2018/2008(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for ~~the establishment of an~~an existing agency or ~~other~~new specialised unit ~~to monitor~~at EU level to be vested with the task of monitoring the consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 101 #

Marijana PETIR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of a~~n agency or other~~ specialised unit, within one of the existing EU agencies, to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 102 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of a~~n agency or other~~ specialised unit, within the existing bodies, to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of added ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 104 #

Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls ~~for~~on the ~~establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor~~Commission and the Member States to bring public oversight to bear on consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 105 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised ~~unit~~body to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of a~~n agency or other~~ specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 107 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Marijana PETIR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on the common development of a food control system targeted to filter products under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance but with different quality. This system would be based on three level control: - it is advisable to complete the tasks by ensuring the standard quality of products under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance but produced by the same food operator of those persons who are responsible for the quality at a given food operator. Furthermore, the internal control procedure of food operators may be completed recovery plan in case of products in dual quality. - food safety authorities in Member States or regions should carry comparative laboratory analyses including organoleptic and other necessary tests every year concerning products sold in different Member States under the same brand or those of deceptively identical appearance. They should send their results to the European Food Safety Authority. In case of fraud in food quality they should notify the other Member States and the European Commission via the Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed. - it is necessary to create a new unit in the European Food Safety Authority which would collect and analyse the results of the comparative laboratory analyses by Member States, as well as store these in a publicly accessible EU database. It would immediately launch a common food safety action in this field if needed.

Amendment 108 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that the origin of food, especially in the case of prepared foods, is an important decision factor for the consumer; calls therefore for the labelling of the place of origin of food and its location and method of processing (including slaughter methods) to be harmonised at European level to recognise the specificity of each national production, and to meet consumer expectations, which sometimes vary from one country to another.

Amendment 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls for better cooperation of national authorities within the framework of already existing legal provisions like the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, if needed with the support of existing European institutions, in particular the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Amendment 11 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA, Angelo CIOCCA

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas the varying content of products diminishes the consumers' trust in the product, thus undermining the reputation of the whole European food chain – from agricultural workers, producers and processors, up to retailers and advertisers, as well as the overall EU regulatory framework;

Amendment 110 #

Richard ASHWORTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recognises that when agricultural food items and their quality are called into question, it reflects negatively on farmers and the food processing system, highlighting the significant role played by the Geographical Indicators and Protected Destination of Origin labels as well as the importance of traceability and thorough labelling of food items.

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that, if the provisions of the New Deal are infringed, with unjustified product disparities from between one Member State and another, serious penalties must be imposed, such as barring the product concerned from the single market for a specified period.

Amendment 112 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines the importance of civil society in bringing producers' unfair practices into public awareness and calls for more support for civic activity, institutional and individual whistle- blowers in the field of food safety and consumers' rights;

Amendment 113 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Is concerned that "no or slow action" from the side of the EU runs the risk of alienating the citizens from the EU by not taking concrete actions in short terms to tackle this issue.

Amendment 114 #

Susanne MELIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Member States to make available the requisite additional financial resources for such an agency or specialised unit.

Amendment 115 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls on producers - first and foremost large multinationals, marketing their brands in different countries and markets both within and outside the EU - to take immediate measures to ensure transparency on the composition of their products, differences in composition and reasons behind such differences, and make this information easily available to all consumers.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas all farmers in the European Union produce products to the same high standards; customers expect this uniformity of quality to be offered by the other elements of the food chain, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they reside;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas such unfair practices have to be cut out to avoid any misleading for consumers and considering that only a strong synergy at the EU level can solve this cross-border issue;

Amendment 14 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA, Angelo CIOCCA

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principles and claims of adjusting to local preferences;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the dual quality of products can conceal fraudulent practices by the producers and/or distributors of food products;

Amendment 16 #

Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia; whereas products were compared with the same products from countries such as Austria and Germany among others;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia, on certain products marketed in Central and Eastern European countries;

Amendment 18 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas comparative organoleptic tests and analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia;

Amendment 19 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have recently been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand with the same label, the same ingredients and the same proportional composition to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 20 #

Momchil NEKOV, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the Member States are not in a position of comparing on their own all food products in the remaining Member States at a given moment;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

B b. whereas a common EU body or a common system of notification or data sharing can guarantee instant access to information about the products' composition and ingredients;

Amendment 22 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

B c. whereas some producer representatives have agreed to amend their product recipes in some countries so that identical products are offered in the Single Market;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain produc~~ts contain less meat, or less of~~ers have sold products with different quality but under the same brand and those with a deceptively identical appearance and certain products contain less in some important ingredients (etc. meat) or other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products or those with deceptive identical appearance and having a lower quality being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’;

Amendment 24 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; ~~whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’;~~

Amendment 25 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’, which even though does not breech the principles of the free market economy indicates misuse of the brand perception;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’; whereas, however, the methodologies used for those analyses are contested;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’, thus hindering the principle that all consumers are treated equally;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas ~~the analyses~~all consumers in the EU have the same rights and whereas there is evidence showing that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ~~ingredi~~constituents, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at ~~considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’~~prices that vary considerably from one country to another;

Amendment 29 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other, often higher-quality, ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’;

Amendment 3 #

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand marketed under the same label to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 30 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michel DANTIN, Mairead McGUINNESS, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less ~~mea~~quantity of the main ingredient, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU since 2004~~, 2007 and 2013~~; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably ~~higher~~different prices in ~~those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’~~some Member States, compared to the others;

Amendment 32 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Peter JAHR, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas a robust European methodology accepted by all actors in the food supply chain is necessary to determine whether the problem is systemic or anecdotal; whereas the involvement of Member States, the agrifood industry and consumer associations is essential to ensure that test results are accepted by all;

Amendment 33 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Marc TARABELLA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the analyses showed no infringement on current rules on labelling or other food law, these practices can therefore not be considered as food fraud in the narrower sense, rather showing certain discomfort and varying perceptions of what and how certain products should or should not contain;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas these analyses also show that certain products include less of the main ingredient, or ingredients that are considered to be less healthy and of poorer quality, or ingredients that have different taste, consistency and other sensory characteristics;

Amendment 35 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas current laboratory findings for dual quality products confirm that the lower quality products contain ingredients presenting a higher health risk to consumers;

Amendment 36 #

Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas this unacceptable practice involves well-known agri-food multinationals seeking to maximise their profit margins by exploiting the differences in purchasing power from one Member State to the next;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the consumers are not aware that the products from the same brand, quantity and packaging are adjusted to local preferences and tastes;

Amendment 38 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas objective differences in supply due to the regional and/or seasonal availability of raw materials are possible;

Amendment 39 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the varying quality of products causes concern that some Member States are treated differently from others;

Amendment 4 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS, Peter JAHR, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, agricultural or food product and quality and expect agricultural or food products of the same brand to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas, if they exist, differences in ingredients or compositions of food products marketed within the single market do not automatically induce a lower quality but may be linked to product reformulation and market segmentation strategies related to consumer taste, the existence of specific national legislation and different supply in agricultural raw materials;

Amendment 41 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS, Peter JAHR, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)

C c. whereas existing European legislation covers the practices mentioned, since it already protects consumers against deceptive practices which have or are likely to substantially alter the economic behaviour, in relation to the product, of the consumer whom it affects or to whom it is addressed;

Amendment 42 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS, Peter JAHR, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)

C d. whereas the European Union has already developed distinctive labels in order to meet the particular expectations of consumers and to take account of production specificities through the optional quality terms;

Amendment 43 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Peter JAHR, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)

-1. supports the gradual approach of the European Commission, namely: a. the preparation and publication in September 2017 of guidelines to facilitate and improve the application of the EU legislation in force by the national authorities with a view to protecting European citizens; b. the development by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) of a robust European methodology accepted by all actors to test and compare agricultural and food products;

Amendment 44 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; notes that high level analyses have already been conducted, which should be taken into consideration in designing and implementing the said methodology; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;

Amendment 46 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018; calls on the Member States' relevant authorities to actively take part in this testing and integrate this methodology into their working practices

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018, with a view to introducing specific measures as soon as possible to ban these unfair practices;

Amendment 48 #

Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;

Amendment 49 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Recalls that the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;

Amendment 5 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand and/or identical in appearance to be identical also in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 50 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Marc TARABELLA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reminds that free movement of goods does not necessarily mean that every product must be identical in every corner of the Single Market. Goods may be sold with different composition or characteristics, provided that they fully respect EU legislation. Even products under the same brand may have different characteristics, due to legitimate factors such as the place of manufacture or consumer preferences in the destination regions. Recalls that when different compositions of identically branded goods are marketed in a way that has the potential to mislead the consumer must be avoided. Outlines that consumers have a certain perception of the main characteristics of branded products and that differences in legitimate specific expectations from a product must be highlighted, in particular when a product significantly deviates from these expectations;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to continue the discussions with the stakeholders – consumer organisations, manufacturers and national authorities within the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network – and awaits development of the common methodology for the comparative tests of food products in different Member States, which should permit greater clarity on the scope of the problem;

