Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 15 May 2006 - Strasbourg

16. Nutrition and health claims made on foods Addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on:

- the recommendation for second reading (A6-0122/2006), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the common position established by the Council [09858/3/2005 C6-0018/2006 2003/0165(COD)] with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods (Rapporteur: Adriana Poli Bortone) and

- the recommendation for second reading (A6-0078/2006), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the common position established by the Council [09857/3/2005 C6-0017/2006 2003/0262(COD)] with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (Rapporteur: Karin Scheele).

  Karin Scheele (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, today finds us discussing a brace of regulatory packages on foods, in the shape of Mrs Poli Bertone’s report on the nutritional and health claims made in respect of them, and my own report on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to them.

These two proposals for legislation have always been discussed and considered simultaneously and in tandem, since there would have been no point in taking the two at different times. This House having taken up some very controversial positions – as some of its Members still do – on whether, and if so how, claims of health and nutritional value should be regulated, there have always been time problems whenever the report on enrichment by the addition of minerals and vitamins was on the order of business. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those concerned – the groups’ staff, the European Council and the Commission – for the very good cooperation in between sittings, which has made it possible for us to keep the lines of communication open and to achieve good compromises.

The intention is that the proposed regulation should harmonise the various national regulations on the addition of vitamins and minerals, and of certain other substances, to foodstuffs, and, today being the occasion of its second reading, I would like to mention that this regulation covers only the voluntary addition of vitamins and minerals, so that national regulations requiring their addition are unaffected.

One principle underpinning my report is that the Community should work towards a state of affairs in which it is with considerations of nutrition and health in mind that manufacturers use vitamin and mineral supplements, and so I am glad that, not only within this House, but also between the institutions, a compromise has been achieved, and that there is support for the bio-availability approach, according to which all added vitamins and minerals must be capable of being used by the body, for, if that were not the case, it would be misleading for the consumer and in extreme cases could result in adverse effects on human health.

In debating it, we have heard, over and over again, of examples of how, when too many vitamins or minerals are added, the human body ends up being unable to process this combination of substances, and so I think it is a good thing that we should opt for this bio-availability approach.

We have also made progress by agreeing to define other substances as well as vitamins and minerals, which are, of course, listed – and hence defined – in Annexes 1 and 2 to this Regulation.

It is because an excessive intake of vitamins and minerals can cause damage to health that safe maximum amounts must be laid down for the addition of such substances to foodstuffs. Provision is already made for such maximum amounts in the directive on food supplements, but these have not yet been published. Considerations of consumer safety, then, make it a matter of urgent necessity that they be laid down. The amendment of Article 6 is intended to ensure that the Commission will submit proposals for safe maximum amounts within two years.

Having myself been, for many years, a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am also pleased that the Commission, in a supplementary statement, has announced a revision of the nutrition labelling directive, which is long overdue.

  Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the vote on the report concerning the labelling of foods, I am pleased to inform the House that, following intense negotiations, we have arrived at a common text that I hope will enable us to avoid the conciliation procedure.

Before going into detail, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, Mrs Sommer, Mrs Corbey, Mr Maaten, Mrs Evans, Mrs Breyer, Mrs Liotard and Mr Blokland, for their decisive contributions and for their willingness to negotiate, even in the most trying times.

In a state of deadlock, in which the Council did not seem willing to grant us anything further, we succeeded in putting a compromise package together: a final text that, bolstered by the support of all the parliamentary groups, prompted the Council to accept the proposals on the table. All that remains is for tomorrow’s vote to put the seal on matters and, in that regard, I call on all of my fellow Members to support the compromise with the aim of reaching the qualified majority that we need to amend the common position.

I believe that, overall, this is a balanced text that effectively pursues the objective of guaranteeing consumers accurate, clear and understandable information, so as to enable them to make a balanced and informed choice about their diet.

Everyone in this House agrees on the need to promote a healthy and balanced diet for Europeans, and to prevent a situation in which a tempting label promising extraordinary benefits for a person’s figure or, worse still, for his or her health, in reality disguises a high-calorie foodstuff, without the consumer having the opportunity to identify it as such.

In a Europe in which, according to the WHO, one in five children is obese, and in the light of the recent studies demonstrating the link between advertising and junk food consumption, this regulatory measure can no longer be postponed.

I believe that the primary objective of consumer protection has been fully achieved in the text resulting from the compromise. I should like to add that, through Parliament’s intervention, we have succeeded in following up and responding to the requests for clarity and definite timescales that were worrying the food industry. This compromise has not been easy, partly because the Council’s position on some points remained very inflexible – practically rigid – until the end of the negotiations. That is precisely why I regard it as a great success that we have won concessions on these very points: I refer, in particular, to Article 4 and to the measures relating to alcohol that we will address later on.

I should, however, like to point out straight away that the agreement with the Council relates to a package that must be supported in toto. I therefore call on you straight away to reject Amendments 90 and 49, which fall outside the package agreed on with the other European institutions.

As for the placing on the market of so-called 'health' labels, the Council has agreed to introduce a simplified and faster procedure that will guarantee our businesses more certainty. Ever since we cast our unanimous vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, it has been clear that shortening the timescale should not mean sacrificing a thorough scientific assessment of the authenticity of the claims made on labels. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should have exactly the same amount of time to assess claims under both procedures. The Council has supported us in this proposal and the final outcome is that Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that health labels presenting no particular problems will be able to receive a definitive marketing authorisation in eight months.

On the other hand, the simplified procedure will not apply to some labels that are particularly dangerous insofar as they are very appealing, such as those that boast of being effective in reducing health risks and those that refer to children’s development. Those labels will instead have to be subject to the full authorisation procedure that will guarantee greater control, not only in scientific terms on the part of EFSA and the Commission, but also on the part of the Member States in the context of the comitology procedure.

As regards the controversial subject of nutrient profiles, or the notorious Article 4, I should like to point out that, until last Wednesday, the Council was against any derogation from the text. In essence, the common position stipulated that no type of labelling – neither nutrition nor health labelling – could be used on a product that did not comply with the nutrient profiles established by EFSA. For example, a sweet with a high sugar content could never bear a health or nutrition claim. The compromise text accepted by all of the groups and the Council now provides for the option to affix labels containing nutritional information even when a substance exceeds the nutrient profile, provided that a statement is added on the same side of the packaging to warn the consumer of the high levels of the substance exceeding the nutrient profiles. In that way, the consumer is guaranteed accurate information, which can be seen at a glance on the same side of the packaging, while, at the same time, the food industry is given the opportunity to use this type of claim.

I regard this text as a victory for Parliament on a point that the Council had initially thought untouchable. In relation to brands, we have succeeded in ensuring that existing brands can continue to be used for 15 years without any further requirements. Once that period has expired, they may continue to be used provided that they are accompanied by a corresponding claim that complies with the provisions of the present regulation. I believe that this is a sufficiently long transitional period for the industry, enough, at any rate, to enable it to adapt to the Community regulations.

