prices; calls on the Commission to consider all the steps required to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of the strategy to guarantee a high level of food safety in the European Union;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Emphasises the importance of quickly restoring European consumers’ confidence in European policies in the areas of health-risk management and consumer information;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Takes the view that, even though in the majority of cases food fraud does not entail consequences for food safety, it would nevertheless be worthwhile to introduce specific legislative instruments;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the need to gain more insight into the scale, incidence and elements of food fraud cases in the EU; in particular, this involves mapping existing tools and mechanisms to fight food fraud, with a view to developing synergies and contacts among the competent authorities, to raising awareness among relevant actors through a network of food fraud contact points in the Members States and the organisation of trainings and conferences; calls on the Commission and the Member States systematically to collect data on fraud cases and to exchange best practices for identifying and combating food fraud;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution 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 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different approaches; considers a uniform definition to be essential for developing a European approach to combating food fraud; stresses the need rapidly to adopt a harmonised definition at EU level, 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) financial gain;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different approaches; considers a uniform definition to be essential for developing a European approach to combating food fraud; stresses the need rapidly to adopt a harmonised definition at EU level, including elements such as 1) non-compliance with food law and/or misleading the consumer, 2) intent and 3) financial gain; considers the possibility to lay down benchmarks and to establish a typology of different types of food fraud; underlines the need for a holistic view on the different aspects of European food regulation;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Points out that a food crisis may have one cause or a range of causes and may give rise to health problems, changes to people’s diets, economic imbalances within a sector which disrupt the smooth functioning of the markets and consumer mistrust as regards the integrity of the food chain;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper alternatives, wrongly labelling the animal species used in a meat product, incorrectly labelling weight, selling ordinary foods as organic, unfairly using origin or animal welfare quality logos, labelling aquaculture fish as wild-caught, marketing an inferior variety of fish under the name of the superior category, or selling pieces of a low-price species under the name of a similar but more expensive species; making up consignments with pieces of inferior-category fish, counterfeiting and marketing food past its ‘use-by’ date;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper alternatives, using lower-quality ingredients in products ostensibly identical to others, wrongly labelling the animal species used in a meat product, incorrectly labelling weight, selling ordinary foods as organic, unfairly using origin or animal welfare quality logos, labelling aquaculture fish as wild-caught, counterfeiting and marketing food past its ‘use-by’ date;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper alternatives, wrongly labelling the animal species used in
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper alternatives, wrongly labelling the animal species used in a meat or seafood product, incorrectly labelling weight, selling ordinary foods as organic, unfairly using origin or animal welfare quality logos, labelling aquaculture fish as wild-caught, counterfeiting and marketing food past its ‘use-by’ date;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as replacing key ingredients with cheaper alternatives, wrongly labelling the animal species used in
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 b (new) – having regard to the report of the European Court of Auditors of 11 October 2012 on the management of conflicts of interest in four European Union agencies;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution 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 m
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that foods which are often
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Condemns the failure to provide consumers with clear information about the country of origin of food imports, in particular fishery products, as such imports can give rise, in third countries, to unacceptable competition with local fishermen, an increase in tensions in connection with access to food, violations of fundamental rights or piracy;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Regrets, further, that the cases of fraud uncovered up to now have often involved products on promotion or large family packs, which tend to be bought by vulnerable consumers and consumers with less purchasing power, or by organisation-based purchasers such as school canteens;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that food fraud generally occurs where the potential financial gain is high, and the risk of getting caught low; considers it
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Points to the complexity and cross- border character of the food chain, in combination with the predominantly national character of controls, sanctions and enforcement, a situation which is believed to increase the risk of food fraud; believes that a better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help combat fraud;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines the need to pay great attention to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with European Union standards on food and feed safety;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes that food business operators currently do not always know where the ingredients they use are sourced from;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Is convinced that shorter food chains would lower the possibilities for fraud; therefore calls for introducing a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme, which would make it possible to promote foods from short chains;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Expresses concern at the reduction in funding in the European Union for the bodies which carry out these key monitoring tasks;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Expresses concern at the way that farms and abattoirs are being destabilised by the low margins in the sector, which are partly the result of social dumping which exploits the directive on the posting of workers1 in order to drive down production costs; __________________ 1 Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledges the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud; encourages the Commission to consider the development of an EU-RL for food authenticity;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls for an anti-food fraud network to be set up as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO) and thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution 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 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to enlarge the focus of FVO audits to include food fraud; considers that the FVO
