Dobesedni zapisi razprav

Torek, 12. marec 2013 - Strasbourg

4. Težave v verigi preskrbe s hrano v okviru nedavnih spornih vprašanj glede konjskega mesa (razprava)

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la Commission sur les problèmes dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire dans le contexte de la récente affaire de la viande de cheval.

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, in recent weeks I have addressed both Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on 20 and 28 February 2013 respectively, on the subject of the discovery of horsemeat labelled as beef in certain processed food products in a number of Member States. I am now glad to update you on the measures we have taken, or are planning to initiate in the near future.

Let me emphasise that today – just over one month after the first findings came to light – the situation remains that this scandal does not point to a public health or food safety crisis. I am adding ‘up till now’ of course because, as I shall say later, we are also carrying out further inspections on the health aspect. So this scandal, serious though it is, is not up till now a food safety issue like the food safety issues we have had in the recent past. The issue remains one of fraudulent labelling, not one of safety.

As you will know, food business operators are primarily responsible for ensuring that the requirements of European food law are met, while Member States are responsible for ensuring the proper day-to-day enforcement of EU rules. It is the responsibility of Member States to check whether or not the product presents a risk and whether it complies with applicable legislation. We then have other tools, like the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, popularly known as RASFF, through which any notification or alert made by any Member State is immediately communicated to all Member States – as has happened with this issue.

In the current scandal, findings of horsemeat labelled as beef in certain processed food products were immediately communicated to all Member States through the EU’s Rapid Alert System. So our traceability systems worked well – enabling Member States’ authorities to establish quickly who had done what, where and when.

All Member States are carrying out now the agreed DNA testing for horsemeat in beef products and testing for the absence of phenylbutazone, popularly known as bute, in horsemeat – in accordance with the recommendation supported by the Member States and adopted by the Commission on 19 February 2013. The first alert was given on 8 February by the British authorities. On 13 February there was an emergency meeting of the Member States affected by this issue. On 15 February there was the recommendation before the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Member States agreed to these inspections, and the recommendation was adopted on 19 February 2013.

These tests will continue throughout the month of March and the Member States will inform the Commission immediately of any positive findings and provide an overview of the results by 15 April 2013. Finally, a report will be published shortly afterwards. I said immediately when this crisis erupted that, to regain credibility, we have to not only carry out the inspections but also to commit ourselves, before the inspections, to making the results public.

In addition, fraud investigations are being coordinated by Europol – and all Member States have been asked to keep Europol contact points fully informed of developments. Let me stress that only the strictest and most complete transparency can begin to repair the damage done to consumer confidence.

Looking at the broader picture, it is evident that our legislation is fundamentally sound. The existence of fraud does not question the validity or the essence of the rules themselves. The problems lie in the implementation of the legislation and not in the legislation itself.

As with any food-related scandal, crisis or scare, we are duty bound to learn lessons and, if necessary, consider appropriate changes in the light of experience. The horsemeat scandal will be no exception. Public confidence has been badly shaken. Part of the reassurance that we can provide lies in the way we respond: swiftly using the effective tools at our disposal, and analysing data without delay. Indeed, the Commission is already considering how we might further strengthen our rules and controls in three areas that have attracted particular attention: sanctions, the level of controls and origin labelling.

Firstly, the importance of proper controls and dissuasive sanctions to enforce our legislation has come to the forefront. Under the current directives, the old requirement is that Member States have to apply appropriate and dissuasive sanctions.

The forthcoming proposal, which was drafted long before the scandal, to review the rules on official controls across the food chain will require Member States to establish financial penalties applicable to intentional violations of food chain rules – but I believe that these penalties should reflect the economic gain which is made by those who fraudulently violate EU legislation. In other words, only the prospect of losing more than what the illicit activities could bring can serve as an effective deterrent.

Secondly, some have called for more official controls along the food chain. The forthcoming proposal on the official control rules will indeed bring significant improvements and will include not only the possibility for the Commission to require Member States to implement coordinated control plans of limited duration to ascertain the existence of shortcomings along the chain, but also the powers necessary to establish permanent specific control requirements in cases of newly-identified risks. Even in the current scandal, all the Commission could do was recommend a control plan which I know most Member States or all Member States are implementing, but it is not actually legally binding.

Thirdly, as we know, some Member States and also Members of this Assembly are calling for mandatory country of origin labelling. I have made it absolutely clear publicly that this issue is not directly related to this scandal. This scandal would have erupted even if we had country of origin labelling. However, there is a swelling number of Member States which believe that we should grasp this opportunity to introduce mandatory country of origin labelling not only for fresh beef and fresh meat products which already exist, but also for processed food.

