REPORT on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council correcting Directive 2002/2/EC amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

23.11.2006 - (COM(2006)0340 – C6‑0209/2006 – 2006/0117(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council correcting Directive 2002/2/EC amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

(COM(2006)0340 – C6‑0209/2006 – 2006/0117(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0340)[1],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0209/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6‑0411/2006),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 1 a (new)
	(1a) The objective of ensuring feed safety is currently being achieved through implementation of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 183/2005.
Justification
In the light of the overhaul of feed safety legislation that has been carried out since 2002 - in particular with the adoption and implementation of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (general food law provisions) and Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 on feed hygiene, which did not exist at the time of the adoption of Directive 2002/2/EC - the original objective of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC, namely to ensure feed safety, is longer relevant. According to the 2005 CIVIC report, the majority of the Member States do not regard the percentage declaration as benefiting feed safety.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 1 b (new)
	(1b) A number of court rulings in the Member States have led to Directive 2002/2/EC being implemented differently and unevenly and various cases relating to it are currently pending before those courts.
Justification
Directive 2002/2/EC is not being implemented in a uniform way at Member State level, given that national implementing measures have been suspended by the courts in some Member States, and not in others. That is leading to discrimination as regards the implementation of the provisions of the directive and in particular those relating to the percentage declaration for feed materials.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 3 a (new)
	(3a) The Council and the European Parliament are not at present making more far‑reaching amendments to the basic legal act, as the Commission has promised, as part of the simplification programme, to draw up proposals by mid-2007 to overhaul food and feed legislation. They anticipate that the issue of the so-called 'open declaration' of ingredients will be fully reviewed in this connection, and expect new proposals from the Commission taking account both of the interest of farmers in being provided with precise, detailed information on the feed materials contained in feedingstuffs and the interest of the industry in ensuring that business secrets are adequately protected.
Justification
Parliament should not at present propose individual amendments to the basic legal acts, as the Commission has in any case announced that comprehensive proposals for reform of food and feed law are to be drawn up by mid‑2007. The proposals are to be accompanied by a full impact assessment and will harmonise food and feed law provisions more closely. Individual amendments that go beyond simply complying with the judgment of the Court will only hamper that work.
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 Article 1, paragraph 1, point (b) (Directive 2002/2/EC)
(1) Article 1(1)(b) is deleted.	(1) Article 1(1)(b) is replaced by:   "b) The following point shall be added:   ‘l) in the case of compound feedingstuffs other than those intended for pets, the indication “the exact percentages by weight of feed materials used in this feedingstuff may be obtained by the competent authorities in case of calamities from: …” (name or trade name, address or registered office, telephone number and e-mail address of the person responsible for the particulars referred to in this paragraph). This information shall be provided at the competent authorities' request in case of calamities.' "
Justification
Competent authorities should have the right to obtain the exact percentages used in feedstuffs in case of calamities

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The basis for the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council correcting Directive 2002/2/EC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs is a ruling by the European Court of Justice of 6 December 2005. In a number of joined cases (C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04) the Court examined the legality of the provisions adopted in the directive relating to the 'open declaration' of the composition of compound feedingstuffs.

This 'open declaration' of the ingredients used in feedingstuffs was one of the key demands of the European Parliament following the BSE crisis and in the light of the calls made to the Commission by the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE (see resolution of 19 February 1997 on the results of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE).

Parliament placed great emphasis on the need to ensure not only that consumers are protected as effectively as possible, but also that they are able, with the help of clear and transparent labelling, to decide for themselves which foods, of what origin, to choose, bearing in mind safety and health considerations. The same should also apply to farmers, who are also dependent on clear labelling when purchasing compound feedingstuffs.

In its legislative proposal COM(1999)744 amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs, the Commission submitted a proposal along those lines providing for feed materials to be listed, with a declaration of the exact percentages by weight. Whilst the EP supported these measures at first reading, there was strong opposition within the Council to the 'open declaration' approach. The Council's common position of 19 December 2000 watered down the provisions relating to the open declaration. In response, at second reading the EP strongly backed the reinstatement of the original wording. The proposals for amendment at second reading were adopted by an overwhelming majority in committee (23:1) and in plenary (again almost unanimously).

In the subsequent conciliation procedure the two arms of the Union legislature reached an agreement based essentially on the following rules:

Ø compulsory declaration of feed materials on the label or in the accompanying instructions, with an indication of the percentages by weight; a tolerance of +/- 15% of the declared value to be permitted (Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC; Article 5c of Directive 79/373/EEC);

Ø information on the exact composition of the compound feedingstuff to be provided at the customer's request (Article 1(1) of Directive 2002/2/EC; Article 5(1)(l) of Directive 79/373/EEC).