Amendment 52 #

Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission, in view of the allocation of European funding for analyses, to make it compulsory for the findings thereof to be made public in all official EU languages, so that consumers can be properly informed about the quality of the products in question and make their choices accordingly;

Amendment 53 #

Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the public interests towards the topic in the countries, where analyses were conducted and notes that the citizens' trust in the functioning of the Single Market is at stake, which could have negative impact both for the Union and for the various stakeholders involved, including the producers;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the efforts of the Joint Research Centre to establish guidelines for a harmonised testing approach, and urges the Member States to grant financial support to national competent authorities in order to carry out studies, based on these guidelines, in suspected cases of dual quality;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Welcomes that the Joint Research Centre is working on guidelines for a common testing methodology that will permit to carry out EU wide tests on a common coordinated basis across the EU countries;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Notes that the Single Market is accessible to the producers, but at the same time it is very competitive, with some brands ubiquitously known or well perceived across the Union;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, which is due among other reasons to lack of sufficient resources or market access and serious competition on the market;

Amendment 58 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, and considering the detrimental effect of this practice on the functioning of the Single Market, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped immediately by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices; recalls that business operators are permitted to market and sell goods with different composition or characteristics, provided that they fully respect EU legislation, but stresses that such differences should be fully justified by the sourcing of local ingredients, by locally-adapted taste preferences or by efforts to improve public health through nutrient reformulation, and that such differences must be made clear to the consumer;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices; strongly advocates that legislative changes be introduced to ensure that products of the same brand but of different quality or with different ingredients are marketed under different labels and that economic operators guilty of continued unfair practices be severely penalised and possibly banned from certain markets;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to be identical in quality and composition, whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 60 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, Member States Authorities and Consumer Protection Organizations should make good use of the already possible legal action as outlined in Commission Notice of 26.9.2017 on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products (C(017)6532 final); and only failing this to improve the situation it should be envisaged to consider stopping the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ ~~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 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Firmly believe~~Considers that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practicet would be premature today to consider a modification of the Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices since no European methodology exists to date, there is no evidence to confirm that it is a systemic practice and no impact assessment has been conducted by the European Commission ; adds that Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005, being a horizontal legislation, therefore applies to all products in the supply chain, and not only to agricultural and food products;

Amendment 62 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michel DANTIN, Mairead McGUINNESS, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the ~~practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composit~~EU needs to develop a coherent and harmonized strategy to better enforce the existing legislative framework, which already sets out the provision’s needsed to ~~be stopped by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning~~ensure that consumers are informed about food products, and not misled by unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices when making a purchasing decision;

Amendment 63 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products having deceptively identical appearance but different quality and/or ingredients being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different ~~content~~quality 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 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to European citizens’ concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ needs to be stopped ~~by means of an amendment to Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices~~as it poses a risk of enticing customers to buy products, based on a false expectation of quality or composition;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Firmly believes that, in response to ~~European citizens’~~the sector's concerns about different products being sold under the same brand in different Member States, the practice of ‘one brand, one product, different content and proportional composition’ ~~need~~is unacceptable and has 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)

2 a. Calls on Member States, their respective Authorities and laboratories to conduct and interpret analyses comparing composition of foods - in particular products of international brands and private label products - according to commonly agreed standards as those developed by the EUs Joint Research Centre within the framework or the paragraph above, to give producers the possibility to comment on findings before their publication and to communicate results in an objective and transparent way, making full reports accessible to the public;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Views that, this should be accomplished by means of an amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005, inter alia, to incorporate the ‘product of reference’ measure, as detailed in the non-binding Commission notice on ‘the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products’ (2017/C 327/01);

Amendment 68 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michel DANTIN, Mairead McGUINNESS, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Urges the EC to propose amendment to Article 6 of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by reference to the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Urges the Commission to implement all the necessary measures in order to avoid any disruption of the European single market, taking into due account the existing differences in market conditions, purchasing powers and fiscal regimes among Member States;

Amendment 7 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas some consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to be identical in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Urges the EC to propose amendment to the list of practices under Annex I of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by the inclusion of the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Is concerned that national authorities have refused to provide the test reports and that food samples were not collected as part of official controls and were not tested as official samples;

Amendment 72 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS, Peter JAHR, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of loc~~Supports producer and manufacturer initiatives on specific product labelling and on the use of local recipes ; recalls that European legislation already allows the introduction of optional quality terms, such as 'protected designation of origin' (PDO) and 'protected geographical indication' (PGI) for products which have a specific link with a specific region, the 'traditional rspeci~~pes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that~~ality guaranteed' (TSG) for products characterized by a traditional production process or mountain products or products from the outermost regions of the EU; stresses that such systems respects both the consumer’'s right ofto an informed choice and ~~consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the prepara~~the proper functioning of ~~specific products;~~ the single market;

Amendment 73 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that, ~~until that practice is stopped, and~~ in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products of international brands; Stresses that, under this system, the geographical scope of marketing of the locally-adapted product should also be indicated; calls on the Commission to further develop the concept of a 'product of reference,' against which locally- or regionally- adapted recipes may be compared and the differences made explicit to the consumer;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products; supports the active involvement of citizens in containing the spread of this practice by setting up a European alert system to identify dual quality products;

Amendment 75 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR, Daniel BUDA, Franc BOGOVIČ, Vladimir URUTCHEV, Jarosław KALINOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products; it is desirable for consumer information purposes to publish a public database that a product with "different recipe" that a producer have made in a given Member State is based exactly on what kind of criteria;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. CIs of the opinion that manufacturers should be proactive by taking appropriate measures respecting the consumers and not wait for the new legislation to be put into place; considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products;

Amendment 77 #

Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products, combined with the obligation to spell out the reasons for employing such strategies;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of ~~local recip~~traditional local practices, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the ~~local recip~~traditional local practices used in the preparation of specific products;

Amendment 79 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michel DANTIN, Mairead McGUINNESS, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand to ~~be identical in~~have the same quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 80 #

Momchil NEKOV, Olga SEHNALOVÁ

3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system shcould be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products;

Amendment 81 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Firmly believes that the most effective means of combatting abuses linked to branding is the promotion of short supply chains in the food industry and the creation of local quality brands, these can bring benefits such as; Improved negotiating positions for farmers; These supply chains offer farmers greater power during negotiations, especially during those with retailers, Increased communication between producer and consumer; Short supply chains can lead to job creation, especially in rural areas, Reduced transportation costs; Short supply chains typically serve a local area, reducing the energy costs, transportation costs, and CO2 emissions, Increased transparency; It’s easier to make short supply chains with few or no intermediaries transparent than it is longer and more complex ones, Reduced risk; A short supply chain reduces the risk of damage, contamination, Increased quality; Doing business and transporting goods locally increases their overall quality by reducing the need for freezing and use of preservatives, Greater profits; Short supply chains offer farmers with greater profits while keeping the end-price more or less the same for consumers;

Amendment 82 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Marc TARABELLA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Insists on the importance of the notion of a "product of reference", against which consumer expectations are to be measured; highlights that consumers need to be adequately informed if a product differs from their expectations, as when inadequate information leads them to buy a product they would not otherwise buy;

Amendment 83 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA, Philippe LOISEAU, Angelo CIOCCA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Advocates strongly the distribution to the national authorities and the public dissemination of company market findings regarding regional preferences in the case of products whose composition differs from one region to another;

Amendment 84 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Member States, and in particular national consumer and food authorities, to ensure compliance with the EU consumer acquis and to enforce the European safety and food labelling legislation at national level;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Manufacturers are invited to consider a logo on the packaging that would indicate that the content and the quality of the same brand and packaging product is the same across Member States;

Amendment 86 #

Momchil NEKOV, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Commends the initiative of those producers, which have announced they would amend their recipes;

Amendment 87 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Marc TARABELLA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Reminds the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of food products (2017/C 327/01) which acknowledges producers' right to sell different products in different parts of the single market, due to local preferences, local and seasonal ingredients, or different places of manufacture; warns however that consumers must not be misled and calls on the national food authorities to establish, on a case-by-case basis, if this practice is illegal, based on the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, and their interplay with the fair information requirements in Regulation No 1169/2011 on Food Information;

Amendment 88 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA, Philippe LOISEAU, Angelo CIOCCA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the European Union, national authorities and single market producers to take all necessary steps to inform consumers of any disparities in product composition through visible and clear labelling;

Amendment 89 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;

Amendment 9 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Peter JAHR, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas no European citizen should be treated as a second-class citizen in the single market and the allegations of double quality of products which would consist in selling products of lower quality under the same brand name in some Member States rather than others, if proven, must be taken seriously; whereas no proven case of double quality of products appears has been the subject of a court judgment in Europe at the moment;

Amendment 90 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA, Angelo CIOCCA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Urges the producers to relaunch brands in the whole Single market in order to guarantee its smooth functioning and not in a case-by-case principle;

Amendment 91 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Encourages the adoption of a different approach to the preparation of specific products in order to protect consumers and ensure that they are properly informed;

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.~~deleted

Amendment 93 #

Michel DANTIN, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Peter JAHR, Albert DESS, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 94 #

Richard ASHWORTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of a~~n agency or other specialised unit~~ public online database to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products., ensuring that the creation and maintenance costs of the platform are kept low; notes that researchers, specialists and even members of the public from various Member States could distribute labels and information regarding the displayed and de facto content of the products, which would then be automatically compared with details of the same product in another Member State, any discrepancies being flagged up and closely scrutinised by the Joint Research Centre;

Amendment 96 #

Daniel BUDA, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of a~~n agency or other specialised unit to monitor~~ specialised authority or monitoring unit, keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, to verify consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

Amendment 97 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michel DANTIN, Mairead McGUINNESS, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products; considers it would be fitting for the agency or unit to be located in a country, such as Bulgaria, that had been affected by the unfair practice of dual product quality.