Incidentally, long before this scandal erupted, the Commission was already obliged under EU legislation to study this issue by the end of the current year. A report is due by the end of this year. I have undertaken to accelerate the publishing of this report, which will now be made available at the beginning of the autumn. This report must take on origin labelling of processed food as well. This report must take into account the need for the consumer to be informed, the feasibility for a mandatory origin indication, and an analysis of the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on the internal market and on international trade.

As I said before the committees, I have an open mind on this issue even though it is not the direct cause of this scandal and I will react accordingly after the report is out. So even though ‘country of origin labelling’ would not have prevented the current horsemeat scandal, I shall consider this report as soon as possible. I shall try and get the report published as soon as possible and then communicate any developments to this Parliament.

Let me conclude by emphasising that public confidence is a fragile concept which can all so easily evaporate. Therefore, I have urged Member States to step up their investigations – and there have been some results in the criminal investigations which have been conducted – and to ensure the immediate circulation of any new information, so we can establish the full facts of this matter as quickly as possible. I must say that up till now I am satisfied with the level of cooperation by the Member States.

I cannot overemphasise how important it is that we take on board the relevant lessons arising out of this scandal, and I am sure you share my determination to restore full confidence in our food chain as soon as possible. I have publicly stated that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world and I keep on saying so. This does not mean that we cannot fine-tune, and this does not mean that we cannot learn lessons from crises past and present. We should never rest on our laurels, because the fact that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world does not mean that we might not lose that pole position if we are complacent. I count on the cooperation and support of this Parliament and the Member States to this end.

  Richard Seeber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, ich teile Ihre Meinung, wenn Sie sagen, wir haben eines der besten Lebensmittelrechtssysteme weltweit. Trotzdem ist es auch ein Faktum, dass wir in den letzten Jahren immer wieder von Lebensmittelskandalen erschüttert wurden. Auch der aktuelle Skandal zeigt, wie groß eigentlich das Ausmaß und die Probleme in diesem Sektor sind. Darum sollten wir jetzt nicht sagen: „Wir haben ein Supersystem, an dem kleine Änderungen zu machen sind“, sondern wir müssen schon prüfen – und ich hoffe, das macht die Kommission jetzt auch in ihrem Bericht –, was jetzt wirklich verbesserungswürdig ist. Es ist auch nicht klug, jetzt zu sagen: „Die Mitgliedstaaten sind zuständig für die Kontrolle, wir machen hier die grundsätzlichen Regelungen“. Wir – und insbesondere die Kommission – tragen hier auf europäischer Ebene besondere Verantwortung, damit es in diesem Sektor funktioniert.

Unser größtes Problem ist, dass wir so viel Vertrauen der Konsumenten verloren haben. Das ist das eigentliche Problem, das wir jetzt haben. Dieses Vertrauen wiederherzustellen, wird sehr schwierig und sehr kostspielig werden. Darum ist sicher der erste Schritt, den Sie auch genannt haben, dass wir aufklären müssen. Es waren kriminelle Machenschaften, auch hier haben Sie Recht. Das kann nicht vollständig verhindert werden. Aber wir müssen uns doch überlegen, welches Kontrollsystem wir einführen können, damit es potenziell uninteressant wird, vor allem wirtschaftlich uninteressant wird, dass solche Dinge geschehen. Hier sollte sich die Kommission einmal mit Mathematikern zusammensetzen und ausrechnen, wie teuer es wirklich wäre, diese Kontrollen stichprobenartig vorzunehmen, vielleicht da und dort zu verstärken, damit wir hier ein möglichst günstiges, aber sehr effektives und effizientes Kontrollsystem aufbauen können. Hier ist die Kommission gefordert, diese Vorgaben zu machen.

Zum Zweiten ist sicher zu prüfen, wie der Strafrahmen in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten ist. Manche Staaten sind sehr streng, andere sind sehr lax. Auch das muss angepasst werden, damit es in Europa überall das gleiche Strafmaß gibt.