Furthermore, we have safeguarded the use of generic names that traditionally accompany food products such as ‘aperitif’, ‘digestive’ and ‘cough sweets’: those terms will be granted special exemptions and may be readily used. I would also point out to the House that all the systems of negative labelling, the so-called ‘traffic light’ or ‘red stamp’ systems, which are already in use in some countries, remain outside the scope of the regulation and will therefore be regulated at national level.

In our role as Parliament, we have won some important victories in the negotiations concerning the protection of SMEs. What we had initially been told was impossible on technical grounds has instead been granted to us. Two recitals highlight the importance of making it easier for SMEs to use the labels, insofar as they represent ‘important added value for the European food industry’. Under the new Article 15, the Commission will have to commit itself to making instruments and guidelines available to SMEs in order to make it easier, in particular, to apply the present regulation.

Furthermore, by reducing the data protection period to five years, compared with the seven planned initially, we have shortened the waiting times for claims to be used by those small and medium-sized enterprises that do not have the financial resources needed to fund their own research into labels. Thanks to Parliament’s amendment, SMEs will soon be able to use all of the labels that have already been authorised and that are available in the list provided for in Article 13. They can be used free of charge and without any formalities. Those who do not have the financial means to fund research into a claim will therefore also be able to use it easily and at no extra cost.

As regards the protection of children – a matter of great importance in this House – we have succeeded in ensuring that all labels that refer to children’s development or improved health are assessed under the full authorisation procedure, so as to ensure that thorough checks are carried out, including by the Member States, on whether the label is scientifically valid and whether it can be understood by the consumer. Claims made by medical, dieticians’ and nutritionists’ associations will be accepted, but not those made by individual doctors.

As regards alcohol, nutrition labels had already been accepted in the common position. Beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol were authorised to bear labels marked ‘reduced alcohol content’ or ‘fewer calories’. As a further, albeit final, offer, the Council has also allowed the use of the wording 'low alcohol content'. We have also obtained significant recognition of the importance of safeguarding the variety of culinary traditions, as well as the possibility for those who sell foods loose to receive special conditions.

To conclude, I call on you all to support the amendments forming part of the compromise signed by all of the groups, and those amendments alone, so that the legislative process for this report – which has been so controversial that it has remained before this House for more than three years – may be brought to a successful conclusion. I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to everyone, including my colleagues from the groups and the support staff.

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking both rapporteurs, Mrs Poli Bortone and Mrs Scheele, for their excellent work and cooperation with my services in working out this compromise. I also wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their contribution.

It is true that it was not an easy task. You will remember the great differences that separated the views of the three institutions on this issue. However, I believe – and the rapporteurs have rightly said – that we have managed to reach a good compromise. That is a fact. However, as with any compromise, it leaves a little to be desired by all sides, so each side would have preferred to go a bit further in one direction or another. Nevertheless, these compromises on both documents have managed to balance the interests of all involved: consumers, industry and economic operators. But this is a delicate and sensitive balance and I believe that the two documents should be adopted as agreed in the compromise, because anything else would upset this balance and would definitely upset the compromise.

These two regulations state that, if economic operators voluntarily use claims or other marketing tools to sell their products, they have to be truthful and accurate and the claims must be scientifically based. This means that it is the consumer’s choice – it is ultimately for the consumer to decide – but the consumer has to be presented with correct, accurate and scientifically-based information in order to make this informed choice. I agree with the rapporteur that this is a very important step in the long-term struggle that has just begun for the health and nutrition of European citizens.

The health claims regulation will prevent consumers from being misled by unsubstantiated or misleading claims. At the same time, it will provide harmonised rules allowing products to circulate freely in the internal market. It will also create a clear legal environment, a level playing field for economic operators to ensure fair competition, and it will encourage investment in innovative food practices. For example, in addition to the list of permitted nutritional claims or the list of physiological function claims, it will now allow, through an authorisation procedure, claims related to the reduction of a disease risk, something that until now has been prohibited.

So, these harmonised rules will be of great interest to the European food industry but, through the process we have adopted in the legislation, we also guarantee consumer protection. Also, for health claims based on newly developed data, the compromise now provides for a simpler and faster procedure in order to boost innovation in the area of food. I am sure Parliament recognises the effort that both the Commission and the Council have made on that point.

On the nutrient profiles, which have already been described, these are products that, on the basis of the claims, are made to appear better to consumers, encouraging more consumption. We therefore need proper criteria in this respect. The nutrient profile is one good criterion that could be used and the proposed compromise introduces flexibility in order to facilitate the application and use of these claims.

In the context of this compromise, I should like to make the following statement:

‘In establishing the nutrient profiles referred to in Article 4(1) through the Regulatory Committee procedure, the Commission undertakes to accompany the proposed Commission measures, submitted to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, with an explanatory note outlining the criteria that will be taken into account for the establishment of the nutrient profiles.’

As I have said, I believe that this is a good compromise which covers the interests of all the key stakeholders.

On the regulation concerning the addition of vitamins and minerals, again we have reached a good compromise. On the basis of this compromise, I should like to make the following statement:

‘Further to its statement accompanying the adoption of the common position, the Commission has the intention to present, as soon as possible and in any case within two years of the adoption of the regulation, a proposal for the revision of Directive 90/496/EEC on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs. In that context, the Commission has the intention to consider the review of the rule concerning the meaning of ‘significant amount’ as mentioned in the Annex to that directive.’

I very much hope that Parliament will support this compromise package, which regulates the composition aspects of foods and ensures the safety of the product. It also introduces appropriate specific rules on labelling, presentation and advertising, and at the same time provides the basis for scrutinising and if necessary regulating the addition of certain other substances, as already mentioned by the rapporteur.

That will ensure a very high level of protection for public health and consumer protection and at the same time allow the industry to have a stable, concise, clear regulatory environment that will allow for innovation and the need to remain competitive at Community and international level.

In conclusion, may I again thank the two rapporteurs and everyone else who has cooperated in achieving this compromise. I am looking forward to an interesting debate.

  Renate Sommer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though, in our campaign against this law, which has lasted three years, we have achieved some good tactical victories, the fact is that what we face tomorrow is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea; we have to approve the compromise package from the informal trialogue, even though I have to say to the Commissioner that we are very far from pleased with it, for, if we do not, we will then be thrown back on the Council’s Common Position, which is every bit as revolting as the Commission’s original draft. Those are the facts of the matter.

Moreover, the tendency of this law – even with this compromise – is to deprive citizens of their freedom of choice by categorising foods as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ on the basis of mythical nutrient profiles. To this day – even after three years of debate – the Commission has been unable to submit even a rough outline of what these values might be. The consequence of this is that we will be obliged, tomorrow, to vote for something that does not actually exist; can being constrained to do that be described as a reliable way of making policy?

Scientists tell us – and this is where I do not agree with Mrs Poli Bortone – that the whole approach is nonsensical, since it is not food advertising that is responsible for people getting fatter and fatter. That is a highly complex problem and has to do with society as a whole; it is not one that can be done away with by censoring advertising. What really is wrong, and, as I understand it, stupid, is to take the line that individual foods need to be rated. So do you eat dry cornflakes all day? I do not.

