REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey
4.12.2013 - (COM(2012)0530 – C7‑0304/2012 – 2012/0260(COD)) - ***I
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Julie Girling
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey
(COM(2012)0530 – C7‑0304/2012 – 2012/0260(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0530),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0304/2012),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 November 2012[1],
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0440/2013),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(1) Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011 in case C-442/098, pollen in honey is to be considered as an ingredient within the meaning of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. The judgment of the Court was based on the consideration relying on the facts brought before it that pollen in honey is mainly due to the centrifugation carried out by the beekeeper for the purposes of honey collection. However, pollen only enters into the hive as a result of the activity of the bees and it is naturally present in honey regardless of whether or not the beekeeper extracts the honey through centrifugation. It is necessary therefore to clarify, without prejudice to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed to genetically modified pollen in honey, that pollen is a constituent of honey, which is a natural substance that has no ingredients, and not an ingredient within the meaning of Directive 2000/13/EC. Therefore, Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey should be amended accordingly. |
(1) Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011 in case C-442/098, pollen derived from genetically modified crops is to be considered as an ingredient of honey, or of food supplements containing pollen, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council8a . | ||||||||||||||||||
|
___________________ |
_________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
8 OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 7. |
8 OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 7. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
8a Regulation (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 (OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 7). | ||||||||||||||||||
|
9 OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29. |
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
10 OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. |
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
11 OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 47. |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Transformation of the ECJ-ruling of 6 September 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(1a) In order to take account of consumers’ increasing sensitivity over the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and of their rights to be informed thereof, and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 should be amended accordingly. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(1b) In order to ensure freedom of information and choice for consumers, and taking into account the special characteristics of honey, this Directive should consider pollen to be an ingredient, but solely within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(1c) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 defines an ingredient as being a substance used in the manufacture of a food. It is indispensable for the production of honey and the pollination of crops that beehives are intentionally placed in locations where bees are able to visit certain plant species. The composition of the honey produced mainly depends on where beehives are located and when that honey is harvested. Pollen derived from genetically modified crops should therefore be regarded as ingredient species-specifically. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
This is current practice in the laboratories today anyway, and is in accordance with how any other food is tested today. Honey should not be treated differently from other food in this respect. As an example, it is very likely that almost all pollen in "rapeseed-honey" from Canada originates from GM-crops. It would therefore be highly misleading for the consumer if such honey would not have to be labelled as "containing ingredients produced from GMOs". | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(1 d) In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 , honey and other foods or food supplements, containing pollen derived from genetically modified crops are to be labelled as foodstuffs containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Transformation of the ECJ-ruling of 6 September 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 e (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(1e) As honey is a natural product, it should be exempted from the requirement to bear a list of ingredients. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(6) Therefore, in order to take account of technical progress and, where appropriate, the developments in international standards, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adapt or update the technical characteristics related to the product descriptions and definitions in the Annexes to Directive 2001/110/EC. |
deleted | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Directive 2001/110/EC Article 2 – point 5 (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Directive 2001/110/EC Article 2 – point 6 (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Transformation of the ECJ-ruling of 6 September 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6a – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6a – point 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1, point (1) by [date]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. |
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1, point (1) by ... +[12 months after the date of entry into force]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
___________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
+ O.J. - please insert the date: 12 months after the entry into force of this amending directive | ||||||||||||||||||
- [1] OJ C 11, 15.1.2013, p. 88.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Alignment with the Lisbon Treaty
Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) outlines the scope of delegated acts:
"Article 290 of the TFEU allows the legislator to "delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act". Legal acts adopted by the Commission in this way are referred to in the terminology used by the Treaty as "delegated acts" (Article 290(3))."
The Commission proposal would allow the Commission to amend the technical characteristics related to names, product descriptions and definitions in Annex I and composition criteria in Annex II to the present Directive. However, your Rapporteur considers that these are all essential elements of the Directive. Therefore, the Commission proposal, in allowing amendment of essential elements, goes beyond the scope of delegated acts as outlined in the Treaty. For this reason, in her report your Rapporteur has removed these references from the Commission proposal.
The power to adopt delegated acts relating to non-essential elements is still to be conferred on the Commission. Therefore the proposal in Article 4 for delegated acts to set out methods for the verification of compliance of honey with the provisions of this Directive is maintained.