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to~~Welcomes the Commission's efforts to assist national enforcement authorities in monitoring consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products., as well as identifying unfair commercial practices in the marketing of food products;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the ~~establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor~~European Commission to work, in collaboration with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, on a larger study to measure consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.

source: 618.354

2018/04/18 IMCO 199 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

– having regard to the various surveys, studies and tests carried out in the last years by the Food Inspection Authorities in many Member States in Central and Eastern Europe,

Amendment 10 #

Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the assessment of whether a commercial practice is unfair under the UCPD must be performed on a case-by- case basis by Member States~~, except in the case of the practices listed in Annex I to the UCPD~~;

Amendment 100 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Underlines that private labels have become an essential staple in consumers’ shopping baskets and that their market share has increased across most product categories in most Member States over the past decade; believes that private labels should not give the impression of a branded product so as to prevent consumer confusion; reasserts that the issue of private labels requires particular attention from the Commission, so as to end the confusion between private labels and branded products;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Recalls that the European Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to determine whether a dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production, in particular SMEs; regrets that no data have been presented by the Commission so far;

Amendment 102 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Underlines that counterfeiting of branded products exposes consumers to health and safety risks, undermines consumer confidence in the brands and leads to loss of revenue for producers; Notes that range of counterfeit products recovered in the EU remains broad and includes nearly all types of goods;

Amendment 103 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Is concerned about restrictions placed on traders when it comes to purchasing goods that may have a negative effect on consumer choice; urges the Commission to identify factors that contribute to a fragmentation of the single market in goods~~, in particular territorial supply constraints and their implication~~ and restrict consumer's ability to benefit fully from the single market, in particular territorial supply constraints and their implications; calls on the Commission to pursue such cases, where it finds, or suspects, a breach of the competition rules;

Amendment 104 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Is concerned about restrictions placed on traders when it comes to purchasing goods that ~~may have a negative effect on~~in consequence limit consumer choice; urges the Commission to identify factors that contribute to a fragmentation of the single market in goods, in particular territorial supply constraints and their implications;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Recalls that according to the Commission, studies made on brand loyalty demonstrate that brands act in the mind of consumers as a certificate for a controlled and constant quality; agrees with the Commission that this explains why some consumers may expect branded products to be of equivalent quality if not exactly the same wherever and whenever purchased and brand owners to inform them when they decide to change any important element of the composition of their products; considers therefore, that the provision of any additional information, although in the principal field of vision of a package, is insufficient unless the consumer clearly understands that the product in question differs from products of a same brand sold in another Member States;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Invites the European Commission, where appropriate, to make use of competition law to tackle contractual and non-contractual practices that illegitimately restrict consumers’ ability to benefit fully from the Single Market;

Amendment 107 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Urges the European Commission to make use of competition law to tackle contractual and non-contractual practices that illegitimately restrict consumers’ ability to benefit fully from the Single Market;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Takes note of the arguments that products may differ due to regional consumer preferences; Believes that consumer preferences should not be used as an excuse for lowering quality and/or offering different quality grades on different markets; stresses that consumers must be transparently informed and aware of this adjustment for each individual product and not only in general terms, that this "established practice" exists;

Amendment 109 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Encourages the Commission to monitor and act in cases, which constitute market failure cases in the Single Market;

Amendment 11 #

Ca. whereas President Juncker stressed in his 2017 State of the Union Address that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe, people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical;

Amendment 110 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Strongly disagrees with arguments on the need to optimize composition and/or quality of branded products in order to meet consumers’ price expectations;

Amendment 111 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11that strengthens investigation and enforcement powers, improves information and data exchange and access to any relevant information and establishes harmonized rules setting out the procedures for the coordination of investigation and enforcement measures in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.

Amendment 112 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11 as well as of the proposed SMIT Regulation as a crossborder tool to collect information in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.

Amendment 113 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; ~~stresses the importance, therefore, of~~highlights the need for enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities, consumers associations and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11 in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.

Amendment 114 #

Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Points out~~Regrets that national competent authorities can only select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11 in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.

Amendment 115 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Observes that, in the case of consumer products such as food, one and the same brand may be subject to altered recipes and flavour profiles on account of the desiderata imposed by local markets within the European Union; relevant local conditions range, inter alia, from taking account of national legislation (e.g. taxes, national customs with regard to the composition of a food) to disparate local consumer tastes (e.g. with reference to spiciness) regarding the use of local ingredients or production facilities, compliance with reformulation objectives or local price levels; such differentiations do not result in different qualities and are perfectly legitimate, provided that they are not misleading and accord with product information and statements made in advertising;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Points out that the testing methodology itself and the evaluation of its results, together with their subsequent transparent disclosure for the purpose of informing consumers and producers, should contribute to a significant reduction in the occurrence of significant differences in the composition of foods under the same brand and using similar packaging;

Amendment 117 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses the need for products containing different substances (materials), and/or with different manufacturing formulations, to be packaged differently, with different brand names and different labels, even when they are intended for the same type of consumption and have the same producer;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Recognises the usefulness of the sweeps as important form of enforcement coordination carried out under the CPC Regulation and calls on the Commission and Member States to further strengthen them and broaden their scope;

Amendment 119 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Is convinced, that in case a company intends to place on the market of different Member States product that differs in certain characteristics, such a product cannot be labelled and branded in a seemingly identical manner;

Amendment 12 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas there have been substantial differences in the implementation of the UCPD from one Member State to another, while the methodological approaches and effectiveness of the resolution and enforcement of the UCPD varies significantly between Member States;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; ~~highlights~~stresses the importance of the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition; calls for even stronger involvement of both producers and retailers which will help to find effective remedy to the current situation without triggering enforcement procedures;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; ~~notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes;~~ highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;

Amendment 122 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes or the use of a single production standard at EU level; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 124 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Emil RADEV, Andrey NOVAKOV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the value of broad and timely public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;

Amendment 125 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 – point 1 (new)

(1) Welcomes the launch of the Knowledge Centre for Food Fraud and Quality operated by the Joint Research Centre and emphasises the importance of further coordination of market surveillance on the composition and sensory properties of food offered under the same packaging and branding on several markets across the EU;

Amendment 128 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Considers that providing accurate and easy-to-understand information to consumers is key for tackling the issue of dual quality of products and calls therefore for the establishment of a clear labelling in order for same-branded products with different composition to be marketed under different labels that are clearly identifiable for the consumers; stresses that selling products with different composition or characteristics should only be fully justified by the sourcing of local ingredients or by effort to improve public health;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Believes that it is in the interest of all relevant stakeholders, both private and public, to identify as soon as possible workable solutions which would enable European consumers to access same quality products within the entire single market; recalls that consumers´ confidence in suppliers and retailers and, above all, in the functioning of the EU internal market is at stake;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas generally, manufacturers of food and other consumer goods can take advantage of diverging interpretations of EU legislation and/or its poor implementation and enforcement by national competent authorities to adapt their products at the detriment of consumers;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on the Commission to incorporate a price differentiation factor, including different VAT rates for food in individual Member States, when evaluating the results of product comparisons; stresses that the tests published concerning the Member States did not pay attention to prices and thus led to misleading conclusions about the relationship between the composition and the price of the products;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organisations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Is concerned that the use of the concept of “defined consumers preferences” in assessing whether a differentiation in the product composition is justified, or not, might lead to conflicting interpretations between competent authorities;

Amendment 134 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers; is convinced that consumer organisations could make a significant contribution to tackling the problem of dual quality by carrying out comparative tests and publishing their results, which would indicate where the dual quality problem was uncovered; calls on the Commission and the Member States to create suitable conditions for consumer organisations to perform these comparative tests;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote and strengthen through financial and legal mechanism the role of consumers associations and to establish regular communication on this issue; believes that enhanced cross- border exchange of information between consumers associations, but also relevant authorities should be promoted;