It is not least thanks to our opposition – of which I am rather proud – that our cause is not completely lost. Mrs Poli Bortone has listed all the things we have achieved. We have, in particular, managed to save fresh products. It would not even have been permissible to describe fruit as healthy without it being tested scientifically, in a manner appropriate to the individual type, at the point of sale, which just goes to show how ridiculous the whole approach is. We have also managed to rescue cough lozenges; how embarrassing that we had to do that. We have also built in safeguard clauses for SMEs; how embarrassing that we had to do that, that there are laws that need that to be done to them, for it shows up all the pious speeches for the lies they are. Commissioner Verheugen has just delivered yet another one. This law will make SMEs suffer; it will cost jobs. It will make laws null and void, and will bring the consumer no additional benefit, for it will do nothing to reduce obesity and we already have laws to protect consumers from misleading advertising.

The Council and the Commission know all that, yet they are standing in this House’s way like a wall of concrete, shoulder to shoulder together in a way I have never seen before. The impression I get is that the Council is under the thumb of officials in the Commission – officials who themselves always want to make more policy, officials with legitimacy conferred on them by nothing and nobody, but whom the public pays well; not controlled by the public, but paid well by them, and it is the public who, at the end of the day, must pick up the tab. It is the public who will pay the price for this law, and that price will be paid in jobs lost. This law is the very opposite of what is always being talked about in the Commission’s fine speeches about cutting back bureaucracy, better lawmaking, the Lisbon agenda, and all the rest of it. This law is likely to make the public far more eurosceptic than they already are.

I think that is something we cannot allow, and we have no option but to vote in favour tomorrow in order not to end up with something quite terrible. That is what I said at the outset, but I am persuaded that there is still something that can be done in the face of this bureaucratic madness. I will be calling on the German Government to examine whether it might be able to take legal action against this regulation.

  Dorette Corbey, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mrs Poli Bortone. I think that, along with her, the Council and among ourselves, we have reached a sound compromise. I am also indebted to Mrs Sommer and the other groups that have played a part in this.

Many consumers are anxious about their health, about cholesterol and blood pressure, or wrestle with excess weight. The food industry is cashing in on this. There is a proliferation of all kinds of claims. This morning, I enjoyed a sandwich that is beneficial for my intestinal flora, with a covering of butter that reduces my cholesterol and an egg that contains high levels of Omega 3. Perfect … or at least that is what I think, for I do not know.

Consumers do not know whether the claims manufacturers make are true, and that is why this legislative proposal’s stipulation that the health claims which food manufactures make must be scientifically underpinned is so crucial. We must avoid consumers being taken for a ride. Consumers are often prepared to pay more for a product that claims to benefit their health, but they should be able to be confident that it really does.

Whilst misleading advertisements are already banned, the burden of proof has so far been with the authorities. Of course, this does not work in practice. It is impossible for governments to constantly check claims on packaging and then to disprove them. This proposal will benefit consumers, in that manufacturers in all 25 countries must from now on provide honest information.

At first reading, Parliament gave in to pressure from businesses that were scared of being exposed, businesses that deliberately mislead consumers by painting a different picture, and they cannot in any way count on my sympathy. No profits on the back of people who are worried about their weight or health. The internal market should not be a licence for leading consumers up the garden path, something which, fortunately, the compromise recognises to a large extent.

Deception comes in many guises. According to Article 4, health claims can only be made on products that meet a certain profile. I would like to assure Mrs Sommer that those food profiles do exist. They are used in the United States. All major enterprises apply them and they work very well. It is also appropriate that food claims can only be added to products that are, in principle, healthy. After all, the greasy hamburger will not suddenly become a health food only by adding a few vitamins. Nor will the sugary lollypop by adding vitamin A.

The compromise rejects health claims on alcohol, which will only be allowed where the alcohol percentage or calorie level is reduced. If one considers all the problems involving alcoholism, including liver damage and brain damage, it is hard to allow health claims on alcohol. Luckily, all parties were prepared to support this proposal in the end.

At first reading, it transpired that the proposal is unnecessarily bureaucratic. This position was also shared by our group, although we did want sufficient guarantees for adequate procedures. These are now in place. There is now a weighty authorisation procedure for claims directed at children and claims that pertain to reduced health risks. Our group is behind the consumer and well-meaning enterprises. This legislation ensures that consumers are given honest information. I would express the hope and expectation that this legislation will contribute to better food and better health. Thank you for your attention.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the aim of the proposed regulation on nutrition and health claims is to harmonise European legislation in that area. That should combine two elements: firstly, introducing the general rule that in the interests of consumers, nutrition and health claims must be clear, accurate and meaningful; secondly, protection of truthful producers from unfair competitors.

After a very controversial debate we now have a compromise package for second reading. Does it meet the original aims? We believe it does. We may not be entirely happy with the result, but we have to take into consideration various interests such as the fears of small and medium-sized enterprises, the danger of procedures that are too long and too bureaucratic, the interests of producers and genetic descriptors – provided the main objective of improving public health is maintained.

Some of the restrictions proposed by the Commission were unclear and open to interpretation. In order to avoid legal uncertainty, the European Parliament adopted a large number of amendments, inserting clauses designed to make application of the regulation easier. Some of them have become part of the compromise package that the ALDE Group supports, together with other political groups.

On one of the two most controversial issues – nutrient profiles and in particular the derogation in Article 4(2) – we consider that a workable compromise has been reached. Therefore we wish to support the wording of Amendment 17.

The same goes for the proposal concerning trademarks and brands and for Article 4(3) on nutrition claims about alcohol, linked to the provision that health claims supporting national authority or Community messages about the dangers of the misuse of alcohol should not fall within the scope of the regulation.

This is a good result. I should like, in particular, to thank Mrs Poli Bortone for her successful work.

  Jill Evans, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Scheele and Mrs Poli Bortone, for all the work they have done on these two very important reports. As with the other speakers, my remarks concern the report on nutritional and health claims.

This is an issue on which I am pleased to say Parliament has performed a great U-turn. This time last year this House voted by a majority to follow the industry line and deleted elements which were absolutely central to the effectiveness of this legislation. The purpose of the whole proposal was almost totally undermined, but now, at second reading, we have been able to reach a compromise agreement, as the rapporteur said, which reinstates the crucial points and takes us much closer to our original aim: to outlaw untrue and misleading health and nutrition claims on food that deceive consumers into thinking that those foods are good for them when they are not.

The Verts/ALE Group has supported the system of authorising claims through an effective and efficient process. We have supported clear labelling, consumer involvement, banning health or nutritional claims on alcoholic drinks, as others have mentioned, and many of the other items on which we will be voting tomorrow. This new law will make a big difference to people’s everyday lives, because food is a very political issue. What can be more political than people being able to choose what food they eat?