Such a position is to be viewed in the context of the recent adoption of similar modifications to Directive 2012/12/EU relating to fruit juices. In this Directive, those parts of the Annexes containing product names, definitions and characteristics were removed from the scope of delegation. A similar approach is also being taken with regard to the ongoing discussions on the so-called "Breakfast Directives", which seek to align existing Commission implementing powers in Council Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC, 2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It is important that the Parliament maintains a consistent approach which is why your Rapporteur has considered these other Directives in preparing this report.
Your Rapporteur has also amended the length of time for which the power to adopt delegated acts can be conferred on the Commission. This has been changed from an indeterminate period to five years with tacit extension. This amendment reflects the Parliament's standard wording on delegated acts and is consistent with the approaches taken for the Directives mentioned above.
OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (6.11.2013)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/CE relating to honey
(COM(2012)0530 – C7‑0304/2012 – 2012/0260(COD))
Rapporteur: Mariya Gabriel
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The main purpose of the Commission proposal under consideration here is to incorporate into Directive 2001/110/EC, the 'Honey Directive', a provision stipulating that pollen is a natural constituent, and not an ingredient, of honey. The Commission proposal is a response to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the 'Bablok' case (Case C‑442/09), in which the Court found that pollen is an ingredient of honey within the meaning of the definition given in Article 6(4)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC. The second major element of the Commission proposal is the replacement of the comitology procedure provided for in the directive by arrangements involving delegated acts as referred to in Article 290 TFEU.
The Commission and the CJEU disagree on the issue of pollen. The Commission asserts that pollen is naturally present in honey, because it is brought into the hive by the bees themselves, with no human involvement. For its part, the Court emphasises the fact that when the honeycombs are centrifuged in order to extract the honey, it is not only the alveoli containing honey which may be emptied, but also the neighbouring alveoli in which pollen is stored. As a result, the quantity of pollen found in honey is in most cases increased by beekeepers when they carry out the extraction process.
The Court's judgment raises fundamental questions concerning the coexistence of genetically modified crops and beekeeping. The Court has ruled that honey containing GM pollen will require authorisation under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 before it can be marketed. That conclusion applies irrespective of whether pollen is defined as an ingredient or a constituent.
Rapporteur’s position
Your rapporteur endorses the Commission's proposal that pollen should be regarded as a natural constituent of honey.
Impact on the beekeeping sector
Your rapporteur takes the view that detailed consideration must be given to the direct and indirect impact on the beekeeping sector of the adoption or otherwise of the proposal.
Honey is regarded as a natural, healthy product. For that reason, if there is a possibility that honey may be labelled as containing GM pollen as an ingredient, its reputation as a natural product will clearly suffer. If pollen is described as an ingredient, consumers may get the - entirely wrong - idea that pollen is a separate product which is added to honey.
Classifying pollen as an ingredient would increase significantly the cost of the tests which have to be carried out in order to obtain the information needed for labelling purposes. That cost might even exceed current production costs per hive. The impact will be felt much more keenly by amateur beekeepers, who produce small amounts of honey, than by professionals, who produce much larger quantities and who, simply by virtue of effects of scale, will be better able to bear the additional costs. It may even be that the introduction of the new requirements will prompt some amateur beekeepers to stop making honey.
The increased production costs linked to the requirement to carry out additional tests will also push retail prices up.
What is more, the Commission proposal does not challenge the conclusion reached by the CJEU. Following the amendment of Directive 2001/110/EC, honey containing GM pollen will continue to fall under Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, as 'food produced from or containing ingredients produced from GMOs'. This means that the quantity of GM pollen authorised in the context of the 0.9 % labelling threshold will need to be calculated as a percentage of the total quantity of the single-ingredient product 'honey', rather than as a percentage of the total quantity of pollen.
It is unlikely that the amount of GM pollen will exceed the threshold authorised for honey. In practice the relevant levels are between 0.005 and 0.05 %, taking all the ingredients, including pollen, together. In an extreme case, if the total quantity of matter not soluble in water were to be pollen of exclusively GM origin, this would amount to between 0.005 and 0.05 % of the total weight of the honey. As at the end of May 2013, no method had yet been devised of quantifying the proportion of a given amount of pollen which is made up of GM pollen.