Amendment 136 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Andrey NOVAKOV, Emil RADEV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play an more active role in the public debate and in informing consumers and serve as a first point of contact for the consumers to ensure their rights on the Single Market; calls on the Member States to uphold the functioning of the consumer organizations by strengthening their role to fulfil their tasks in consumer protection;

Amendment 137 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations and the notified national bodies responsible for enforcement of the UCPD and other relevant legislation to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate ~~and~~, in informing consumers and in establishing codes of conduct for producers;

Amendment 139 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations and other civil society's organizations to play an active role in the public debate and in informing consumers;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the brand often plays the most important role in deciding on the value of the product;

Amendment 140 #

Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play an active role in the public debate ~~and~~ , in informing consumers and in raising awareness among manufacturers;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Invites consumer organisations to play anmore active role in the public debate and in informing consumers;

Amendment 142 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organizations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Stresses the need, in the interests of consumers, to make public the details of producers who use unfair trade practices involving the dual quality of products;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level;~~deleted

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that in the light of previous experiences of competent authorities ~~thus far suggest that they have been~~were unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; calls on Member States to better enforce the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to better ensure that consumers are informed about food products when making a purchasing decision and are not misled by unfair marketing practices; stresses that the Member States shall ensure that the competent national authorities possess adequate technical, financial and human capacities in order to ensure effective enforcement;

Amendment 146 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; calls on the Commission to launch a cooperation platform for national authorities to deal effectively with cases of dual quality that involve a cross-border dimension;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; reiterates therefore the need for an effective cross- border cooperation and calls on the Commission and Member States to engage in it more intensively;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level, or have attempted to do so only to a minimum extent, without testing methodologies or evaluations of the results, and without methodologies for the enforcement process;

Amendment 149 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level; stresses the need for further cooperation and data-sharing between competent authorities;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas a strengthened and more efficient enforcement cooperation framework would also boost consumer trust and reduce consumer harm;

Amendment 150 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level, also due to absence of an explicit legal provision on EU level;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Believ~~Notes that the ~~experiences of~~national competent authorities ~~thus far suggest that they~~individually, heretofore, have been unable ~~individually~~ to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality ~~at national level~~;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Is convinced that any legislative or non-legislative proposal must be preceded by a detailed assessment of the issue of dual quality in the single market; calls, therefore, on the Commission to come up with a study to clarify what parts of a range being sold are affected by the issue of dual quality and what real enforcement options are available under current legislation;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Stresses that any action taken against business operators by enforcement authorities must be proportionate and non-discriminatory;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19b. Points out that amending the legislation does not remove the issue of double quality, because misleading consumers is already prohibited under current legislation; recalls that the factual nature of unfair practices will always be judged only on a case-by-case basis, since the extent of the act of misleading the consumer when comparing similar packaging is always a matter of subjective judgment;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, preferably via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;deleted

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level~~, preferably via directly enforceable measures~~; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;

Amendment 159 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of alleged dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, preferably via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas in ~~its 2018 Work Programme, the Commission announced plans to propose~~ ‘A New Deal for Consumers’, a targeted revision of the EU consumer directives following on from the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing laws, the Commission suggested to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices involving the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, ~~preferably~~ via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to assist national enforcement authorities in identifying unfair commercial practices in the marketing of food products on the basis of the EU harmonised methodology being developed by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission as this issue is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the Single Market and consumer trust;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls for action to be taken at EU level by conferring the tasks to an existing agency or dedicated new unit to monitor, analyse and publish the findings of tests based on the common methodology via a public database, as well as ensure the cooperation among national competent authorities and support them in their enforcement duties;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Notes that in addition to harmonisation at EU level and developing a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement, testing should also be carried out at Member State level;

Amendment 164 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty; underlines together with the Commission that the free movement of goods does not necessarily mean that every product must be identical in every corner of the Single Market; emphasises that business operators are permitted to market and sell goods with different composition and characteristics based on consumer preferences and food reformulation provided that they fully respect EU legislation; however, stresses that these products should not lead to their different quality when they are offered to consumers on different markets;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Recalls that Annex I to the~~Welcomes the new point c) of par. 2 of Article 6 of UCPD, w~~as drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and~~hich stipulates : Any marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, while those pro~~vision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to~~ducts have significantly different composition or characteristics; is however strongly convinced that this provision should be listed in Annex I in order to ensure a greater legal certainty;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty; unfair commercial practices can be formulated in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in such a way that they are prohibited under all circumstances or under certain circumstances; considers that including dual quality in Annex I of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive would increase legal certainty that consumers will be genuinely protected from this practice;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that Annex I to the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; ~~agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty~~points out that the addition of a new unfair practice to the list in Annex I to the UCPD could bring about negative unintended consequences in the form of supply constraints and an increase in products' price levels for consumers;

Amendment 168 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that ~~Annex I to~~ the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; ~~agrees with the Commission that listing a practice in Annex I leads to greater legal certainty;~~

Amendment 17 #

András GYÜRK, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ion ~~its 2018 Work Programme, the Commission announced plans to propose ‘~~11 April 2018 the Commission published 'A New Deal for Consumers’', ~~a targeted revisi~~which, among of the ~~EU consumer directives following on from the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing laws~~r things, sufficiently addresses in law the phenomenon of dual quality by proposing to supplement Article 6(2) of the UCPD;

Amendment 170 #

Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that ~~Annex I to~~ the UCPD was drawn up to enable the identification of certain unfair practices and the provision of a more immediate response; agrees with the Commission that ~~listing a prac~~referring to the Article ~~in Annex I~~6 of the UCPD when dealing with cases of dual quality leads to greater legal certainty;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Welcomes the European Commission's communication titled 'A New Deal for Consumers' of 11April 2018, regrets however, that the proposed amendment to Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) may not lead to greater legal certainty; believes that the preferred option should be adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist of commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair under Annex I of the UCPD;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Welcomes the amendment to the 2005/29/EC Directive by introducing dual quality of products as a misleading practice in its Article 6; Regrets however that the Commission did not take this opportunity to amend the Annex I of the 2005/29/EC Directive that defines the practices prohibited in all circumstances and make it a non-exhaustive list;

Amendment 173 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

~~22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’;~~deleted

Amendment 174 #

Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

~~22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’;~~deleted

Amendment 175 #

Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

~~22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’;~~deleted

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Calls on the Commission~~Welcomes the Commission proposal to amend Article 6 of the UCPD by adding the marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States but at the same time with different composition or characteristics as a misleading commercial practice; Stresses, however, that open list of so called “legitimate factors” could jeopardize competent authorities’ ability to undertake assessment and apply the law; Believes, therefore, tohat amendment to Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’ would address an unjustified cases of dual quality in the most effective way;

Amendment 177 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’ and explicitly mention dual quality of identically branded products when discriminatory and not respecting consumer expectations;

Amendment 178 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Calls on~~Notes that the Commission~~, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing~~ has decided not to include dual quality as another item ~~onto~~in the ‘'blacklist’' in Annex I to the UCPD;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend ~~Annex I to~~ the UCPD by introducing ~~another item onto the ‘blacklist’~~dual quality of products into its scope;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas an effective solution to the problem of the dual quality of products can partly be sought through primarily non-legislative means at national level, for instance through the introduction of methodological approaches on the enforcement of UCPD, recommendations, the sharing of best practices, open public debate and the raising of public awareness;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Welcomes the Commission´s New Deal for Consumers presented by the European Commission on 11 April 2018 which will tackle dual quality of consumer products by updating the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices involving the marketing products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;

Amendment 181 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to adapt products on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons, where consumer preferences are among these reasons;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Emphasises that the outcome of the legislative process should be a clear definition of what can be considered as dual quality and how each case should be assessed and addressed by competent authorities;

Amendment 183 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products in the near future; JRC should also reach out for a cooperation to Member States authorities which has already undertaken their own testing of products for exchange of best practices in this area;

Amendment 184 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a European-wide harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products ~~in the near future~~as well as on guidelines to improve product transparency through for instance codes of conduct within one year;

Amendment 185 #

23. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate given to the Joint Research Centre to work on a harmonised methodology for comparing characteristics of non-food products in the near future and to evaluate the results of tests using a clear definition of 'significant difference';

Amendment 186 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Calls on the responsible national authorities of the Member States concerned to pay increased attention to the enforcement of the UCPD and to issues of dual quality, and to specify the specific problems they face in enforcing the UCPD;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Considers that the competent national authorities ought to monitor compliance with the applicable law on food effectively;

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Calls on the Commission to come up with new tolls to fight also non-food products, such as detergents as soon as possible;

Amendment 189 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Calls on the Member States to exchange experiences and information on possible unfair practices in the food sector, as appropriate, in order to improve and approximate the enforcement of existing legislation following the best practices approach;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas products differentiation and innovation should not be restricted as such but consumers should not be misled;