People have a right to be confident that labels on food mean what they say. It is not just a question of honesty on the part of food companies; it is also a question of health. People are much more aware nowadays of the need for a healthy, balanced diet and they are much more careful about the food they buy. Food manufacturers spend a thousand times more on marketing than governments spend on fighting obesity. It is time we redressed that balance, and tightening these rules will play a part in that.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, following the scandalous outcome about health claims at first reading, Parliament is now being given a second chance. It appears that the tenacious lobby of food and particularly the drinks industry has not been as effective this time round. Or is it perhaps the case that the Members are simply embarrassed about the fact that for once, the Council was more progressive than Parliament? The compromise proposal that is now before us contains a few valid points, banning health claims on alcohol being an obvious one. The food profiles are back and will hopefully at any rate prevent the most scandalous health claims.

The protection of the consumer against false claims will, alas, be far from watertight. There are still many loopholes in the law that make false claims possible. Moreover, I have serious doubts about the very influential part to be played by the European Food Safety Agency, the independence of which is regularly called into question. In other areas, such as GMOs and aspartame, the EFSA is happy to take industry’s line.

However imperfect this proposal may be, though, it is at any rate a great improvement on the sad outcome at first reading. Moreover, without a compromise, we run the risk of dragging this issue behind us for many years to come. Since it is unacceptable that consumers should be kept in the dark for that long, my group will be supporting the compromise proposal.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, I should like to express thanks to Mrs Scheele and Mrs Poli Bortone for their contributions towards both agreements at the draft stage.

With regard to the report on additives, I regret that due to that agreement, it is no longer possible here in the plenary to thrash out the usefulness of, and need for, certain additives. While the usefulness of a number of substances has been proven beyond any doubt, I still have my doubts as regards fluoride being added, for example. That is also one of the reasons why some of my group will not be backing this agreement.

As for the food and health claims, I should like to say that I will back the result that has been achieved during negotiations. Amendments tabled by this House at first reading have already improved many of the points in the common position. I would refer to the opportunities which companies have to submit applications in their own Member States, as well as to a reduction in the timeframes.

I should like to ask Commissioner Kyprianou when the Commission thinks the food profiles will be ready and what role it thinks Parliament could play in formulating them. Finally, I should like to add that I fully endorse the agreement on food claims and hope that this can be fleshed out properly in the Member States, so that consumers can enjoy effective protection.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I wish to congratulate warmly my group colleague, Mrs Poli Bortone, upon reaching this stage of negotiations with what seems like a fruitful result for consumers. It was an extremely arduous task.

At a time when the average EU citizen is getting heavier and up to 27% of European men, 32% of European women and a staggering one-quarter of Europe’s children are now obese, I warmly welcome the European Union’s initiative in tackling obesity through a very important first step: the addressing of nutrition and health claims on food.

For far too long consumers have been influenced by marketing and advertising, much of which was without any basis. At present, consumers are faced with a deluge of marketing ploys in order to entice them to purchase food products. Often, the nutritional health claims on food products are not entirely accurate or honest. A varied and balanced diet is a prerequisite for good health and individual products have a relative importance in the context of the overall diet.

Now we are in the process of voting through a system that will provide confidence to consumers on a product-by-product basis, with nutritional and health claims based on scientific evidence. Ill health as a result of obesity is costing taxpayers millions of euro each year and exerting extreme pressure on health services. The health problems associated with obesity are well known: heart disease, strokes, high cholesterol and diabetes top the list. Common reasons cited are overeating and lack of exercise, but the problem is far wider than that. Immediate action must be taken.

This is only the tip of the iceberg for European citizens. In tandem with clear and substantiated nutritional health claims we also need to focus on organising a general information campaign on nutrition issues and the importance of acquiring healthy eating habits in a timely fashion. Today’s consumer is under pressure to prepare meals quickly. We are becoming more and more dependent on processed foods. I also welcome the increased support to SMEs. I am delighted that they will get support and appropriate technical guidance and tools to help them in due time.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) I would like to thank my colleague Mrs Poli Bortone for the effort she has put into the report on nutritional and health claims which is now with us for a second reading.

This directive is extremely important at a time when Europe has high levels of obesity and disease which would not exist if we ate in a more healthy way. We must shift the emphasis to consumer awareness, and therefore to food labelling that is not misleading. If a food is labelled as low-calorie this must be based on facts, without misleading the consumer. The recommendations of so-called ‘independent’ doctors or experts are often just an advertising ploy with no basis in fact. If a food product has a high calcium content, which promotes bone growth, it is unacceptable call it ‘healthy’if it also contains large amounts of fats and sugar. Equally, low-fat yoghurt cannot be called healthy if it contains 100g of sugar. Chocolate spreads cannot claim to be good for children just because they are full of vitamins and minerals.

Consumers read the ingredients on food packaging and often base their choice on what the package says. Nutritional and health claims must be there to inform, not to misinform them. My intention is not to have these products removed from the market, but they should not be promoted as healthy on the basis of dubious health and nutrition information.

This regulation will stimulate innovation. Producers will have to produce food that really is healthy, and will therefore strive to reduce the amounts of fat, sugar or salt in their products. I also agree with the rapporteur on Amendments 28 and 31 which put particular emphasis on children’s food, where labelling controls must be tightest.

  María del Pilar Ayuso González (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am shadow rapporteur for the Regulation on additives and I must therefore begin by saying that the Commission’s proposal was reasonably balanced. Nevertheless, Mrs Scheele has done excellent work in bringing points of view together and I would therefore like to congratulate her. I would also like to thank the Council and the Commission for the efforts they have made in order to reach an agreement at second reading.

The consumption of enriched foods within a varied diet can supplement the ingestion of nutrients. The important thing is that the fortification be based on scientific criteria and that all of the agri-food industries be subject to the same rules with the least possible bureaucracy.

The aim of this proposal is to harmonise the national provisions in force and we in my group do not therefore agree with accepting provisions allowing for stricter rules in certain countries, except where they are justified scientifically for public health reasons.

I believe that it is right to have extended the time limit for marketing for certain products already on the market and labelled on the date on which the Regulation enters into force.

Finally, the food available to us is extremely varied, and we are not going to put an end to obesity by means of rules and labels. In order to do that, perhaps what we should do is ban the TV remote control. The solution is much more complex. Foodstuffs must be healthy and the consumers must be given accurate information. The really important thing is for each person to choose their diet according to the life they lead. Education is therefore much more important than any rule we may lay down in an attempt to put an end to obesity.

With regard to the report by Mrs Poli Bortone, both she and the shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Sommer in particular, have done excellent work. The explanatory statement of this proposal for a Regulation emphasises the lack of specific Community provisions as one of the principal reasons for this new Regulation, and I agree with that.

Nevertheless, wine, for example, is an agricultural product that is governed by a very thorough common organisation of the market, which prevents nutrition and health claims on its labelling, which regulates advertising, which regulates promotion, and which regulates absolutely everything. There is therefore no justification for regulating what is already regulated and it will merely confuse the consumers and complicate the legislation even further, not to mention the complications it will entail for producing companies. Wine must not be subject to this Regulation and I do not understand why producing countries such as Spain, France or Italy have not expressed these arguments in the Council.

I also regret that we have missed the opportunity to amend the annexes. I shall end simply by expressing my full agreement with everything that Mrs Sommer has said.