A number of companies in the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands brought actions against the transposition of Directive 2002/2/EC into national law.

It is in the light of these cases that the Court of Justice ruled on 6 December 2005. The individual actions were based on complaints that:

Ø the directive is invalid, as it was adopted on the basis of Article 152 (4) of the Treaty;

Ø the labelling provisions in Article 1(1)(4) contravene the principle of equal treatment and non‑discrimination;

Ø the labelling provisions in question contravene the principle of proportionality;

Ø the directive cannot be applied without the positive list of feed materials called for in the tenth recital.

In its judgment the Court unequivocally confirmed the legality of the Directive and rejected the majority of criticisms made by the claimants. The Court accepted the claimants' arguments only in respect of one point, criticising the requirements in Article 1(1) for exact information to be provided on request as disproportionate in relation to the stated objective of the directive, namely to protect public health.

In the view of the Court, Article 1(4) ensures that the benefits of the directive (traceability, rapid reaction in the event of an ingredient in feedingstuffs being contaminated) are able to be achieved. An exact declaration of the ingredients on request 'cannot be justified by the objective of protecting public health' and 'goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective' (paragraph 85). It provides too little in the way of additional (health) protection for consumers to justify the serious impact on the 'economic interests of manufacturers' of which the claimants complain.

The Court has therefore ruled that Article 1(1)(b) is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality. Article 233 of the Treaty requires the legislator to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court. In its proposal, the Commission provides for the contested paragraph of Directive 2002/2/EC to be deleted.

In its submissions to the Court of Justice, the EP pointed out that the contested paragraph has a further objective, namely that it is aimed at improving transparency in trade in feedingstuffs and ultimately enabling breeders to make an informed decision on what to feed to their animals (paragraph 75 of the judgement).

Your rapporteur also attaches importance to the fact that the Court of Justice weighed the additional benefits, in terms of protecting public health, of providing exact information on request against the resulting costs for manufacturers.

It may therefore be worthwhile putting forward a compromise form of wording for discussion, which both takes account of the judgment of the Court and the concerns of market operators and observes the principle of proportionality.

In a number of discussions, manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs have pointed out that the issue of the protection of intellectual property raised before the courts is particularly important in relation to micro-ingredients (feed materials present in small amounts in compound feedingstuffs).

Your rapporteur is therefore proposing that the principle of providing exact information on request should be retained, but that this contested article should only apply to the main ingredients of compound feedingstuffs and that, on the basis of a de minimis clause, ingredients representing a percentage by weight of less than 2% should be exempted from the requirement to give an 'exact' declaration.

In the light of the Court of Justice judgment, your rapporteur regards such a compromise as entirely proportionate. It takes into account the Court's reservations with regard to the protection of intellectual property, and takes greater account than the deletion proposed by the Commission of the additional objective of ensuring transparency and enabling consumers to make informed decisions.

Finally, it should be pointed out that similar rules on providing information on ingredients on request are currently being drawn up for cosmetic products, which strengthen consumers' rights to information without prejudice to the protection of commercial secrecy and of intellectual property rights.[1]

• [1]  See Commission press release IP 06-1127, 28.8.2006

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council correcting Directive 2002/2/EC amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs
References	COM(2006)0340 – C6-0209/2006 – 2006/0117(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	27.6.2006
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	AGRI 6.7.2006
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	ENVI 6.7.2006
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision	ENVI 13.7.2006
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary	-
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf 12.7.2006
Simplified procedure – date of decision	-
Legal basis disputed   Date of JURI opinion	-
Financial endowment amended   Date of BUDG opinion	-
European Economic and Social Committee consulted – date of decision in plenary	-
Committee of the Regions consulted – date of decision in plenary	-
Discussed in committee	11.9.2006 2.10.2006 22.11.2006
Date adopted	22.11.2006
Result of final vote	+: 31 –: - 0: -
Members present for the final vote	Vincenzo Aita, Thijs Berman, Giuseppe Castiglione, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Esther Herranz García, Heinz Kindermann, Stéphane Le Foll, Albert Jan Maat, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Brian Simpson, Witold Tomczak, Kyösti Virrankoski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Pilar Ayuso, Ilda Figueiredo, Gábor Harangozó, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Jan Mulder, Markus Pieper,
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	-
Date tabled	23.11.2006
Comments (available in one language only)	...