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)

23c. Calls on the Member States to inform consumers as far as possible of their rights and options as regards the enforcement of existing legislation and the obligations of vendors to inform them of the composition and origin of products;

Amendment 191 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)

23d. Recalls that the adequate enforcement of the UCPD is fully in the hands of the Member States, and it is thus their duty to provide consumers with a space for the submission of complaints and their further investigation;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Stresses that EU law on fair business practices (Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD) ) and the numerous harmonised provisions on food labelling provide an appropriate legal basis for combating practices designed to mislead consumers (Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers);

Amendment 193 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24b. Rejects attempts to standardise the taste and recipes of food throughout the EU or to prescribe to manufacturers the exact composition of the various products, as a result of which they can no longer respond to the wishes of consumers on their local markets;

Amendment 194 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24c. Calls on the Commission to provide a legally secure definition of the concept of an ‘EU reference product';

Amendment 195 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)

24d. Considers that an amendment to define 'dual quality' as an unfair commercial practice under Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices should not be made until a method has been developed, with a lead role being played by the Commission's Joint Research Centre;

Amendment 196 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)

24e. Is opposed to the creation of an agency or a specialised unit to monitor the consistency, the composition and the proportional use of ingredients in identical branded products and packaged foodstuffs, since the existing legal and monitoring structures are sufficient;

Amendment 197 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 f (new)

24f. Calls for the work to develop a methodology, led by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, to result in clear formulations, in order to avoid contradictory interpretations by the competent national authorities;

Amendment 198 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 g (new)

24g. Calls on the Commission, after EU-wide tests have been conducted in accordance with the standards developed by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, to publish the results in a report and if necessary to draw conclusions;

Amendment 199 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 h (new)

24h. Points out that the results of EU- wide testing in accordance with the common testing methodology developed by the Commission's Joint Research Centre will enable Member States to provide their people with objective and factual information;

Amendment 2 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Emil RADEV, Andrey NOVAKOV

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

– having regard to the various surveys, studies and tests carried out in the last years by the Food Inspection Authorities in many Member States in Central and Eastern Europe,

Amendment 20 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas to fully reap the benefits of the internal market, the better application of existing EU food and consumer legislation to identify and address unjustified dual standards and thus protect the consumers against misleading information and commercial practices is crucial;

Amendment 21 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the purchasing power divergence in the EU leads to food market practices, which are detrimental to consumers and to low-income citizens;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas there is a continuous need to strengthen the role of consumer associations in this regards; whereas consumer associations play an unique role in guaranteeing consumers 'confidence and need to be further supported through additional legal and economic measures and capacity building;

Amendment 23 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging; Notes that according to a survey10a conducted for a national competent authority, a vast majority of consumers are bothered about such differences; _________________ 10a Survey of the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority conducted in 2016. http://www.szpi.gov.cz/clanek/tz- 2016-vyzkum-cesky-spotrebitel-zada- stejne-kvalitni-potraviny-jako- evropsky.aspx

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging with varying prices; points out that these results cause concern that some Member States are treated differently from others;

Amendment 25 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States in Central and Eastern Europe have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging; Those differences are also proven in regard to the prices;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that results of ~~vari~~numerous tests and surveys conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences, inter alia in composition and ingredients or substances used, between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the ~~same~~identical packaging;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Underlin~~Acknowledges that results of various tests conducted in several Member States with differing methodologies for laboratory testing have proven that there are differences of various magnitudes between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with ~~the same~~similar packaging;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 29 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the results of these laboratory tests, which were carried out in several Member States, cannot serve as credible and objective proof of the existence of dual product quality, or as a basis for a new legislative initiative, as Member States did not follow the same methodology, did not always compare the reference products, and the results were not assessed under the same definition of a 'significant difference' that would point to significant differences in composition and not, for instance, merely to sensory differences;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018) 183),

Amendment 30 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Highlights that the results of the tests show that same-branded products are often composed of lower-quality ingredients or differ significantly in its composition, i.e. less of the main ingredient or use of less-healthy ingredients; Stresses such differences in ingredients, often of a lower quality, can impact on a long term consumers' health;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that based on these findings, consumers are concerned about discrimination between different Member States markets; underlines that any type of such discrimination is not acceptable and all EU consumers should enjoy access to the equivalent level of quality of products;

Amendment 32 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the cases reported concern not only food products but also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies; notes that these too have not been tested using the same methodology;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the cases when such significant differences were reported concern not only food products but frequently also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries and products intended for babies;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the cases reported concern not only food products but also non-food products, including detergents, cosmetics, toiletries ~~and~~, products intended for babies and clothing;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Parliament called on the Commission ~~back~~ in 2013 to carry out a meaningful investigation ~~into this issue~~ to evaluate whether there is a need for the adjustment of the existing Union legislation, and to inform the European Parliament and consumers of the results;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the approval by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess various aspects of disparities between products; stresses that the results of these investigations are not yet available;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Regrets that the European Commission decided not to sufficiently change EU legislation to tackle the issue of dual quality, despite the multiple evidence for its existence;

Amendment 39 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to deliver~~ing~~ a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence; calls for the Commission to coordinate national competent authorities in applying the common testing methodology developed by the JRC in order to ensure a unified interpretation of the methodology by the Member States. Calls on the Commission to come up with a clear mechanisms on how to deal with the cases of the dual quality and propose a suitable structure and process on how Member States together with businesses should tackle the potential dual quality of products;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)

– having regard to the proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernization of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018) 185/3),

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further ~~evidence;~~ reliable and comparable evidence; Underlines that various analyses have already been carried which could serve as a basis when designing the common testing methodology;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes, ~~therefore~~nevertheless, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address thise issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology and allocating a budget of EUR 2 million for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably before the end of 2018;

Amendment 42 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology, which will contribute to an overall assessment of how serious and widespread the issue of dual quality on the Single Market is, and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology ~~and~~, allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence and updating the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the Commission's approach in the recent New Deal for Consumers, which in the section revising the UCPD adequately addresses the dual quality phenomenon by proposing to supplement Article 6(2) of the UCPD; recalls that the conformity assessment does not quantify the cases or products concerned by this phenomenon;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the recent submission of the proposal for Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business- to-consumer commercial practices; notes, however, that it contains an unclear and thus difficult-to-use definition of dual quality and will therefore require clarification;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop a code of conduct with business representatives, in particular food producers and retailers, on how to ensure greater transparency on product composition that exceeds the current legal obligations;

Amendment 47 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

4c. Stresses that product quality is closely linked to the price that the consumer is willing to pay; points out that the problem of double quality cannot be assessed independently of different living standards and wage levels;

Amendment 48 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes note of the mandate given by the European Council to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence; Stresses the need for active involvement of parties representing consumers' interests, including representatives of consumer organizations and research organizations that have conducted product tests in Member States; Regrets that the European Parliament has been neither involved nor properly informed of the progress made so far;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence; emphasizes that the key for tackling this problem in practice is an effective and swift cross-border cooperation of relevant authorities including information exchange on potentially non-compliant products;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas when promoting, selling or supplying products, companies should provide consumers with accurate ~~informa~~and easy- to-understand information on the exact product composition to enable them to make an informed buying decision;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development ~~of a~~and integration in their working practices of a testing common methodology and collection of further evidence;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of d~~ual quality~~isparities between products; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recommends that the Member States concerned draw up their own assessment of the methodology and effectiveness of enforcement of the UCPD and other existing legislation on the issue of the dual quality of food and other products and submit them to the Commission for an objective assessment of the seriousness of the problem;

Amendment 53 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; Believes that this pilot project should continue in 2019 to deepen the knowledge and cover also non- food sector; Calls for stronger involvement of Members of the European Parliament to oversee this pilot project;

Amendment 55 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Andrey NOVAKOV, Emil RADEV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; expects the project to be launched, conducted and published in time, as initially planned;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; expects the project to be launched, conducted and published in time, as initially planned;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the adoption by the European Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that ~~will~~ involves a series of market investigations into several categories of ~~consumer~~food products to assess different aspects of dual quality;

Amendment 58 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Andrey NOVAKOV, Emil RADEV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that comprehensive information on the public authority responsible for taking action and on relevant administrative or judicial proceedings, including the possibility for members of the public to file online complaints, is vital for the effective enforcement of the UCPD; views as negative, therefore, the lack of information in the Member States concerned which, in spite of the concerns expressed by the Member States about the need to address the dual product quality issue, do not make this information available on the websites of the responsible authorities;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Parliament, Commission and Member States to make use of all available tools, including pilot and national projects to further asses different aspects of dual quality of foods;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas when promoting, selling or supplying products, companies should provide consumers with accurate information, also on local products and recipes, to enable them to make an informed buying decision;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Parliament, Commission and Member States to make use of all available tools, including pilot and national projects to further asses different aspects of dual quality of foods;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the Commission has already received notification of a new national labeling measures designed to warn consumers of differences in the composition of foodstuffs;

Amendment 62 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the fact that, in order to further improve consumer protection in the EU and provide support for businesses, the Commission has launched an online training programme to help companies better understand and enforce consumer rights in the EU;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that the safety and quality of food, as well as protection of consumers from being misled, are matters of the highest priority;

Amendment 64 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Considers it important to approach dual quality solely from the point of view of the possible misleading of consumers through visually similar packaging; stresses that the intention is not to lay down or harmonise food quality requirements, because quality has no legislative definition and cannot be objectively defined in terms of the subjective perception of the consumer;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Notes that, despite numerous requests, the testing and analysis methods used by national authorities to study dual quality of products, particularly foodstuffs, have so far not been communicated to the national authorities of other Member States;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Stresses that dual quality can now be regarded as an unfair practice if a product of the same brand is potentially capable of interfering with the consumer's economic behaviour by its similarity to the reference product of the same brand;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Recalls that food safety standards are set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/200210a, and the identified dual quality cases meet the defined requirements and that, therefore, the issue of dual quality of food products does not relate to their safety; _________________ 10aRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.