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Suggests adapting the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed system for information exchange on food fraud, as this would be simpler and much quicker than establishing an expensive additional food fraud system;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Calls on the Commission, pursuant to Articles 7 and 17 of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, to pursue and prevent the marketing of products that remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls on the Member States and European regions to provide control bodies with sufficient personnel, financial and technical resources;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers lay down detailed provisions in relation to the ban on misleading advertising and labelling practices;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission and FVO to reconsider their competences in order to enhance international cooperation and close cross-boundary loopholes; calls on the budgetary authority to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team if suitable;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution 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 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Member States to ensure that the issues raised by FVO are properly acted on and addressed;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Notes that any changes to the process for review and prioritisation of the work programme of the FVO should not change the legal process for the adoption of FVO work programmes;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. More specifically, urges the Commission and Member States to act on the findings of FVO audits with regard to faked medical treatment records of animals destined for slaughter for export to the EU, and to exclude meat and other animal products from third countries, which cannot be guaranteed to be compliant with EU food safety requirements, from being placed on the EU market;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Recognises the importance of whistle- blowers in uncovering fraudulent practices in the food sector; calls on the Member States to create the right conditions to enable whistle-blowers to denounce malicious practices safely
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution 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 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Calls on the Commission to carry out an inquiry in an effort to determine how the FVO could have ignored the increase in the number of horses being slaughtered in the European Union and failed to deduce that the horses in question would be entering the food chain;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Calls for strategies to combat food waste to be drawn up in an effort to help bring about a reduction in prices for consumers and an increase in margins for producers;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled; welcomes the fact that the Commission's proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Considers that the development of a mechanism, similar to the RASFF, capable of managing the specificities inherent to food fraud is a necessary step to ensure proper information flows and the timely detection of fraud;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Draws attention to the negative impact which trading and reverse auctions have on producers’ profit margins, and calls for these practices to be banned;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Observes that some Member States partly delegate controls to private control bodies; stresses that Member State competent authorities should always supervise control systems and verify, certify and scrutinise all private control systems to ensure that they comply with national and international standards to make their findings accessible for public agencies;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Rejects any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators, as food business operators often focus on profits and lowering costs rather than on food safety and consumer protection;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges the importance of clear
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges the importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to-consumer labelling and calls on the Commission to review EU food law in this area where necessary, to reduce the risk of food fraud;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Believes that food business operators should be able to tell where the food or ingredients used are sourced from, meaning that each food business operator within the production chain bears their share of the responsibility for the end product;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution 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 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. 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 poultry as well as on voluntary labelling; believes that labelling the places of birth, rearing and slaughter will help ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, more stable relationships between meat suppliers and processors and increased diligence when food business operators choose their suppliers and products;
source: PE-522.842
2013/11/07
AGRI
73 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that consumer confidence in the safety of food in the EU has been undermined by instances of fraud in the food chain which have impacted negatively on the whole food chain, from producers through to consumers; highlights the importance of clear, comprehensive labelling, showing in particular the origin of products and their ingredients, as a means of restoring EU consumers’ confidence in food products offered for sale;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that consumers who, either knowingly or unknowingly, buy counterfeit foodstuff are putting their health at risk as fraudulent foods are often not subject to any health and safety or quality controls;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that a clear, legally valid and EU-wide definition of food fraud is essential in order to facilitate the effective combating of fraud in the food chain;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that a clear,
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2а. Emphasises that, given the nature of the EU single market, food fraud extends in many cases beyond the Member States’ borders and becomes a threat to the health of all European citizens;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that standard EU-wide quality requirements for food control, in accordance with Regulation No 178/2002, are essential, and that the observance and enforcement of EU rules depend on the Member States carrying out official control activities;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Is concerned by the significant correlation between international organised crime and food fraud;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Takes the view that while food fraud may concern only quality issues, in the past it has been proven to have food safety implications too (‘Horsegate’ and phenylbutazone, methanol in wine, Sudan Red dyes, dioxin in feed and eggs, etc.), to which the utmost attention should be paid;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that concentration of the wholesale trade and retail trade encourages unscrupulous practices in the food supply chain;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Regrets the very serious link between food fraud and animal welfare abuses;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that consumer confidence in the safety of food in the EU has been undermined by instances of fraud in the food chain which have impacted negatively on the whole food chain, from producers through to consumers; notes the direct link between lack of transparency and the length of the food chain and number