Zum Dritten: Das Konsumentenvertrauen herstellen. Hier ist der Bericht, den die Kommission nunmehr ausarbeitet, sicher das Fundament, auf dem wir jetzt aufbauen sollen. Die geforderte Ursprungskennzeichnung, die Kennzeichnung, wo Tiere gemästet werden, wo sie geschlachtet werden und wo sie dann in die Lebensmittelkette eingespeist werden, ist für den Konsumenten sehr hilfreich, wenn er seine Konsumentscheidung trifft. Es ist gerade im Lebensmittelsektor natürlich sehr gefährlich, eine Geiz-ist-geil-Mentalität zu haben, weil das tendenziell dazu führt, dass die Qualität gesenkt wird. Es muss im Interesse Europas sein, der Kommission und natürlich auch des Parlaments und des Rates, dass wir hier möglichst hohe Standards setzen, möglichst sichere Lebensmittel auf den Tisch bringen und unseren Konsumenten das auf den Tisch geben können, was sie eigentlich haben wollen, nämlich sichere und vor allem auch richtig deklarierte Lebensmittel!

  Linda McAvan, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I welcome much of what the Commissioner has said this morning. In particular, Commissioner, what you have said about accelerating the study on the labelling of meat in processed food. Now, you have said that this was not the cause of the crisis; of course it was not, but when Parliament voted for this two years ago we did so because we wanted companies to take responsibility for their own supply chains, to understand their supply chains. By labelling they would not be able to pass the buck as they are at the moment.

I think consumers have been genuinely shocked at the nature of the current supply chain: abattoir in one country, meat-cutting somewhere else, sent across Europe, back again. It seems that there are too many middlemen, too many people in the middle, and we have lost the ‘farm to fork’ controls we thought we had after the BSE crisis. So I hope that you will look very seriously at this. When we asked for this before, the Commission and the Council said it would be too costly: but how much have governments now spent and companies now spent since the horsemeat scandal erupted?

Commissioner, you have also told us that the current system is fundamentally sound, yet many people are saying to me that the changes made in 2006 by the meat hygiene laws actually reduce the number of inspections, particularly in meat-cutting plants, and that since 2006 we no longer have everyday inspections by meat inspectors. Instead, we only have announced inspections and only three-monthly or six-monthly inspections of meat-cutting plants. It is in meat-cutting plants where it seems this scandal erupted.

Now, you are supposed to be bringing out a new food-hygiene revision this year, Commissioner, and I want to know from you what is going to be in that revision, because in the newspapers in Britain they are saying that you are going to propose further self-regulation by the food industry, that you are going to give them even more responsibility. Can consumers have confidence? This is a crisis of consumer confidence, Commissioner, and we look to you to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, one of my first acts as a Member of Parliament here some 14 years ago was to host a meeting about another food crisis, between some Cumbrian beef farmers from my region and your predecessor, who was entirely sympathetic to their cause and wanted to support them in getting Member States to take action, but pointed out that the Commission had no army, had no police force. It was, as you said, dependent upon the Member States to enforce the law in the first instance.

Now, I have reflected upon this many times over the years, and I keep thinking of those words which we see in so many pieces of legislation: effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Your Director-General has said to the committee that we have the best food labelling laws in the world, but they do not count for very much unless Member States actually put them into practice. We have penalties in different Member States that differ. We have procedures for ensuring compliance that differ. We have a different approach being taken to potential prosecutions, and we have sentences being laid down by national courts that differ.

Now on the one hand, I think the public expects European laws to be enforced equally and effectively in every Member State. Otherwise people say ‘why should I comply if they are not?’ On the other hand, we have the difficult problem that the European Union should not be imposing common criminal penalties upon Member States. This is not just an issue, of course, for your department – it is one for many other sectors of the Commission – but it needs to be brought into the open. There needs to be more discussion and more analysis of the way in which Member States are actually putting legislation into effect, not simply in terms of the Statute, but also in the way in which their courts and their prosecuting bodies then interpret that Statute. This is because, unless we do this, unless we bring this out into the open and unless we decide to name and shame and have discussions in the Council and the Parliament, then we will not ensure equal application of the law. Failure to do so brings the law into disrepute and frankly renders the work of all us invalid.

  Carl Schlyter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Tack kommissionär Tonio Borg för att Ni tar upp en hel del av de förslag som vi driver t.ex. att vi måste ha bättre och mer fungerande sanktioner.

Titta på mitt eget land. Vad har hänt bara det senaste året? Vi har haft tjugo år gammalt, konserverat beredskapskött från försvaret som såldes och sedan ommärktes som betydligt färskare och de blev inte dömda. Vi har haft färgat oxfilé som i det fallet kom från Ungern och som såldes som oxfilé, men som var färgad fläskfilé – och hittills har ingen dömts för detta. Vi har flera andra skandaler och hästskandalen kommer till.

