WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Consumer protection.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/89 the Regulation lays down two successive six-month deadlines after Under the normal procedure, notification of an application to the Commission. The first six-month deadline (Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92) is required for practical and administrative reasons (translation of the applications files, canvassing opinions from other Commission departments, requests for additional information, possible consultation of the Scientific Committee, etc. ). The second six-month deadline, which begins with the publication of an application in the Official Journal, is designed to give scope for objections (Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92). This is because it is essential to know what the situation is in other Member States regarding a product for which a Member State has requested registration at Community level, as well as to give them an opportunity to object if they have a valid reason. If there is an objection which deserves consideration, an additional three-month period is provided for (Article 7(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92), in which the Member States involved can seek agreement among themselves. If, on expiry of this period, no agreement has been found, the Commission then has to draw up a decision to be submitted to the Regulatory Committee. These procedures are long and can vary in length according to the complexity of the application, but it is essential to ensure that applications are in conformity with the Regulation and that third partiesí rights are safeguarded. Since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 535/97, Member States have been able to grant transitional level until a decision on an application for registration has been taken at protection at national Community level. This is designed to protect the interests of the producers applying for registration. Given the importance of the interests concerned and the need to ensure that Community registration remains credible in permitting exclusive use of a name in market counting 373 million consumers, the Commission does not think it is appropriate to propose lightening the procedure for registration of PGIs and PDOs. As regards Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 (TSGs), the Commission sent the Council a report on its implementation in July 1999. This report indicates that efforts are being made to improve the operation of this Regulation. (2000/C 374 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Consumer protection (24 February 2000) According to the current rules on the labelling and presentation of agri-food products destined for the final consumer, it does not appear to be compulsory, in certain cases, to indicate the place of origin of the product or of its main ingredient; nor does it appear to be compulsory to inform the final consumer of the fact that an agri-food product or its ingredients have been genetically modified. Moreover, according to press reports, a voluntary information campaign has been launched by 60 producers and distributors in Italy who have chosen to label their products as not being genetically modified. If the above interpretation is correct, can the Commission state: 1. whether there are any reasons preventing the Commission from submitting proposals for amending Articles 3, 11 and 12 of Directive 79/112/EEC (1) with a view to making it compulsory in all cases to indicate on the label of a product destined for the final consumer the place of origin of that product or of its main ingredient; 2. whether, the Seattle meeting of the WTO notwithstanding, the EU has had, is having or intends to have talks with the USA with a view to drawing up regulations concerning products containing GMOs or nutraceuticals; 3. whether it is aware of any genetically modified products being marketed in the EU? (1) OJ L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 1. C 374 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) 1. Article 3 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consume (1), as last amended by Directive 97/4/E (2) provides that particulars of the place of origin or provenance must only be provided in the cases where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin of provenance of the foodstuff concerned. This approach is informed by the following considerations. Generally, with the exception of products which are covered by specific regimes (protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs, fruit and fresh vegetables, etc. ), or products which are labelled on the basis of other objective criteria (e. g. protection of public health, in the case of the Commissionís proposal on the labelling of bovine meat), there is no direct link between a foodstuffís properties and its place of origin. In the case of ordinary products, the place of origin or provenance does not affect quality, but may however be a means of discrimination. In the context of the principle of the free movement of products in the internal market, mandatory indication of the place of origin or provenance ü unless justified by one of the above-mentioned objective criteria ü is liable to favour behaviour in the Member States that bestows special privileges on domestic production. Discussions on questions concerning foodstuffs derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 2. are currently under way in several international forums, notably the OECD and the Codex Alimentarius. The Commission has bilateral contacts both with the United States government and numerous other third countries, at different levels, concerning several problems, including biotechnology. The idea is to pool information and viewpoints and to organise discussions on possible solutions to major problems Since 15 May 1997, novel foods and novel food ingredients have been subject to the procedures laid 3. down in Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredient (2). To date no food or food ingredients containing GMOs have been authorised on the basis of Article 4 of this Regulation. However, pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 5 of this Regulation, fundamentally equivalent products have been placed on the market on the basis of notifications. Up to now ten products have been notified (six colza oils and derived products of four different varieties of maize). In compliance with its obligations, the Commission has published the list of notified products in the Official Journal (3). Moreover, before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, two GMOs were authorised pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organism (4) (genetically modified soya by Commission Decision 96/281/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified soya beans (Glycine max L. ) with increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, submitted pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (5), and genetically modified maize pursuant to Commission Decision 97/98/EC of 23 January 1997 concern- ing the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. ) with the combined modification for insecticidal properties conferred by the Bt-endotoxin gene and increased tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, also submitted pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (6)). Hence they may be used in human food. (1) OJ L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 43, 14. 2. 1997. (3) OJ C 200, 26. 6. 1998, OJ C 181, 26. 6. 1999 and OJ C 71, 11. 3. 2000. (4) OJ L 117, 8. 5. 1990. (5) OJ L 107, 30. 4. 1996. (6) OJ L 31, 1. 2. 1997