Amendment 68 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Recalls that the obligation to indicate the composition of products is set out in Regulation (EU) No 1169/201110b of the European Parliament and of the Council, and that the identified dual quality cases meet the defined requirements and that, therefore, the issue of dual quality of food products does not relate to the issue of insufficient information on their composition; _________________ 10bRegulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

Commission Notice and application of EU consumer protection law to issues of dual quality of products

Amendment 7 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas a key principle for brands should be the confidence that consumers put in the composition, value and quality of a product, manufacturers should ensure that their expectations are lived up;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that this notice is intended to help national authorities to determine whether a company is breaking EU food and consumer laws when selling products of dual quality in different countries; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable, in particular when national enforcers have to apply a case-by-case assessment of the likely impact of the practice on the average consumer's economic behaviour;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable without further guidelines, common testing methodology and enhanced information exchange at EU level;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; ~~points out~~is concerned that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable; stresses the need for clarification of the concept of "product of reference";

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable, meaning that consumers' rights are being violated;

Amendment 74 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to ~~dual quality products~~products of different composition; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that the Commission Notice of 29 September 2017 entitled ‘The application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of products – The specific case of food (2017/C 237/01)’ refers to the relevant EU legal provisions and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2006/2004) concerning cooperation between authorities and its direction and use;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to differ from each other; also agrees with the Commission that the food and drink operators do not necessarily have to offer identical products across the different geographical areas;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 79 #

András GYÜRK, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect ~~branded~~ products sold under the same brand and with the same packaging in different countries to differ from each other;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand and/or identical in appearance to be identical also in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Agrees with the Commission that in the sSingle market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not~~, a priori, expect branded products~~ expect products of the same brand sold in different countries to differ from each other;

Amendment 81 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that the Notice is perceived as primarily intended for foodstuffs; believes that provisions on the application of consumer protection law should be applied to all products in general, and that the product label must be legible and contain full information on the product;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 83 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Emil RADEV, Andrey NOVAKOV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 84 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. EDraws attention to the fact that according to Guidance on the application of UCPD from 2016: “goods of the same brand and having the same or similar packaging may differ as to their composition depending on the place of manufacture and the destination market, i.e. they may vary from one Member State to another. Under the UCPD, commercial practices marketing products with a different composition are not unfair per se”; emphasises the importance of the guidance documents issued by the Commission in facilitating proper and coherent application of the UCPD; calls, therefore, on the Commission to clarify the relationship between the Notice ~~and~~, the guidance; and the paper drafted by the HLF Internal Market Subgroup;

Amendment 86 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Lucy ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Points out that setting of the so- called “product of reference” could impede the assessment as it might be difficult to determine which of the two (or more) products is the one from which all the others differ;

Amendment 87 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Emil RADEV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that there may be different requirements for the control methods of the national competent authorities~~; considers that the aim of the work to develop a~~ and they should therefore use the methodology ldeveloped by the Commission’´s Joint Research Center~~e should be clearly stated so~~ as to prevent conflicting interpretations;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Notes that the methodology itself cannot provide a unified approach to dual quality assessment unless it also includes guidance on the uniform evaluation of test results, including a definition of 'significant difference' that clearly determines what sort of difference in composition is serious enough to be qualified as 'dual quality';

Amendment 89 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Emil RADEV, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Underlines that the aim of such methodology is to ensure the collection of reliable and comparable evidence by the Member States on a common basis to assess the extent of dual-quality products in the EU and propose adequate enforceable measures to ban such practice;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas all EU citizens deserve equal treatment in regard to food and non-food products sold on the Single Market;

Amendment 90 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to instruct the Joint Research Centre to devise a common test method and carry out uniform tests throughout the EU in accordance with agreed standards, in order to assess how justified the accusations are;

Amendment 91 #

Othmar KARAS, Sabine VERHEYEN, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls, in connection with the test procedures to be developed by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, for manufacturers to be given the opportunity to deliver opinions before the results are published;

Amendment 92 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Biljana BORZAN, Momchil NEKOV, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Lucy ANDERSON, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Marlene MIZZI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes that the Commission invites competent authorities to perform market tests that involve product comparisons across different regions and countries; highlights, however, that according to the Commission, such tests should be carried out with a common testing approach which has not been adopted yet; Stresses the need to stick to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by end of this year;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the need to stick to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by end of this year and shared with the public in order to raise awareness of consumers with regard to dual-quality of products;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the need to ~~stick~~adhere to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by the end of this year;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Calls on the Commission to establish a public database in charge of registering same-branded products that are sold with a different composition within the Single Market in order for consumers to have access to the relevant information when making a buying decision;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes that there are acceptable differences in the composition of a single brand's product due to taste preferences, purchasing power, the different levels of technological facilities used in the production and processing of raw materials from different regions, or for other legitimate reasons;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reminds the European Commission of its commitment to better monitoring and enhancing the correct application of EU legislation;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reminds the European Commission of its commitment to better monitoring and enhancing the correct application of EU legislation

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

source: 620.776

2018/04/23 ENVI 134 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)

– having regard to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market2a, _________________ 2a OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4 d (new)

– having regard to the European Parliament major interpellation of 15 March 2017 on the differences in declarations, composition and taste of products in central/eastern and western markets of the EU (O-000019/2017);

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes the view that, on occasion, foods of the same brand may differ in taste and recipe on account of certain conditions on local markets within the European Union; the use of local raw materials and production facilities, as well as the need to take into account national law or reformulation objectives can result in differences; differentiation of this type does not imply different quality and is legitimate, so long as it is not misleading for the consumer;

Amendment 101 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Encourages the Commission to put forward a proposal for a regulation at European level on the labelling and packaging of products that differ from the original recipe of the product, in keeping with the provisions of the Regulation on the provision of food information to consumers (Food Information to Consumers Regulation);

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Strongly condemns the argument that optimisation of composition and/or quality results from consumers' price expectations; highlights that various studies have shown that products of lower quality are often more expensive than their counterparts of higher quality elsewhere in the EU;

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes the view that different recipes for food also reflect the diversity of regional taste preferences in the EU;

Amendment 104 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Stresses that it is the task of the competent national authorities to monitor compliance with the applicable EU law on food and fair commercial practices;

Amendment 105 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should ~~have~~be of the same ~~composition~~quality standard in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; notes that products of the same brand may, however, have different characteristics deriving from legitimate factors such as consumers' preferences in the destination regions, the place of production, specific local requirements, or differences in sourcing of raw materials due to their geographical or seasonal availability; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that ~~products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that~~ consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; ~~calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;~~

Amendment 107 #

Valentinas MAZURONIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to ~~guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;~~ initiate amendments to legislation regulating the labelling of products and oblige producers or distributors to label packaging in a transparent and very clear when identically branded products have significant differences in composition or characteristics;

Amendment 108 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that ~~products marketed~~ , within the single market ~~in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State~~, there should generally be no difference in quality or nutritional value between products marketed in a specific and identical type of packaging, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in ~~composition~~quality or nutritional value compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to ~~guarante~~take proportionate action to ensure that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 109 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition, structure and proportion of ingredients used compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4 e (new)

– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 11 June 2013 on a new agenda for European Consumer Policy (P7_TA(2013)0239);

Amendment 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition and quality in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed in a clear and visible manner on the product packaging of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any justified variation in composition compared to the original recipe in a clear and easily readable manner; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 112 #

György HÖLVÉNYI, András GYÜRK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging ~~should~~must have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers ~~should~~must be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union;

Amendment 113 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Welcomes the European Commission's communication titled 'A New Deal for Consumers' of 11 April 2018, regrets however, that the proposed amendment to Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) may not lead to greater legal certainty; Believes that the preferred option should be adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist of commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair under Annex I of the UCPD;