Med så många skandaler som hela tiden kommer upp är det ett systemproblem att folk tycker att det lönar sig att fuska i stället för att vara ärlig. Det måste vi sätta stopp för och då måste sanktionerna vara tillräckligt kraftfulla och kontrollerna vara tillräckligt många för att det ska vara en tillräcklig stor risk för att upptäckas. Därför är det bra med dessa förslag.

Jag är också orolig för kommissionens preliminära förslag om kontroller att låta slakthus ha egna inspektörer i stället för offentligt anställda inspektörer. Jag vill att det ska vara offentliga inspektörer i hela kedjan.

Det är myndigheter som ska kontrollera företagen och företagen ska själva ha interna kontrollsystem men dessa ska verifieras av myndigheterna precis som kontoret för livsmedels- och veterinärfrågor. Vi vill att de ska kontrollera myndigheternas kontrollsystem och göra stickprov så att vi ser att det fungerar och också ge tips om vad som fungerar och inte fungerar.

Som ni vet vill vi också ha ursprungsmärkningen. Vi har jobbat för det i flera år och kommissionen har beställt studien och jag hoppas att ni är snabba med att komma med ett förslag så snart studieresultaten kommer. För konsumenterna vill gärna ha detta. De vill veta vad de köper och att vi bygger det på nötköttslogiken om född, uppfödd och slaktad.

Dessutom vill vi gärna att ni underlättar och tillåter lokal marknadsföring och lokala märkningar eftersom det gör det lättare att ha en så kort kedja som möjligt mellan bonde och konsument.

Samma sak gäller när vi nu håller på med upphandlingsreglerna: Vi ska underlätta, inte försvåra, för lokal upphandling av färska livsmedel, så att vi får minskade kedjor, för hela problemet bygger egentligen på den inre marknadens ogenomskinlighet; att man inte har en tydlig kontroll och att det är för många led mellan konsument och producent. Är det väldigt många led så finns det alltid någon i det långa ledet som ser en chans att blanda in en billigare eller farligare produkt för att tjäna en extra euro.

Därför är det viktigt att vi underlättar för dem som vill vara seriösa och berättar för sina konsumenter exakt vad det är de har i och försöker minska dessa långa kedjor mellan producent och konsument. Först då blir vi av även med fusket.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I think there is no doubt that consumer confidence has been seriously shaken by this horsemeat scandal. As always in these types of situations, there can be a good point as well, and the good point is that in many areas people are returning to the local butcher’s shop. They are clearly sending the message that when they buy, they want to know what they are buying. I think this is to be welcomed.

I am in favour of better and effective labelling, but I have to say that, with all the labelling in the world, if the criminals are out there and they want to beat the system, it will not matter what labelling you put on it unless you have the proper inspections as well.

In my opinion, this happened for two reasons: because the processing chain is far too long, and because of the pressure by retailers on the food industry to bring down prices and provide so-called ‘cheap food’. Let me say this very clearly in this House today: there is no such thing as cheap food. Good food costs money.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, thirteen years ago the British Government stupidly allowed the EU to have competence in all aspects of food law. What has been uncovered in recent weeks is a demonstration of gross incompetence which has resulted in British people eating the meat of horses when they believed they were eating beef.

The paper trail system that the EU has adopted to ensure the provenance of produce is wide open to fraud, and as the EU becomes ever larger it expands into countries where fraud and corruption are a simple fact of life. Under our previous system in the UK, where food was regularly tested and inspected, the substitution of horse for beef would have been quickly detected.

It is depressing to note that many of our own British Members of Parliament assumed that our Secretary of State for Agriculture had the authority to act decisively in this matter, when in reality he is as impotent as a bullock or a gelding.

  Martina Anderson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the Commission has stated that, regardless of the legislation in place, there will always be criminals seeking to cheat the system in the pursuit of cheap profit. Doubtless this is true – but that does not mean that, as regulators, we should allow it to continue. We have, as you have said, a responsibility to make any criminal activity – especially in the food supply chain – as difficult as possible to do. Although the EU can claim to have one of the most developed traceability systems in the world, it is clearly not 100% fit for purpose in the processing sector, as other Members have outlined.

The report you mentioned should deal with mandatory country- as well as region-of-origin-labelling systems for meat products, including frozen or processed meats. I say this because such a process would ensure that there was a stronger onus on supermarkets to take responsibility for their supply chain.

