Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation: implementation problems
7.6.2010
Question for oral answer O-0082/2010
to the Commission
Rule 115
Mario Mauro, Bogusław Sonik, János Áder, Roberta Angelilli, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Raffaele Baldassarre, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sergio Berlato, Piotr Borys, Jan Březina, Milan Cabrnoch, Carlo Casini, Nessa Childers, Giovanni Collino, Lara Comi, Carlo Fidanza, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Elisabetta Gardini, Françoise Grossetête, Małgorzata Handzlik, Marian Harkin, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Giovanni La Via, Krzysztof Lisek, Clemente Mastella, Barbara Matera, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Cristiana Muscardini, Miroslav Ouzký, Alfredo Pallone, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Mario Pirillo, Gianni Pittella, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Dominique Riquet, Zuzana Roithová, Licia Ronzulli, Oreste Rossi, Potito Salatto, Matteo Salvini, Amalia Sartori, Giancarlo Scottà, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris, Theodoros Skylakakis, Salvatore Tatarella, Anna Záborská, Iva Zanicchi
The Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation ((EC) No 1924/2006[1]) has some outstanding features. However, there are still a number of problematic issues connected with its implementation. The major problems in the implementation phase result from the lack of clarity and transparency as regards the criteria for approving or rejecting claims; furthermore, there is legal uncertainty as to what will or will not be allowed and in relation to transition periods. The regulation’s current implementation may distort competition through the piecemeal approval of lists of claims, giving rise to unnecessary additional costs that may have a particular impact SMEs. The regulation does not provide for rights of appeal or remedy in the event that Article 13 claims are rejected, and may put the European industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with third-country operators owing to the expansion of SMEs’ market. At the same time, food industries may be discouraged from investing in research and new products, which will also affect consumer choice. In response to Mr Mauro’s written question E-5764/09, the Commission has stated that no impact assessment was required at the time the proposal was made (2003), and that the regulation provides for a report on its application in 2013. This report does not seem to cover the economic impact on companies.
Given that the decisions that have now been taken on the regulation’s application – in particular the batch-by-batch adoption of lists of claims – have a serious economic impact on companies, does the Commission not consider it important to conduct an immediate interim assessment of their economic implications before any final measures are adopted? In the absence of such an impact assessment, what objective basis does the Commission have for its assertion that the regulation will benefit SMEs, as stated in its response to other learned colleagues (including Małgorzata Handzlik and Jan Březina)? Recital 33 of the regulation states that appropriate technical guidance and tools should be made available to SMEs by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Given that SMEs have not received any guidance regarding Article 13 claims, that no tools have been developed to facilitate SMEs’ implementation of the regulation, and that the first stakeholder meeting organised by the EFSA on this issue is supposed to take place by 1 June 2010 at the latest, does the Commission think that the regulation’s requirements have duly been fulfilled? Does it believe that companies have had full access to all the necessary information from the very beginning? If not, what measures does it intend to take to remedy this lack of guidance? Could it also indicate how it intends to remedy the negative impact that the current approach to the regulation’s implementation will have on innovation, investment and competitiveness in the European food sector, especially in the light of the Lisbon Agenda and the current economic crisis?
Tabled: 7.6.2010
Forwarded: 9.6.2010
Deadline for reply: 16.6.2010
- [1] OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9.