  Åsa Westlund (PSE). – (SV) I wish to join in thanking the rapporteurs, Mrs Scheele and Mrs Poli Bortone, the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council for the work they have done on ensuring that, tomorrow, we have an agreement on which to adopt a position and that will make it much simpler for consumers to make healthier choices, because they have access to more accurate and more comprehensive information.

Many of us have undoubtedly bought breakfast cereal, bread or yoghurt that, when we were in the shop, we understood to be extremely healthy. When we have come home, we have discovered that the yoghurt may not have contained any fat but, instead, contained a large quantity of sugar. It is not by chance that many of us have been placed in this position. Companies know that we wish to make healthy choices and therefore do everything to make food appear beneficial, even if it is sometimes the very opposite of that. A familiar device is for the manufacturer to select an individual ingredient perceived by consumers to be beneficial and then to emphasise this using large thick letters, at the same time as using microscopic lettering to state, for example, the sugar and fat content.

The agreement on which we shall vote tomorrow may put an end to these and many other types of misleading advertisement. Statements about health benefits need to be substantiated scientifically and not be made about products that, considered as a whole, are not good for people’s health. If, in future, companies wish to highlight the presence in an item of food of a particular ingredient that people perceive as beneficial, then that item of food should not, in principle, have an unduly high sugar, fat, salt or alcohol content.

Obviously, there is still a lot of work to be done on this regulation, and we shall monitor future work carefully and, in particular, the preparation of nutrient profiles. I and many others in my group are extremely proud of this agreement, but we are also prepared, if need be, to come back with further requirements designed to make it more stringent.

IN THE CHAIR: MR OUZKÝ
Vice-President

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if all goes well tomorrow, our Parliament will give the green light to these two new regulations in the food sector.

One is designed to bring some order to the jungle of foods and of drinks that are fortified, for example, with vitamins; the other is designed to authorise or to ban, under certain conditions, nutrition and health claims that increasingly appear on these very products.

We are concerned here with two proposals that genuinely speak to Europeans and, with a view to helping them choose what to buy, provide them with concrete answers regarding the trust to be placed in these claims. BEUC points out, in actual fact, that 60% of consumers believe that a calcium-rich product can only be good for a balanced diet, something that is not necessarily true. In reality, the only way not to make a mistake is to know the full composition of a food or drink product, its sugar, salt and fat content; that is why we need nutrient profiling, real nutrient profiling and not cut-price profiling. That is what is proposed to us in the shape of compromise 66, the famous disclosure clause, which in reality proposes giving both the red light and the green light to the same package. As far as I am concerned, this is the height of contradiction, a move designed to make the consumer as confused as possible and, on that point, I do not agree for once with our rapporteur’s analysis.

That being said, I shall abstain on this issue so as not to block this text, which is urgent.

I have already said on numerous occasions that I am opposed to this Article 4 being toned down in any way and to certain messages praising the virtues of alcohol being authorised. I am therefore opposed to both Amendment 18 and Amendment 489.

I should, of course, like to thank our two rapporteurs, Mrs Poli Bortone and Mrs Scheel, and the Commission and the Council. They have grasped the full importance of these citizen-friendly laws, while taking into account, as has been pointed out, the anxieties often expressed by SMEs, as well as the need to work in this Chamber for the general interest and to resist certain specific interests.

I believe that, in one part of her speech, Mrs Sommer set the tone of the debate by making what I felt were harsh and unwarranted criticisms of the work of the Commission and of our Commissioner. You will therefore allow me to conclude, at this point, that we have nothing to gain from European law being drafted at the International Sweets and Biscuits Fair in Cologne.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that Mrs Poli Bortone, with her report, is giving this House another dose of good sense and I rejoice in the hope that we will, tomorrow, get the green light and will at last be able to give consumer protection renewed impetus.

What is at issue today is the need for more honesty. Do we want to allow consumers to have excessively fatty, over-sweetened or over-salted foods palmed off on them by businesses that are then allowed to get away with boasting about the health benefits? Nobody wants to ban the sale of chips, coca-cola or sweets, but we cannot allow these foods to be sold on the pretext that they contribute to health and wellness. Nor are we talking in terms of bans on advertising, but only of new marketing rules. What we need is minimum standards that ensure honesty in marketing. Harmonised rules make for legal certainty and that is to the benefit of the businesses as much as of anyone else.

A survey revealed that 70% of consumers had confidence in the health-related claims made by manufacturers, and that is what makes this regulation a key piece of legislation, not only in terms of greater transparency in consumer protection, but also of improved health protection. At present, over 200 million adults and 14 million children in the European Union are overweight or suffering from obesity. There has been a dramatic increase in the incidence, especially among children, of diabetes II, which is attributable to nutritional factors. It is because we are facing the possibility of obesity and lack of exercise dislodging smoking from its statistical position as the number one cause of death that we regard this compromise as a good one, and as a good package. I would have liked to see more objectivity and greater honesty in this debate; in Germany alone, we are contending with nutrition-related problems that are costing us EUR 71 billion, and that makes clear that this is something we have to address.

I also hope that the German Federal Government will not act on Mrs Sommer’s suggestion and lodge an appeal; any government – not just the German one – that appealed against something after having agreed to it in the Council would make itself look ridiculous and lose credibility, and so I hope that tomorrow will see us achieving a milestone in our quest for more protection for consumers and for their health.

  Adamos Adamou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate both rapporteurs.

During the first reading of the report on nutrition and health claims made on foods, we – as the European Parliament – approved a large number of amendments designed to facilitate the application of the present regulation for the benefit of consumers.

The majority voted against regulation of the nutritional ingredients in food and rejected Article 4, thereby considerably weakening the regulation in question.

This regulation should, above all, aim to make consumers more aware of the importance of a healthy, balanced and harmonious diet. This is the reason why we should all agree with the Council's common position, which is why I continue to support it as a starting position. However, given the difficulty in achieving a compromise and the need for European consumers for there to be such a regulation, I call for us all to at least support the package of compromise amendments. In this way, we shall be able to secure proper information for European consumers.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I should like to point out to the Commissioner that the Irish Government has mass-medicated my people with disodium monofluorophosphate for 40 years. The fluoride put in Irish water is a toxic waste. Although it is added in levels that seem small, it accumulates in our bodies over time. The practice of water fluoridation has blighted the health of the Irish people with conditions like skeletal fluorosis: fluoride seeks calcium, especially the bones. It also causes conditions like a hypo- or underactive thyroid; fluoride was once used as a medication to suppress the thyroid. It causes dental fluorosis, damage to the tooth enamel, which is symptomatic of fluoride poisoning in childhood. A recent study revealed that 40% of young Irish adults demonstrate permanent and unsightly tooth mottling and staining related to dental fluorosis. These are just some of the conditions that a steady accumulation of fluoride has inflicted on the Irish people.

In a review of the water fluoridation policy by the Irish Government a few years ago, 90% of the public submissions called for an end to this mass-medication. Fluoride, as we use it in Ireland, is a toxic waste taken from the scrubbers of an artificial fertilizer factory, which also contain poison like mercury and cadmium. It is unthinkable that we in this Parliament will allow fluoride – a toxin – to be included in a list of acceptable vitamins and minerals. It is neither a vitamin nor a mineral. In food and water it is a curse.