of intermediaries between producer and consumer;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Points out that increasing commercial pressures on producers, in addition to unfair trading practices (UTP) throughout the food supply chain, as recently identified by the Commission in a Green Paper, are widespread and widely recognised by most operators in the agri- food sector. These pressures tend to lower quality standards and facilitate fraud, also through the use of foodstuffs of uncertain origin;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Highlights the interaction between low prices for producers and structural surplus production, with its negative impact on food quality and also on employment in disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Is of the view that even behaviour that is legal and typical of modern distribution, such as selling at a loss, permanent promotions and food price discounting, contributes, in the medium to long term, to jeopardising the sustainability of the food chain. This provides an incentive to suppliers and intermediaries to replace genuine products with counterfeit ones, or to cut production costs, including basic food health and safety rules;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Recognises that the economic crisis that is afflicting several Member States can lead to fraud, both because of the growing segments of national populations for whom low cost is the vital issue when purchasing food and because of the incentive given to companies to cut their production costs;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) 2e. Notes that food fraud takes advantage of the legal grey area consisting of vague marketing standards, which include product categories that can be very diverse from a quality point of view. Such marketing standards appear to be more pervious to food adulteration and counterfeiting technologies;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 f (new) 2f. When a market has average product prices that are consistently low, consumers have difficulty in appreciating the real value of the product and, therefore, the appropriate price. Against such a background, fraud (the sale of one thing for another) can prosper. Anti-fraud investigations should pay the utmost heed to such market signals (namely, sales prices that are below production costs, without appropriate justification);
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 g (new) 2g. Abnormal price fluctuations, or production costs that are consistently low, should be adequately monitored at EU level, also by placing national statistics online, where available. The EU’s European Food Prices Monitoring Tool should be further broken down into retail categories that can be used to check the genuine price trends of specific foodstuffs, where possible;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 h (new) 2h. Calls for the establishment of a standardised EU-wide food fraud database, along the lines of that which exists in the United States, for example;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Member States to review the
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Member States to review the criminal law on food fraud to ensure that the severity of sentences is
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Member States to review the criminal law on food fraud to ensure that the severity of sentences is commensurate with the illegal profits that can be generated through fraud, and to make sentences tougher where necessary;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Member States to review the
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new) (1) Calls on the Member States to clearly identify the responsibilities of the various supervisory authorities along the food chain, avoiding any overlapping and, where possible, grouping together their responsibilities;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3а. Points out that direct, enhanced cooperation between the Member States’ competent bodies when food fraud is suspected or confirmed is of vital importance for the tracing and investigation of the fraud;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes the crucial importance of applying and transposing existing rules properly and of ensuring that data is not only collected but also evaluated and linked at international level;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recognises that retail supply chains are often so long and complicated that it is impossible to isolate where and when the crime took place leading to prosecutorial difficulty in many instances;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for consumers to be given access, via public registers, to information about companies that have breached food law;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls for the introduction, as part of rural development policy, of specific support measures for sustainable processes as a practical means of promoting short input and food-product supply chains;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that consumer confidence in the safety of food in the EU has been undermined by instances of fraud in the food chain which have impacted negatively on the whole food chain, from producers through to consumers, and that, unless this loss of confidence is dealt with promptly, it could ultimately cause considerable damage also to quality European agri-food products and their markets;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Highlights that food fraud is a criminal offence, and that Member States are best placed to take the action necessary to identify and eradicate any breaches of legal obligations in the food supply chain;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the importance of swiftly re- establishing European consumers’ confidence in EU policy on the management of health risks and on consumer information;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recommends the in
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recommends the introduction of an obligation for all research laboratories and their staff to notify the competent supervisory authorities of the results of all food and feed tests that suggest fraud may have occurred;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recommends the introduction of an obligation for all research laboratories and their staff to notify the competent supervisory authorities of the results of
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recommends the introduction of an obligation for all research laboratories and their staff to notify the competent supervisory authorities of the results of all food and feed tests where those results reveal cases of non-compliance;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recommends the introduction of a