The 0.9 % threshold is valid for food and for producers of organic products. On that basis, beekeepers and organic producers will no longer be treated in the same way, a state of affairs which could give rise to tension between the two sectors.
The debate on coexistence
Your rapporteur wishes to emphasise that the debate on the amendment of the Honey Directive must not get mixed up with the debate on coexistence. In 2012, GMOs, mainly insect-resistant MON 810 maize, were being grown commercially in five Member States (Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia). Non-authorised GMOs and the ingredients derived from them cannot be placed on the market, so that the regulation on the labelling of GMOs does not apply.
This uncertainty concerning the precise location of GM crops and the implications for farming and the environment seems to be at the heart of the discussion on the overall environmental impact of GMOs. It stems, however, not so much from the Commission proposal concerning the Honey Directive as from the fact that some Member States have not yet correctly implemented Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments into its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||
|
|
(1a) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers1 defines an 'ingredient' as any substance used in the manufacture or preparation of a foodstuff and still present in the finished products, even in altered form. This definition implies an intentional use of a substance in the manufacture or preparation of a foodstuff. Taking into account the natural character of honey, and in particular the natural origin of the presence of constituents particular to honey, including pollen, it is necessary to clarify that pollen and any other constituents particular to honey should not be considered as 'ingredients' of honey within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. | ||||||||||||
|
|
______________ | ||||||||||||
|
|
1 OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18. | ||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The annexes contain essential elements of the directive and therefore do not fall within the scope of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The annexes contain essential elements of the directive and therefore do not fall within the scope of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The annexes contain essential elements of the directive and therefore do not fall within the scope of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6 a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The annexes contain essential elements of the directive and therefore do not fall within the scope of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2001/110/EC Article 6 a – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||
The annexes contain essential elements of the directive and therefore do not fall within the scope of delegated acts. | |||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||
|
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1, point (1) by [date]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. |
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest 12 months after the date of its entry into force. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. | ||||||||||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey |
||||
|
References |
COM(2012)0530 – C7-0304/2012 – 2012/0260(COD) |
||||
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 22.10.2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
AGRI 4.7.2013 |
||||
|
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Mariya Gabriel 3.7.2013 |
||||
|
Discussed in committee |
30.9.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
5.11.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
29 2 2 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
John Stuart Agnew, Eric Andrieu, Liam Aylward, José Bové, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Paolo De Castro, Albert Deß, Diane Dodds, Herbert Dorfmann, Hynek Fajmon, Mariya Gabriel, Iratxe García Pérez, Julie Girling, Béla Glattfelder, Martin Häusling, Peter Jahr, Jarosław Kalinowski, Elisabeth Köstinger, George Lyon, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Mairead McGuinness, Britta Reimers, Ulrike Rodust, Giancarlo Scottà, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Marc Tarabella |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Luís Paulo Alves, Pilar Ayuso, Kent Johansson, Anthea McIntyre, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Milan Zver |
||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey |
||||
|
References |
COM(2012)0530 – C7-0304/2012 – 2012/0260(COD) |
||||
|
Date submitted to Parliament |
21.9.2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 22.10.2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
IMCO 22.10.2012 |
AGRI 4.7.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
IMCO 10.10.2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Julie Girling 14.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
17.10.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
27.11.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
47 15 0 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Elena Oana Antonescu, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sandrine Bélier, Sergio Berlato, Lajos Bokros, Franco Bonanini, Biljana Borzan, Yves Cochet, Spyros Danellis, Chris Davies, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Martin Kastler, Holger Krahmer, Corinne Lepage, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Linda McAvan, Miroslav Ouzký, Gilles Pargneaux, Andrés Perelló Rodríguez, Pavel Poc, Frédérique Ries, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Kārlis Šadurskis, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Dubravka Šuica, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Thomas Ulmer, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils, Marina Yannakoudakis |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Erik Bánki, Gaston Franco, Julie Girling, Eduard-Raul Hellvig, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Marusya Lyubcheva, Jiří Maštálka, Judith A. Merkies, Miroslav Mikolášik, James Nicholson, Alojz Peterle, Vittorio Prodi, Bart Staes, Marita Ulvskog, Vladimir Urutchev, Anna Záborská, Andrea Zanoni |
||||
|
Date tabled |
5.12.2013 |
||||