To avoid confusion, fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash is considered a cosmetic and is not affected by my amendment. It only affects fluoride in food and water. I beg my fellow Members to help the Irish people and vote for that amendment.

  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, so-called ‘functional’ foods, those fortified substances that are supposed to improve the health or well-being of consumers, constitute one of the most innovative sectors, with the most room for market growth. We must therefore ensure that checks are carried out on this type of food and, above all, on the claims made on labels, which entice the consumer by promising benefits in terms of diet and health.

The compromise text guarantees clear and comprehensive information in relation to food labels and enables consumers to make an informed choice about their diet. This measure is made all the more urgent if one considers the impact of advertising on children. Advertising, in actual fact, directly influences children’s food preferences and changes their consumption patterns.

Furthermore, thanks to the measures taken by Parliament, due attention has been paid to SMEs, which must be supported if they are to adapt to the changes introduced by the regulation and which will consequently be able to rely both on definite time periods in which to place their own products on the market and on the possibility of using pre-authorised claims.

Finally, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Poli Bortone, for the excellent, though not easy, job she has done.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the House for taking up this topic. The regulation on nutrition and health claims on foods and the regulation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to foods are significant for consumer protection. They give the consumer the opportunity to make the right decisions regarding the purchase of many foodstuffs. They create better conditions for fair competition among those producing and supplying food to our market. They facilitate a better diet which will then translate into better physical shape and health. Adopting these regulations will be, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the previous debate in this Chamber was about the screening of proposals for legislation. I suspect that if that had been in force before this health claims proposal came up, this one might have fallen at the first hurdle. In fact it nearly did fall at the first parliamentary hurdle and for that reason I congratulate our rapporteur and our shadow rapporteurs who worked with the Commission officials to improve the original proposal. That is why we feel able to support the compromise tomorrow.

However, we are still legislating in the dark when it comes to nutrient profiling, and that is not a good way of legislating. We do not know how this will be achieved; we do not know how EFSA will run it. We have to rely on the experts sorting it out after this measure has left this Parliament, and whatever they sort out will not come back to this Parliament for approval, so that is not good legislation. Nevertheless, I think we can say that what consumers want – and they are the only vested interest that matters – is confidence in the terminology of claims, such as low salt, high in polyunsaturates, and so on. We want to make sure that negatives are not concealed behind positives and we want to make sure that the whole picture is honestly portrayed. Ultimately, any claim must stand up in court based on the science which purports to support it.

So, I think we have made progress on those issues. We have removed some of the health claim anomalies – not least, may I say, on light ale, which no more claimed that people would become light than a cough sweet claims that people will cough. We hope that the Council will agree to our amendments because we want sensible information in sensible format, which will lead to a better chance of people choosing a healthy diet and thus enhancing their own health and that of their families.

  Linda McAvan (PSE). – Mr President, I am going to speak on the report by Mrs Poli Bortone. I welcome this legislation because we need it. Just look around the shelves in supermarkets and see what is claimed on so many products, including an increasing range of sweets and confectionery – some of those claims are frankly absurd.

We have heard again tonight people in this House claiming that we do not need this legislation, that it is about the nanny state. However, what on earth can be wrong with asking manufacturers who make health and nutritional claims to give the scientific evidence for those claims?

A recent survey carried out in my region by the National Consumers’ Association, Which, showed that 99% of people want health claims on food checked before the food goes on sale. Indeed, many are quite surprised to find that the claims are not checked properly.

We have heard a lot of talk about Article 4, with people saying that we do not need it, that nutritional profiling cannot be done. Of course nutritional profiling can be done: experts have done it and it is being done in the United States. We must move away from the idea of banning this or that. Nothing will be banned, but what you will not be able to do is to make a claim for a food substance if it is clearly not a healthy option for people. As my colleague Mrs Westlund said, people are fed up with buying so-called low-fat products only to discover by reading very carefully that they are high in sugar or some other ingredients.

This legislation will mean that all claims should be based on sound and solid evidence. Responsible retailers and manufacturers I have met welcome it. We seem to forget that without European standards we will have a plethora of national standards, and that is not good news for business. This is good for business, it is good for consumers and we should welcome it.

  Holger Krahmer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, even though the Council ignored this House’s abundantly clear vote on the health claims at first reading, we have now reached a compromise that I – albeit with gritted teeth – will vote to accept, for, as Mrs Sommer so rightly said, we are now, in practical terms, being faced with the choice between a great evil and a lesser one.

Turning specifically to two contentious points, I do believe that trademarks are subject to a different legal regime, are covered by other regulations and are quite out of place here. As for nutrient profiles, whilst the compromise has made it possible for the profiles to be prevented from having a prohibitive effect, we are nonetheless a long way off making the right deletion, as we did at first reading. I remain convinced that nutrient profiles are a misguided concept.

Obesity and excess weight are problems that need to be taken very seriously; they are the subjects of emotional debates that will be with us again – by the time of the Green Paper on the promotion of healthy eating at the latest. I would like, at this juncture, to briefly jump ahead and say that advertising does not make people fat. The causes of obesity are multifarious and highly complex, and it is not by imposing more bans that we will successfully address them. We should seek the solution in cooperation with the food industry rather than in opposition to it.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Mr President, this is just another piece of legislation that seeks to increase the authority of the EU over Member States. We already have Directive 2002/46/EC, which requires safe upper levels for food supplements. However, those limits have not yet been published. A better example of EU incompetence would be hard to find.

Despite this, the EU juggernaut carries on with its overbearing legislation, which only serves to destroy small businesses and removes freedom of choice from the consumer.

The UK has had enough of this misinformed interference. At present there is Private Members’ Bill going through Westminster, calling for the UK to be freed from the directive I mentioned relating to food supplements. I hope it succeeds and thus sets a precedent that is the beginning of the end in the UK for the authority of these damaging and unnecessary regulations. That would be a significant step towards the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, this regulation takes as its starting point the need to tackle obesity and promote healthy eating, and that is something one cannot do other than agree with, but what we are presented with here is characterised by nothing more than a high degree of bureaucracy, which does little to achieve the objective and, in fact, simply asserts that there are bad food producers, consumers who cannot take responsibility for themselves, and foods both bad and good, the bad ones containing salt, fat and sugar, a state of affairs which nutrient profiles are now to put right.

If you, Commissioner, really had taken note of what Parliament proposed at first reading, you would have been able to achieve all these lofty objectives, of which I am in favour, and it would have been possible without red tape and burdensome impositions, for these nutrient profiles are beyond my comprehension, and I cannot forget how Mr Podger from the Food Safety Authority said quite clearly that he did not know how he was meant to arrive at them. It is for that reason that we are, with this proposal, legislating in the dark, out of touch with reality, with what is going on in society and with the public, to whom it will be very, very difficult to explain this bureaucratic endeavour.