Amendment 114 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Commission to set up a specialised directorate under the coordination of the competent agency, with professionals in the field, that would carry out checks in manufacturers’ factories and conduct audits of the production flow in order to verify whether the composition of the recipe given by the manufacturer is being followed in cases where a suspicion of dual quality arises;

Amendment 115 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Strongly encourages the use of the circular economy principle for product packaging and stresses that if packaging for a product in one Member State adheres to this principle, then concerted efforts should be made by the producer to ensure that this is the case for all their products marketed under the same brand in the same type of packaging across the EU and beyond;

Amendment 116 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Insists on the importance of the notion of a "product of reference", against which consumer expectations are to be measured; highlights that consumers need to be adequately informed if a product differs from their expectations, as when inadequate information leads them to buy a product they would not otherwise buy;

Amendment 117 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organisations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;

Amendment 118 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that some cases of dual quality products result from a lack of enforcement of EU law; calls on Member State authorities to urgently enforce existing EU rules on food labelling, including in relation to, for example, mechanically separated meat;

Amendment 119 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices~~; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist. _________________ 3~~ and considers that, for that purpose, the Commission ought to develop a coherent and harmonized strategy to better enforce the existing legislative framework, which already sets out the provisions needed to ensure that consumers are informed about food products, and are not misled by unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices when making a purchasing decision; _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have proven that there ~~are significant~~might be differences in the composition and quality of products marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging, and that are advertised in the same way across the EU; ~~whereas those differences are often due to the use of cheaper and of lower quality ingredients, often with a lower nutritional value;~~

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist~~. _________________ 3~~; calls on the Commission to provide a legal framework enabling consumers to seek redress from producers when consumer rights have been violated. _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.

Amendment 121 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 122 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that national authorities ~~are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found~~can select samples and carry out tests only in the territory of their Member State and that therefore, in order to address the problem, it is necessary to work towards a solution at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist.; _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.

Amendment 123 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Amendment 124 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 125 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that ~~national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level~~it is imperative for national authorities to cooperate with one another; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amend Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist~~. _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.~~;

Amendment 126 #

Jan HUITEMA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Acknowledges producer's rights to produce different products within the single market; stresses at the same time producer's obligation to inform consumers correctly by means of clear labelling. Demands, therefore, full compliance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Food Information Regulation, especially article 7 of the latter Regulation: 'Fair information practices', in order to avoid misleading practices;

Amendment 127 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the new point c) of par. 2 of Article 6 of UCPD, which stipulates : Any marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, while those products have significantly different composition or characteristics; is however strongly convinced that this provision should be listed in Annex I in order to ensure a greater legal certainty;

Amendment 128 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to continue the discussions with the stakeholders – consumer organisations, manufacturers and national authorities within the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network – and awaits development of the common methodology for the comparative tests of food products in different Member States, which should permit greater clarity on the scope of the problem;

Amendment 129 #

Younous OMARJEE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that their legislation requires products marketed throughout their territories and products for export to be of identical quality, in particular where fat and sugar levels are concerned;

Amendment 13 #

A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have ~~prove~~shown that there are ~~significant~~ differences in the composition and quality of products marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging, and that are advertised in the same way across the EU; whereas those differences are often due to the use of ~~cheaper and of lower quality ingredients, often with a lower nutritional value~~different ingredients;

Amendment 130 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that dual quality of products concerns not only food products but also extends to many different sectors such as cosmetics and the car industry; calls for further efforts in establishing non- discriminatory practices between Member States and rules for all products on the internal market;

Amendment 131 #

Susanne MELIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that the purpose of this report is not to reduce the diversity of foods in Europe but simply to ensure that branded products are of the same quality;

Amendment 132 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Highlights the need to have effective and comprehensive legislation with clear instructions on how to tackle the issue of dual quality;

Amendment 133 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to adapt products on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons, where consumer preferences are among these reasons;

Amendment 134 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Strongly opposes the idea of the Commission to retain the trader´s right to offer products of the same brand in same packages of different weight or volume in different geographical markets on the basis of so-called legitimate reasons;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas results of analyses conducted in several Member States have proven that there are significant differences in the composition and quality of certain specific food products marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging, and that are advertised in the same way across the EU; whereas those differences are ~~often~~ due to the use of cheaper and of lower quality ingredients, ~~often with a~~which may be of lower nutritional value;

Amendment 15 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Aa. whereas, at the above meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, several Member States presented the results of studies showing that products were being sold in the EU with the same name and the same packaging but with different levels of quality, taste and/or ingredients, and pointed out that this practice may mislead consumers and creates unfair competition;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas products of the same brand may have different characteristics deriving from legitimate factors such as consumers' preferences in the destination regions, the place of production, specific local requirements, or differences in sourcing of raw materials due to their geographical or seasonal availability;

Amendment 17 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of applicable EU food law requirements, for instance in the labelling of mechanically separated meat1a or the use of food additives2a, have regularly been reported by the European Commission’s Health and Food Audits and Analysis services; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=76 2ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=115

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the presence of product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States, while those products have significantly different composition or characteristics on the one EU's single market completely denies basic principles on which the EU's single market should be based on;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas these analyses also show that certain products include less of the main ingredient, or ingredients that are considered to be less healthy and of poorer quality, or ingredients that have different taste, consistency and other sensory characteristics;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)

– having regard to Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the protection of intellectual property,

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. stresses that the safety and quality of food, and protection of consumers from being misled, are the top priorities;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas food that has been tested complied with EU provisions concerning food safety and labelling;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected ~~and when consumers are particularly vulnerable~~, or where fats of animal origin are replaced by fats of vegetable origin or vice versa, or where sugar is replaced with artificial sweeteners, or when the salt content is increased, particularly in the case of vulnerable consumers;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable; whereas, furthermore, those proven differences in ingredients could also be harmful to the environment, for example where palm oil is used in the composition of foodstuffs;

Amendment 24 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable, thereby contributing to a deterioration in the well- being of citizens, the damage caused to their social and economic interests and the decline in consumer confidence in the Member States in the single market;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~proven~~excessive consumption of foods with proven nutritional differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than ~~expected~~required for a balanced diet and when consumers are particularly vulnerable;

Amendment 26 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas proven differences in ingredients are not only unacceptable for consumers, but could, in the long term, affect ~~consumers’~~their health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~proven~~the differences in ingredients that have been identified could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than ~~expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable~~in comparable products;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~proven~~ differences in ~~ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable~~the quality and composition of products that go unnoticed by consumers, particularly in terms of the level of fat and/or sugar in the product concerned, may pose a risk to consumers’ health;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to the joint letter of Republic of Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic of 23 March 2018 to the European Commission concerning the issue of dual quality of products within the context of the New Deal for Consumers;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~proven~~ differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable;

Amendment 31 #

Younous OMARJEE

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas in the Member States and regions of the EU in which consumer products contain higher levels of fat and/or sugar than elsewhere, including the outermost regions, the rates and level of seriousness of chronic illnesses (e.g. diabetes and obesity) are also higher;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the varying content of products which are marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging diminishes consumer trust and undermines the reputation of the EU regulatory framework;

Amendment 33 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas differences in composition potentially affecting consumers' health may be spotted not only in foodstuffs, but also in cosmetics, hygiene products or cleaning products;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas reformulation activities to reduce fat, sugars and salt contents in food are lagging behind in many Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries;

Amendment 35 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principle and current methodology of adjusting products to local preferences;

Amendment 36 #

Bb. whereas consumers in the internal market should benefit from the same level of protection in all Member States;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas European consumers ~~in different Members States~~ are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in taste as well as in the composition of certain products when those differences are not recorded on the product label, and are therefore unable to make an informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas consumers in different Members States are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, ~~and~~whereas they do not have sufficient information on those products, whereas they might even be misled by such differences in composition which are not immediately identifiable on packaging or advertising, and whereas they are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;

Amendment 39 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas consumers do not expect a priori that the branded products sold in different countries within the single market might have different characteristics; whereas consumers in different Members States are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4

– having regard to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech of 13 September 2017, where he stressed that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and the branding being identical;

Amendment 40 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas consumers in different Members States, and/or travellers between Member States who believe they are purchasing the exact same product in those states, are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant information;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas consumers in different Members States are unable to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products, and are therefore unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to a lack of relevant informationArticles 18 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, which concern the listing of ingredients and the nutrition declaration on pre-packaged food, enable consumers to assess by themselves the potential differences in the composition of certain products;

Amendment 42 #

György HÖLVÉNYI, András GYÜRK

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. D(a) new. whereas generally, manufacturers of food and other consumer goods can take advantage of diverging interpretations of EU legislation and/or its poor implementation and enforcement by national competent authorities to adapt their products at the detriment of consumers;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas consumers make an associative link between brand, product and quality and expect products of the same brand and/or identical in appearance to be identical also in quality whether they are sold in their own country or in another Member State;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas insufficient information on the differences in products marketed under the same brand in different Member States may distort the economic behaviour of consumers by influencing purchasing decisions;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas labelling that does not correspond to the additives used or to the number of substitutes replacing basic ingredients misleads consumers and may pose a risk to their health;

