WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Amendment to the EU chocolate directive.
24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/45 The Commission believes that the common position adopted by the Council safeguards all the interests at stake, including those of the developing countries. The substance of the common position corresponds to a large extent to the wishes expressed by Parliament at first reading. It has now been sent to Parliament for a second reading. (1) OJ L 228, 16. 8. 1973. (2) COM(95) 722 final. (2000/C 303 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (13 December 1999) Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU Member States the term áchocolateí is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 % milk and no vegetable fat. This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa- producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries, including the fifteen Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Who (Commission, Member States, chocolate producers) took the first step towards a lowering of the cocoa standard? 2. On the basis of what arguments and/or documents did the Council approve a lowering of the cocoa standard? 3. What EU Member States were advocates of a lowering of the cocoa standard? What arguments and/or documents have these Member States used in support of their position? 4. Did the Council carry out a study of the social and economic effects on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers before lowering the cocoa standard? If so, what were the results of the study? If not, why did the Council neglect to carry out such a study, given the far-reaching social and economic impact on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers? 5. Can the amended chocolate directive with the lower cocoa standard be reconciled with the interna- tional cocoa agreement of 1995 which sought to encourage the consumption of cocoa? If so, what are the Councilís arguments in support of this position? Reply (10/11 April 2000) As a preliminary remark, the Council would draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the fact that the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to cocoa and chocolate products maintains, for all the products in question, the minimum content of cocoa butter or total dry cocoa matter laid down by Directive 73/241/ EEC currently in force. It is therefore not a question of reducing the cocoa content, as the Honourable Member claims, but rather of permitting the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter up to a maximum of 5 % of the finished product (cf. Article 2(1) of the common position), as some Member States already authorise the use of vegetable fat. The Council would point out that it decided to restrict these vegetable fats to six fats of tropical origin defined according to technical and scientific criteria as equivalents to cocoa butter, and C 303 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 that enzyme treatment of these fats is prohibited. (A seventh fat - coconut oil - is allowed only for the manufacture of ice-creams and similar frozen products. ) In the common position referred to at the beginning of this reply, the Council judged that certain vertical Directives relating to foods should be simplified in order to take account only of the essential requirements to be met by the products they cover in order that those products may move freely within the internal market. The aim is not only to guarantee the single nature of the internal market but also to provide the consumer with correct, neutral and objective information in addition to the list of ingredients. With regard to the social and economic impact on the cocoa-producing countries, Commission officials submitted a preliminary study of the impact of the proposed Directive on those countries producing cocoa and vegetable fats before the Council adopted its common position. In that preliminary study, the Commission concluded that the proposed Directive would probably not have any negative impact on the countries concerned. A second study will be initiated in order to remove any lingering doubts. Regarding the same question, the Council makes provision in Article 2(4) of its common position for the Commission to carry out a study of the Directiveís impact on the economies of those countries producing cocoa and other vegetable fats after the Directive in question enters into force. The Council would suggest that the Honourable Member contact the Commission directly for more details. With specific regard to question 3, the Council would suggest that the Honourable Member contact the Member States themselves as it is not the Councilís responsibility to provide details of individual positions. (2000/C 303 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2300/99 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Future of the European shipbuilding industry On several occasions since the crisis of 1973, European shipyards have undergone restructuring leading to job losses and slumps in regions whose prosperity depended on shipbuilding and its role as a driving force for other economic sectors. The Commission has itself acknowledged the continued decline in prices. Between January 1997 and March 1999 prices of newly built vessels fell by between 15 and 31,5 per cent. The explanation for this lies primarily in the fact that certain Asian countries, South Korea notably, sell their products at a loss, with prices sometimes 30 per cent below European prices. Sizeable subsidies enable them to pursue such commercial dumping practices. Over and above the tentative measures announced by the Council of Industry Ministers on 9 November last, what emergency measures is the Commission prepared to take in support of European shipyards so as to guarantee their survival? Did the Commission take account of an international climate dominated by unfair practices on the part of South Korea in deciding to demand the return of 18 451 million pesetas granted in the form of tax credits to the shipbuilding industry in Spain, which it considered to be State aid? What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect existing shipbuilding jobs in the European Union? How does it intend to guarantee the future of this sector, and the thousands of working people who depend on it? What proposals will the Commission be taking to the first round of talks in Seattle at the end of this year with a view to shielding the European shipbuilding industry from the unfair practices in which third countries indulge?