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Insists that, pursuant to Article 26(2) of Regulation No 1169/2011, the Commission adopt the requisite provisions on mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of pig, sheep, goat and poultry meat before 13 December 2013;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that no suitable statistics exist on the violation of food safety legislation and cases of fraud in the EU food industry, and calls on the Commission and Member States to compile information on cases of fraud and to exchange good practices with a view to identifying, preventing and combating fraud in the food sector;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Proposes that consideration be given to binding EU rules stipulating the cases and circumstances in which the names of products and their manufacturers proven to be in breach of European food law will be made available to consumers at the earliest possible stage;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Emphasises the need for traceability, control, and due diligence by retailors in order to safeguard long supply chains and consumers as the unwitting victims of fraud;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that rising food prices, long supply chains and high mark ups on some foods have made fraud easier and more profitable;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Proposes that the results of national food monitoring be published centrally for dissemination throughout the EU;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Opposes any attempt by the Commission to have set aside the existing provisions of Regulation No 1760/2000 on animal health concerning indications of origin and provenance of beef, which have proved their worth since the mad cow disease crisis;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls on the Commission to take all necessary steps to bring about the full and effective registration and identification of all horses as soon as possible, and also asks it to adopt rules on indicating the origin and provenance of horse meat;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for the
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for the extension of current traceability regimes and the systematic implementation of the ‘step-free’ traceability provided for in basic Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 covering food and feed, food-producing animals, and all other substances destined for this purpose or which can be expected to be used in the production of food or feed; calls for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution, to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that food fraud and poor quality products can be quickly identified and remedial action undertaken without delay.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for the extension of current traceability regimes and the systematic implementation of the ‘step-free’ traceability provided for in basic Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 covering food and feed, food-producing animals, and all other substances destined for this purpose or which can be expected to be used in the production of food or feed; calls for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution, to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes the provisions in the new Food Information to Consumers Law which provides for mandatory place of origin labelling for beef, pig meat, poultry meat and sheep meat; calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible legislative proposals to improve traceability in the food chain by making mandatory the labelling, for these meat products, of the place of birth, place of rearing and place of slaughter where these places are different; in addition, calls for legislative proposals on mandatory place of origin labelling for milk and milk products, unprocessed foods, meat used as an ingredient, single ingredient products and ingredients representing more than 50% of a food.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the position of certain somewhat unscrupulous and entirely profit-oriented ‘traders’, not part of any of the traditional links in the food chain whether in production, processing or distribution, in order to make them subject to all the requirements of EU food law as well as any anti-fraud rules that may be introduced;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that mandatory origin labelling, combined with a range of other measures, can contribute to combatting food fraud by fostering a better-informed and more transparent food supply chain;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that food fraud has the potential to undermine the significant work undertaken at the national and EU level in strengthening and modernising health and safety and quality controls in the food chain and to damage the reputation of European foodstuffs;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Points out that short (local and regional) food production chains help to increase consumer confidence by making it easier for consumers to check and understand production processes and the provenance of product content;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Believes that convoluted, opaque and long-distance food chains, particularly for processed products, played a major role in causing the food fraud crisis; believes that "buying local", short supply chains and direct sales can offer both quality and guarantees as to the genuine origin of produce, as well as environmental and local economic benefits; calls on the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals as laid out in Regulation 1151/2012 (Quality Products) for a "local marketing and direct sales" label to help promote these markets and help farmers add value to their produce.
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls for a review of what is required of companies’ in-house inspection systems and of the obligation on companies to notify the authorities about any unmarketable food or feedstuffs they are offered;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Calls for legal protection for whistle- blowers working in the food industry who report abuses to the authorities;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls on the Commission to accord food fraud the full attention it warrants, given the impact it can have on consumer confidence, food security and the functioning of the food chain, and its consequences in terms of demand and price stability; asks the Commission to outline all the measures necessary for making the prevention and combating of food fraud a distinct aspect of efforts to ensure a high level of food security in the EU;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Recognises that global demand for food continues to increase creating pressure on producers and often leading to food shortages; Highlights that short supply often leads to price inflation and such price differentials frequently result in fraud;
source: PE-514.774
2013/11/27
ENVI
10 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution 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 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1, 1a, 1b (new) 1.
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution 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 m
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) , 22 2
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Considers it valuable
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29.
source: PE-524.582
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
events/3/docs |
|
committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE519.759New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-PR-519759_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE522.842New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AM-522842_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE516.893&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-516893_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE514.773&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-514773_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE524.582New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AM-524582_EN.html |
events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/2 |
|
events/2 |
|
events/3/docs |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/5/body |
EC
|
events/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-0434&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0434_EN.html |
events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0011New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0011_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ENVI/7/12251New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010 |
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010 |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|