We can of course turn round and say that we want all data from now on to have a sound scientific basis, which is what everyone wants, but this legislation will not give it to us, and that is why it is not actually a very good idea that we should adopt it in its present form, and it was not well-advised of the Commission and the Council to submit exactly the same proposal, for a second time, at second reading, for it was Parliament’s first response after first reading that was the basis for further discussion that would achieve our objective. What we are now embarking on is the suppression of competition and of the market economy, and I do not think that will do our society any good.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, the regulation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to food is a most important piece of legislation and has a very significant bearing on the safety and wellbeing of consumers in the EU. Mrs Scheele is to be congratulated on the excellent way she has dealt with the subject. Congratulations are also due to the Commissioner, Mr Kyprianou, for the open and responsibly cautious way he has approached the subject.

The reason for my short contribution is to add my voice of support concerning the need for bio-availability and establishment of safe maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals, as well as the need for an accurate but fully comprehensible system of labelling and consumer information. Especially with regard to the latter, it is absolutely imperative that European consumers must be able to have at their disposal and be able to read and understand scientifically proven and honest information. That may, after all, be essential in order to protect themselves and their families against ingesting excessive and possibly harmful amounts of vitamins and minerals.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, European citizens are making increasing efforts to eat healthy foods, because they can see how important this is. However, the intention is not sufficient on its own, if it is not accompanied by appropriate information.

These days, consumers are lost among the great variety of products, and have no alternative but to rely on the statements of manufacturers, which are sometimes unfounded, and often biased. We, the legislators, must ensure that the efforts of citizens are not in vain. We must ensure that the information specified on products actually helps consumers to select healthy foods. At the same time, we are also responsible to ensure that regulation does not create an impossible situation for food manufacturers and distributors.

Consumer protection is an area that helps bring Europe closer to people. When it is interpreted and applied correctly, it also helps manufacturers, because it reduces unfair market competition, it keeps away poor quality products, and ultimately strengthens consumer trust. However, it also involves the risk that by incorrect application and over-regulation – as they say, by regulating the curvature of the banana – we could make it all look ridiculous in the eye of European citizens.

Therefore we must find the golden mean, where we can eat the cake and have adequate information on what it contains. Europe will only develop if it does not create conflict, but cooperation in the social and economic area. This is why I believe that we should welcome and support the proposal package with its compromises, prepared with long and hard work, even if it is not the ideal solution, as already mentioned by Mrs Sommer and others.

Beyond the above, as an MEP representing a country with considerable traditions in wine making and wine consumption, I would also like to call attention to the situation of wine.

It has been scientifically proven that moderate wine consumption brings real health benefits. I do not think that in our attempt to fight against alcoholism, instead of trying to eliminate its underlying causes, we should use this or any other law to declare war on wine or beer, which are so important both to European culture and diet; this is why I support their exemption.

  Ivo Strejček (PPE-DE). – Commissioner, let me begin with a short quotation from a letter I received recently from a company which employs more than 100 people: ‘With great concern we are following the debate on the claims regulation’. The regulation on our desk today will make enterprise more complicated and will increase costs for consumers. Companies will increase prices and the increased prices will harm consumers, consumers whose needs and interests we mention whenever and wherever we can.

I think it is common sense to let companies look for their competitive advantages by themselves and let consumers make a choice. I want to stress that we do not take into account individual choice and individual responsibility. People are fat and people are inactive. Some people are becoming fat and some are getting slimmer. How easy it would be to blame companies, producers, retail chains and governments for being fat.

I am strongly against the second reading proposal on our desks. It harms enterprise, it increases prices for consumers and it ignores common sense. Our lives are in our hands and there are no entitlements without meeting obligations and individual responsibility first.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in the context of the concerns and wider debate on combating obesity and other chronic diseases, the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, based on nutrient profiling, will have absolutely no impact. It will in fact do damage from a health education point of view, as nutrient profiles are solely based on the composition of a food or food category and do not take into consideration the consumption of the food or food category or consumers’ individual habits.

The effect of a food containing a substance such as sugar or salt at a low or medium level, but consumed in great quantities, is much more damaging than that of a food containing a substance at a high level but consumed only occasionally. Interestingly, scientists have now established that obese children and young people do not actually consume more junk food than children of healthy body weight, but their lifestyle contains a serious deficit of physical activity. Establishing objective and science-based nutrient profiles may prove an impossible task and the European Food Safety Authority will have its work cut out. Against that background, any policies based on such profiles are likely to be incoherent and lead to arbitrary decisions.

It is a central tenet of the Lisbon Agenda that legislation should be simple, clear and enforceable. Instead of accepting compromises for the sake of political expediency, we should send this Monday morning directive back for redrafting under the better regulation initiative. We should ensure that it is in step with scientific best practice in this area, with minimum red tape, that it is SME- and consumer-friendly and, most importantly, that it does what it says on the tin, i.e. it becomes a tool to help combat obesity and other chronic diseases.

With regard to the regulation on addition of vitamins and minerals and the so-called ‘certain other substances’ to food, I feel very strongly that mass medication of the population at large, through the addition of substances to publicly supplied basic necessities such as drinking water, is ethically questionable and should not be permitted, particularly if it cannot be scientifically proven that the health of sensitive groups within the population is not adversely affected by such an addition. For example, the addition of fluoride to drinking water has a disproportionately negative effect on bottle-fed babies and young children, as their reconstituted milk formula made from that public drinking water equates to their total diet.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to Mrs Scheele on her report, which, with the amendments added, amounts to a fine dossier, and many thanks to Mrs Poli Bortone, who has certainly put a lot of work into a report that is complex and comprehensive without, alas, being in line with my way of thinking.

What has to be borne in mind here, both as a matter of principle and of policy, is that the Council and the Commission have played from what is still a position of excessive strength vis-à-vis Parliament, which has now been forced to give its agreement for fear of even greater damage being done.

The powers-that-be in the administrative community constituted by the Council and the Commission have got their way against the political will of a majority in this House, and a good draft, amended at first reading, has been well and truly filleted. While I have no objection to nutrient profiles, a dossier needs to be put together in accordance with certain principles; for a start, there are no concrete proposals – what one might term the pre-production model – from the Commission. The expert knowledge of medical specialists, nutritionists and psychologists needs to be drawn on, and their opinions need to be balanced against one another. I wonder what added value this is going to bring to Europe; I want to be told about the chances of this being implemented, and about how SMEs are meant to survive. I also ask myself whether protecting consumers should not mean something more than treating them like children, but should – and can – also involve helping them to reach their own decisions.

Looked at from the scientific angle, it has to be said that one can expect the effect of this on the way Europeans – particularly children – eat and consume to be virtually non-existent, but, even so, we will have created a new bureaucratic monster to persuade our citizens of Europe’s usefulness. We will swallow this particular toad – the nutrient profile for which will probably describe it as ‘too slimy’ – but I hope it will be the last of its kind.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, like my colleague, Mrs Sommer, I can only express my deep dissatisfaction faced with the common position that has been submitted to us for second reading.