Amendment 46 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers lays down strict rules on the protection of consumers against being misled;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas several public opinion surveys have shown that consumers are agitated by such differences in quality, and feel as second class citizens of the EU;

Amendment 48 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the Joint Research Center is supposed to come up with a common methodology to improve food product comparative tests;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas the brand has a significant impact on consumer perception of the product, its value and its quality;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to the conclusions of the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 6 March 2017,

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas there are no legislative regulations on dual quality at European Union level;

Amendment 51 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas the absence of European rules on dual quality means that it is not possible to compare or identify dual quality and there are no instruments that might be used to remedy the situation;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)

-1. Welcomes the recent Commission initiatives to address the issue, in particular the updating of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;

Amendment 53 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges ~~Member States and national authorit~~the Commission further to allocate financial resources with a viesw to ~~actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process~~carrying out comparative testing during a market surveillance period of at least two years in order to deter manufacturers who have used this misleading practice;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process; highlights the importance of in-depth and timely analysis of food but also non-food products;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process and to integrate this methodology into their working practices;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the ~~allocation of~~fact that EUR 2 million has been allocated for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process;

Amendment 57 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on producers who place dual quality products on the single market to take immediate measures to provide information on the composition of their products, differences in composition as well as reasons for such differences and to make this information clear and visible to consumers on the products' packaging; Calls on the Commission to establish an EU public database of these products so that this information can be easily viewed in one place for easy comparison;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the urgent need to develop a common testing methodology; highlights the commitment that EU-wide testing results should be available by the end of this year; calls for stronger involvement of the Members of the European Parliament in the process;

Amendment 59 #

Pavel POC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasizes that, in addition to a uniform methodology for testing of dual quality of food and drink products, it is also necessary to develop a uniform methodology for evaluating the test results and interpreting the findings;

Amendment 6 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018)183):

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that in addition to harmonisation at EU level and developing a common testing methodology and allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement, testing should also be carried out at Member State level;

Amendment 61 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain and calls for complete transparency for consumers on this issue;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain; stresses the need to involve as many interested actors as possible;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that although there are many proven differences in the composition of products that are essentially similar and sold under the same marketing labels(principally foodstuffs), any legal or political action should be based on clearly proven cases and not on press or social media coverage which may be misleading;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to improve the transparency of scientific studies in the field of food safety in response to public concern, in order to boost access to the relevant information that is needed in order to take purchasing decisions backed by a reliable, science- based risk assessment;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. welcomes the new European Commission's proposal on consumers protection called New Deal for Consumers;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets the lack of cooperation between countries and emphasises that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will not have ~~little or no~~any genuine positive impact on the market and that can therefore be seen as token measures; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed; to guarantee that products with the same packaging and which are advertised in the same way have the same composition, with a view to ensuring equal treatment for all citizens in all EU Member States;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, ~~and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on th~~since consumer protection legislation should apply to all products in general, and it proposes steps that are insufficient in order to tackle the problem of dual quality of products in the single market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed; stresses that clear guidelines need to be published on Commission websites with a view to promoting transparency and informing consumers;

Amendment 69 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets that~~Welcomes the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs ~~lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market~~and the measures it proposes; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities~~, and that corrective action is urgently needed~~;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4 b (new)

– having regard to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018)185/3);

Amendment 70 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Renata BRIANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed in order to combat discriminatory practices against consumers;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets that the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs lacks ambition, and proposes steps that will have little or no impact on the market~~Welcomes the Commission proposal regarding the amendments to Directives in the package on 'better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules'; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities, and that corrective action is urgently needed;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets that~~Takes note of the Commission Notice on the dual quality of foodstuffs ~~lacks ambition, and~~, takes the view that the proposesd steps ~~that will have little or no imp~~should be carefully analysed before further act ion ~~the mar~~is taketn; stresses that it is important to develop clear and efficient guidance and support for consumer authorities~~, and that corrective action is urgently needed~~;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Remind the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer protection law to issues of Dual Quality of food products (2017/C 327/01) which acknowledges producers' right to sell different products in different parts of the single market, due to local preferences, local and seasonal ingredients, or different places of manufacture; warns however that consumers must not be misled and calls on the national food authorities to establish, on a case-by-case basis, if this practice is illegal, based on the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, and their interplay with the fair information requirements in Regulation No 1169/2011 on Food Information;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses the need to boost the level of transparency with regard to the information provided to consumers by manufacturers through a regulation that will apply across Europe, through which all products marketed in the EU market are included in an online platform in the form of a European register of products marketed in the European market containing, for example, the information to be found on the product label, the name under which the product is marketed in each Member State, its nutritional characteristics and physiochemical parameters and a photo of the product, ensuring that the platform is readily accessible for the purposes of informing consumers;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Agrees with the Commission that there may be objective factors that affect the resulting composition of products, as well as legitimate factors such as the place of manufacture or consumer preferences in the destination regions; insists, however, that these factors can in no way be used as justification for marketing identically branded products of different quality;

Amendment 76 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to urgently investigate business to business (B2B) practices, such as when suppliers force supermarkets to source their products from a particular factory, which may prevent consumers from buying potentially higher quality products from another country within the single market;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is concerned about territorial constraints for traders when purchasing goods; calls on the Commission to examine such cases to enable consumers to fully benefit from the single market;

Amendment 78 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Agrees with the Commission that in the single market, where consumers have a general understanding of the principles of free circulation and equal access to goods, consumers do not, a priori, expect branded products sold in different countries to differ from each other, and that they are unable to assess the potential differences in the composition of certain products, which undermines their ability to make purchasing decisions;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, calls on the Commission to determine whether dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Citation 4 b (new)

– having regard to the results of the comparative studies carried out by consumer protection authorities and organisations in several EU Member States,

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; ~~welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recip~~stresses the need for communication campaigns across the EU, with a particular focus on Western Member States where awareness may be lower; notes that all EU citizens are affected by dual quality practices including when they travel between Member States; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes and calls for assurances that any such changes will not result in the lowering of product quality in any Member States; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information; on packaging as well as in ending discriminatory practices;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information; also highlights the need to require firms in the food industry to be transparent in their communication with consumers and to ensure that they do not place dual quality products on the market;

Amendment 82 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes but believes that providing this vital information should not be just a voluntary action, but needs to be mandated; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information; calls on the Commission and the appropriate national bodies to organise consumer education;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of raising consumer awareness and improving access to information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information and the urgent need to draw up a code of ethics for manufacturers;

Amendment 85 #

Susanne MELIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 86 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the importance of ~~rais~~improving consumer ~~awareness and improving access to~~ information; welcomes the statements made by some manufacturers that they would change their recipes; stresses the role of industry in providing clear and correct consumer information;

Amendment 88 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of civil society in analysing, challenging and raising awareness about dual quality practices and calls for more support for consumer groups, particularly in Eastern Europe, as well as better protection for institutional and individual whistle-blowers in the field of food safety and consumer rights;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls for the increased support for national consumer organisations, so that they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;

Amendment 9 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Citation 4 c (new)

– having regard to the Commission proposal to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices that involve the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that is it is not appropriate to standardise the taste of food across the EU and recipes used to make it, because it would then no longer be possible to take local markets and the wishes of consumers into account;

Amendment 91 #

Biljana BORZAN, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ, Carlos ZORRINHO, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need, in the interests of consumers, to make public the details of producers who use unfair trade practices involving the dual quality of products;

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Acknowledges the argument that products might differ due to consumer preferences, stresses however that consumers should be clearly and timely informed of such differences;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market;~~deleted

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market; stresses that the selling products of marketed under the same brand and with the same packaging but with different composition or characteristics should only be permitted if the differences are clearly stated on the packaging;

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market; calls on the Commission to declare those arguments null and void, given that they do not reflect the general consumer interest and that consumer preferences are not determined transparently:

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that ~~arguments citing~~ consumer preferences ~~and food re~~, when they are not accompanied by sufficient and suitable informulation ~~should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market;~~ , do not provide an acceptable argument to justify placing products with significant differences in composition and quality on the market under the same brand, with the same packaging and advertised in the same way, but that this constitutes misleading action within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that ~~arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should in no way be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market~~there are many reasons for differences in the composition of foods; these include consumers’ tastes, the reformulation of foods with reduced fat, sugar or salt content, availability of ingredients on regional markets and national food legislation;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that arguments citing consumer preferences and food reformulation should ~~in no way~~not be used as justification for placing products of dual quality on the market, unless based on well-defined, justified and objective reasons such as compliance with relevant national rules;

Amendment 99 #