We need to take full account of the specific characteristics of the Member States, thereby allowing beef for regions in the North of Ireland to be identified as Irish if producers so wish, or Scottish beef to retain its Scottish labelling, which would aid traceability in general and prevent scandals such as this from occurring again.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). - Voorzitter, in Nederland hebben we sinds kort een nieuw gezegde: 'paarden voor runderen verkopen'. Het is ongelofelijk, maar de consument kan er vandaag de dag niet meer van op aan wat er werkelijk voor vlees in de winkel ligt. De enorme winsten gaan naar de vleesproducenten die paardenvlees als rundvlees verkopen. Het is fout.

Maar het wordt nog erger. EFSA, het Europees voedselveiligheidsagentschap, en dus het paradepaardje dat aan had moeten slaan bij dit schandaal, deed het niet. Het was te danken aan de nationale voedsel- en warenautoriteiten dat het schandaal in volle omvang duidelijk werd. Het waren de nationale lidstaten die het direct hebben aangepakt.

De conclusie moge duidelijk zijn. Zoals de PVV al jaren achtereen betoogt, zo snel mogelijk de overbodige EFSA afschaffen, die nog geen paard van een rund kan onderscheiden. Laten we vooral de nationale keuringsinstanties koesteren. Dan weet de consument ten minste weer wat voor vlees hij of zij in de kuip heeft. Immers je bent een rund als je met de voedselveiligheid stunt.

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, most of the interventions hovered around two or three points, and I will try and reply to them. First of all the sanctions: I agree that even though the legislation we have is based on directives – and we do not have a regulation as we have in environmental criminal law where specific sanctions are specified in the regulation – we should be more specific in the directives when we are drafting them. This is why I believe that it should be made extremely clear in such a sensitive issue that crime does not pay.

I said that enforcement is in the hands of the Member States and that the Commission has no control, as Mr Davies said, over the decisions of the courts and tribunals which implement the legislation. I have heard of cases of meat producers whose licences were not suspended even after having been found guilty of certain criminal actions. So I believe that the financial criminal sanctions should be equal to the financial gain made from committing the crime; otherwise crime will pay. If the benefit received from violating EU legislation is much higher than the penalty that might be received then these violations will continue.

When I have said in the past and even today that the fact that there is a law does not mean that it will not be violated – in the same way as we have a law against robbery but I am sure that right now somewhere in the European Union someone is robbing someone or something – I was not being complacent, saying that once a law exists you can expect it to be violated. I am just trying to give a realistic point of view that nothing can be perfect. But this does not mean that we should not do our utmost to make the penalties a deterrent and the inspections as effective as possible.

The inspection system can be improved, but the way it is structured has to remain the same. It is not only food safety legislation or food labelling legislation that is implemented by Member States; all legislation in the European Union is implemented by the Member States. Concerning labelling it is first of all implemented by the food producer, who is primarily responsible for labelling on food products being honest and not deceptive.

Then there is the control system by the Member States, which have their national authorities. I would remind this Assembly that it was the Irish enforcement agency which conducted an investigation into the cheapest beef burgers in a supermarket, and it was through that inspection that it was discovered that some beef products labelled as beef meat contained 80% horsemeat. So it was a Member State, not through a report but through a random inspection of the cheapest meat products on the market, which discovered the scandal towards the end of January.

Then we have the Commission which, through its Food and Veterinary Office in Ireland, inspects the inspectors to see that the control system works. This mostly concerns food safety issues, because I would remind this Parliament that DNA testing for the animal species of meat products is a relatively recent thing. Before, all inspections used to be done purely on the food safety issue. It was only through the scientific development of DNA testing even on food that we started testing food not only for safety purposes but also to see whether the label reflects the ingredients of the meat products themselves.

Also, as Mrs McAvan said, it is important to have unannounced inspections, and in the new legislation we will try and put forward a proposal to oblige Member States not to announce the inspections but to have random unannounced inspections along the food chain to improve the inspection of the food chain itself.

On the question of country of origin labelling, I can give you five reasons put forward by Member States in the past – because this has been discussed in the past – why this should not be introduced, and I can give you another five reasons from another group of Member States which oppose this country of origin labelling. Some have switched from one side to the other because of this issue.

