WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Amendment to the EU chocolate directive.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, confectionery product

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/45

The Commission believes that the common position adopted by the Council safeguards all the interests at
stake, including those of the developing countries. The substance of the common position corresponds to a
large extent to the wishes expressed by Parliament at first reading. It has now been sent to Parliament for a
second reading.

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973.
(2) COM(95) 722 final.

(2000/C 303 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive

In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a
lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate
producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU
Member States the term (cid:145)chocolate(cid:146) is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 %
milk and no vegetable fat.

This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa-
producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the
international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries,
including the fifteen
Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Who (Commission, Member States, chocolate producers) took the first step towards a lowering of the

cocoa standard?

2. On the basis of what arguments and/or documents did the Council approve a lowering of the cocoa

standard?

3. What EU Member States were advocates of a lowering of the cocoa standard? What arguments and/or

documents have these Member States used in support of their position?

4. Did the Council carry out a study of the social and economic effects on the cocoa-producing countries
and their farmers before lowering the cocoa standard? If so, what were the results of the study? If not,
why did the Council neglect to carry out such a study, given the far-reaching social and economic
impact on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers?

5. Can the amended chocolate directive with the lower cocoa standard be reconciled with the interna-
tional cocoa agreement of 1995 which sought to encourage the consumption of cocoa? If so, what are
the Council(cid:146)s arguments in support of this position?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

As a preliminary remark, the Council would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that the
common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of the Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council relating to cocoa and chocolate products maintains, for all the products in
question, the minimum content of cocoa butter or total dry cocoa matter laid down by Directive 73/241/
EEC currently in force.

It is therefore not a question of reducing the cocoa content, as the Honourable Member claims, but rather
of permitting the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter up to a maximum of 5 % of the
finished product (cf. Article 2(1) of the common position), as some Member States already authorise the
use of vegetable fat. The Council would point out that it decided to restrict these vegetable fats to six fats
of tropical origin defined according to technical and scientific criteria as equivalents to cocoa butter, and

C 303 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

that enzyme treatment of these fats is prohibited. (A seventh fat (cid:141) coconut oil (cid:141) is allowed only for the
manufacture of ice-creams and similar frozen products.)

In the common position referred to at the beginning of this reply, the Council judged that certain vertical
Directives relating to foods should be simplified in order to take account only of the essential requirements
to be met by the products they cover in order that those products may move freely within the internal
market. The aim is not only to guarantee the single nature of the internal market but also to provide the
consumer with correct, neutral and objective information in addition to the list of ingredients.

With regard to the social and economic impact on the cocoa-producing countries, Commission officials
submitted a preliminary study of the impact of the proposed Directive on those countries producing cocoa
and vegetable fats before the Council adopted its common position.
In that preliminary study, the
Commission concluded that the proposed Directive would probably not have any negative impact on the
countries concerned. A second study will be initiated in order to remove any lingering doubts.

Regarding the same question, the Council makes provision in Article 2(4) of its common position for the
Commission to carry out a study of the Directive(cid:146)s impact on the economies of those countries producing
cocoa and other vegetable fats after the Directive in question enters into force. The Council would suggest
that the Honourable Member contact the Commission directly for more details.

With specific regard to question 3, the Council would suggest that the Honourable Member contact the
Member States themselves as it is not the Council(cid:146)s responsibility to provide details of individual positions.

(2000/C 303 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2300/99

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Future of the European shipbuilding industry

On several occasions since the crisis of 1973, European shipyards have undergone restructuring leading to
job losses and slumps in regions whose prosperity depended on shipbuilding and its role as a driving force
for other economic sectors. The Commission has itself acknowledged the continued decline in prices.
Between January 1997 and March 1999 prices of newly built vessels fell by between 15 and 31,5 per cent.
The explanation for this lies primarily in the fact that certain Asian countries, South Korea notably, sell
their products at a loss, with prices sometimes 30 per cent below European prices. Sizeable subsidies
enable them to pursue such commercial dumping practices.

Over and above the tentative measures announced by the Council of Industry Ministers on 9 November
last, what emergency measures is the Commission prepared to take in support of European shipyards so as
to guarantee their survival?

Did the Commission take account of an international climate dominated by unfair practices on the part of
South Korea in deciding to demand the return of 18 451 million pesetas granted in the form of tax credits
to the shipbuilding industry in Spain, which it considered to be State aid?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect existing shipbuilding jobs in the European
Union? How does it intend to guarantee the future of this sector, and the thousands of working people
who depend on it?

What proposals will the Commission be taking to the first round of talks in Seattle at the end of this year
with a view to shielding the European shipbuilding industry from the unfair practices in which third
countries indulge?