We have here a typical example of a missed opportunity, particularly on the part of the Commission, to support the reasonable position adopted by Parliament at first reading, and this at a time when Mr Barroso constantly regales us with arguments in favour of more subsidiarity, less bureaucracy, and I could go on.

Seeking to impose nutrient profiles on consumers, without any scientific evidence, is as unacceptable as it is rash. Mr Schnellhardt illustrated this point well.

As chairman of this Parliament's ‘wine’ intergroup, I have a duty to emphasise the disproportionate nature of the total ban on any claim appearing on alcoholic beverages of more than 1.2% volume. Not only is wine the subject of specific Community regulations, but very credible scientific evidence exists to show that wine, when consumed in moderation, meaning two or three glasses per day for example, is good for a person’s health. It is, among other things, effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases, cancer and dementia, a point that the Commissioner and his services magisterially overlook.

The compromise worked on by Mrs Sommer, whom I thank, is merely the lesser evil. I can only lament the little understanding shown by the Council and the Commission regarding this matter, as well as the consequences of their obstinacy, particularly for employment.

In order to give the Council and the Commission one last chance to reconsider some incomprehensible positions that could compromise the conciliation procedure and the objectives set by the Lisbon Strategy, we, together with Mrs Klass, have tabled an amendment that excludes wine and beer from the scope of Article 4(3), so as not to harm sectors that have been part of our cultural and culinary heritage for thousands of years.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I too have serious reservations regarding the Commission’s proposal. Its administrative and financial burden will hinder competition and lead to price rises for consumers. I therefore wonder whom this costly system is supposed to benefit. The proposal will be detrimental to SMEs, for which any new red tape is an obstacle to business, and it paves the way for the monopolisation of the European market. I do not support these regulations on health grounds, since they cannot make any demonstrable improvements to the health of Europeans. Expensive nutrition and health profiles on food packaging will not in themselves influence consumer behaviour and will certainly not cause Europeans to lose weight or to improve their health. Such matters are influenced instead by lifestyle, a healthy environment and trust in doctors’ explanations and professional advice.

What European consumers obviously need is to understand all of the complex information on foods, and that applies to all EU Member States. I therefore support the consolidation of rules concerning claims made on foods throughout the EU and the fight against false claims. Consumers, however, would still much prefer to have transparency and visible information regarding ingredients, rather than an assessment of the health effects of each food. Unfortunately, this new regulation does not do a great deal in terms of improving guidance for consumers, for example with regard to the size of lettering and a clear, standardised format for claims. Instead of rules of this nature, it proposes a complicated licensing system for the content of information on food. Speaking as a doctor, I am aware of how important it is for people following special diets to be able to check exactly what is inside every food item. For example, people with gluten allergies need to know for certain that products such as unpacked pâté do not contain flour. From a health point of view, this is more important to them than information regarding the reduction of fat in yoghurt, something European consumers might enjoy along with a roll and butter, and, heaven forbid, even a slice of white pudding.

The Commission’s proposal runs counter to the Lisbon Strategy. I believe that tomorrow we will obtain a majority for our proposals, which at least pave the way for greater flexibility for registration, the possibility of greater protection of rights for claimants, a shorter protection period for scientifically established claims, the removal of unpacked alcohol products from the directive and other amendments. Otherwise we would have to reject the proposal outright.

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank Members for a very interesting debate.

Those who have worked with me for the past year and a half know by now that I tend to speak in a very open and frank way. I can honestly say that this is the only legislative proposal I never thought I would have to fight for. It is a proposal based on logic. It states that if someone wants to make money by using a marketing tool, that person or company has to tell the truth. It is simple.

(Applause)

We talk about consumer choice. What would consumers do: set up a little chemical laboratory at home to analyse every food to see whether it has sugar or fat? How can consumers exercise this choice unless someone checks that this is accurate? Regarding health claims, will consumers carry out clinical tests in at home to see whether a specific product lowers cholesterol? It is impossible! That is why it is important to have this legislation adopted, especially after the compromise, and I am surprised that there has been no legislation so far in this respect.

What happens if we do not have this legislation? What will be the result? Anybody can say anything and hope for the best. In the European Union, all of us, including the leaders of large Member States, pledge to place the European citizen at the heart of European policies. I believe that this is a good test of whether we actually do so.

I firmly agree that better regulation is an essential policy for us. However, that does not mean there should be no regulation, especially when it comes to health and consumer protection. It means we have to do it in the proper way. As I stated in my introductory remarks, I believe that with Parliament’s suggestions and amendments we now have a good piece of legislation which does not put any unnecessary burden on the industry and, at the same time, protects the consumer.

We tend to forget a very important aspect: the internal market. You have my word that these areas of health will be regulated. The question is whether it will be done at Community level, meaning that there will be one level playing field in the internal market and that industry, benefiting from the 450 million consumers, can be competitive, or whether there will be 25 different sets of rules and regulations breaking up the internal market. All along I have been in dialogue with the industry and this is what it would like. I always ask industry representatives whether they would prefer one piece of legislation, even a strict one, or 25 different laws with flexible levels. They prefer to have one piece of legislation. That is a very important factor.

On wine, I understand what was said, but we have to remember that wine is an alcoholic beverage. It may come from an agricultural product, but it contains alcohol and it must be covered by this legislation.

On the issue of fluoride, I must remind you that the problem mentioned is compulsory fluoridation, which does not come under this legislation but under the Member States’ competence. It is a different issue and we could discuss it, but it is not part of this legislation, because the claims and additions in question are voluntary.

In conclusion, as I have already said, it is a good compromise. Each side would have liked to see this compromise go a bit further in one direction or another. However, it takes into account, in a balanced way, the interests of all stakeholders.

I agree that, alone, it cannot solve the problem of obesity. As you know, we have generally followed a non-regulatory approach to deal with such a complex issue. We have set up a platform and we are discussing with industry and stakeholders how we can each help to solve this problem. However, in certain areas legislation and regulation are required. We therefore need a combination of all actions and initiatives to achieve the ultimate goal⁽¹⁾.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 11.30 a.m.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Jules Maaten (ALDE). – (NL) Although the compromise struck between Parliament and the Council is not perfect, it is one I can support. Compared to the original proposal, it is far less bureaucratic without prejudicing consumer protection. Consumers are given proper information without being patronised. Dutch terms such as 'stophoest' or 'hoestbonbon' may continue to be used to describe cough sweets, since everyone appreciates that these sweets cannot always immediately make the cough disappear.

Consumers must be able to rely on food and health claims being true and scientifically underpinned. Research has shown that 53% of consumers trust food claims. As we have rid the regulation of unnecessary bureaucracy without compromising consumer protection, the consumer can make an informed choice. At the same time, though, the bakery round the corner can continue to promote its high-fibre rolls without having to negotiate a long-drawn-out authorisation procedure first.

Annex – Position of the Commission

Poli Bortone report (A6-0122/2006)

The Commission can accept Amendments 50 to 89.

The Commission cannot accept Amendments 1 to 49, 90 and 91.

⁂

Scheele report (A6-0078/2006)

The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

The Commission cannot accept Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 19.

(1) Commission’s position on Parliament’s amendments (both reports): see Annex.