Please understand that this is not an easy matter. I have an open mind on this issue, but please do understand that there are issues pertaining to costs and there are issues pertaining to the complexity of the subject, because it is one thing labelling fresh beef and quite another thing labelling different meats from different places of origin which are processed in one meat product. One has to be very careful not to attack the single market. There should be no elements of protectionism in this legislation. But, as I said, I have an open mind on this. I note that there is a swelling number of Member States who are in favour of this legislation and as soon as I have the report I will accordingly act immediately and swiftly.

It is important not to undermine the internal market through this scandal and, in reply to certain comments about reintroducing barriers to trade owing to this food issue on labelling, I would remind the House that fraud is not exclusive to any one particular country. Recently we discovered, or the national authorities discovered, meat from the United Kingdom which was being exported to France which was illegal because it was mechanised beef, which is illegal under EU legislation.

The internal market is a cornerstone of the European Union, it is something positive, but when you have an internal market, without any barriers, of 500 million consumers, one of the disadvantages this can cause is that the moment someone violates a law in one country the ripple effect affects other countries as well. However, this is like Schengen. The fact that sometimes Schengen is abused by persons with criminal records moving from one country to another does not mean that we should not have Schengen. The internal market is something positive, but because we have an internal market we should have stricter legislation, stricter penalties and better inspections.

So I agree with all the Members of Parliament that we would be putting our heads in the sand if we were to say that this scandal has not rocked consumer confidence in recent weeks. Clearly we must make every effort to learn the lessons of this regrettable episode and do our utmost to restore confidence in our food supply as soon as possible. After all, most of the legislation which we sometimes have in different areas is the result of lessons learnt through incidences, through scandals and through issues, and we cannot accept that a few rogue operators can do serious damage to the way the European public views the entire food chain.

So in conclusion, Madam President, I look forward to working with Parliament towards our shared aim of ensuring as far as possible that similar fraudulent practices do not arise in the future.

  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), i scríbhinn. – A Uachtaráin, tá an-dochar déanta do mhuinín tomhaltóirí san earnáil talmhaíochta Eorpach ag an gcamscéim bhia a nochtadh le déanaí.

Is léir dúinn anois go bhfuil laigí sa chóras inrianaitheachta, go bhfuil sé fíor-éasca camscéimeanna bia a chur i bhfeidhm agus slabhra an tsoláthair bhia a chur i mbaol. Níl sé maith go leor gur faoi údaráis na hÉireann a bhí sé aird a tharraingt ar an bhfadhb seo. Ba cheart go mbeadh córas faireacháin agus deimhnithe i bhfad níos déine i bhfeidhm don slabhra soláthair uile in AE. Ní mór dúinn bearta leathana a chur i bhfeidhm chun cáil, ardchaighdeán agus inrianaitheacht táirgí Eorpacha a atógáil.

Aontaím gur chóir ainm feirmeoirí a chosaint ón smál atá á chur ar an earnáil ag gníomhaíochtaí calaoiseacha, coiriúla atá á ndéanamh ag daoine agus ag grúpaí áirithe. Tá an-chuid oibre déanta ag feirmeoirí agus páirtithe leasmhara na hearnála chun a chinntiú go féidir an bia a tháirgeann siad a leanúint ón bhfeirm go dtí an forc. Ní mór dúinne, lucht déanta beartais AE, comhoibriú anois leo siúd chun a chinntiú nach dlí fíorúil atá sna bearta dlíthiúla atá i bhfeidhm chun tacú leo ach gur fíordhlí é a thabharfadh cosaint dóibh agus dá slí bheatha.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – La chaîne de supermarchés Champion Mestdagh, sur ordre de marques, a ordonné de détruire tous les lots de nourriture contenant de la viande chevaline, qu'il s'agisse de produits surgelés comme Igloo ou de conserves comme les raviolis Buitoni. Il est scandaleux de constater que des marques préfèrent jeter de la nourriture saine aux ordures plutôt que d'en faire don à des associations ou de la vendre au rabais à des familles ayant du mal à boucler les fins de mois. Des supermarchés préfèrent donc nourrir les rats plutôt que les gens: affolant!

Le mensonge des étiquettes mentionnant "bœuf" à la place de "cheval" doit être sévèrement puni afin que les coupables sachent ce qu'il en coûte de se moquer de 500 millions d'Européens. Mais je maintiens qu'à partir du moment où ces produits sont sains, il faut les redistribuer aux plus démunis ou les vendre au rabais. Il est tout aussi criminel de mentir sur le contenu de la nourriture que de jeter celle-ci. Si les responsables veulent se racheter, il n'est pas trop tard mais il est temps