WRITTEN QUESTION P-3353/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Protection of public health and consumers from the sale of products using frozen dough and the bake-off technique.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, bread-making, cereal product, consumer protection, deep-frozen product, derogation from EU law, food processing, food safety, foodstuffs legislation

C 110 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

(2003/C 110 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3353/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Protection of public health and consumers from the sale of products using frozen dough and the

‘bake-off’ technique

Some foodstuffs on offer to the consumer on the market in Greece and other Member States which use the
‘bake-off’ technique do not constitute bread until the dough has been baked, since bread must be prepared
and baked normally and it must have a proper crust over its entire surface.

Bearing this in mind, will the Commission provide the following information:

(cid:1) Must products of the ‘chilled and frozen bread’ (bake-off) variety be baked or not for the product to be
edible and to what extent is it possible to exempt the products concerned from Community rules on
the
public health protection and national health rules applicable to bakeries on the basis of
subsidiarity principle?

(cid:1) How can public health be protected when bake-off food products (cid:1) in essence frozen dough products
which require baking (cid:1) are marketed and sold in an uncontrolled manner and can be sold as bread
products in supermarkets without the necessary bakery licence and without the need to comply with
national health rules?

(cid:1) What measures will the Commission take to protect consumers from being misled through the sale of
products which are called chilled and frozen bread when the products concerned are dough, do not
constitute edible bread before they are baked and are not, as they are misleadingly referred to, ‘bake-
off’ or fresh bread?

Response given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

There is no legislation establishing, at Community level, harmonised provisions on the composition of
bread, its denomination or its method of manufacture. It would, in fact, be extremely difficult to produce
such legislation at Community level given the great diversity of products involved and the multiplicity of
national (cid:1) and even local (cid:1) customs and traditions in this area.

However,
Directive 93/43/EEC (1),
accordance with Directive 2000/13/EC (2), enabling consumers to make an informed choice.

like any foodstuff, these products are subject to general hygiene rules in accordance with
in

to ensure their safety and wholesomeness, and to compulsory labelling,

Article 3 of Directive 93/43/EEC states that the preparation, processing, manufacturing, packaging, storing,
transportation, distribution, handling and offering for sale or supply of foodstuffs shall be carried out in a
hygienic way. Food business operators must, in particular: respect hygiene rules for food products, the
areas where these are prepared, their transport, the equipment used, the staff involved, etc., as set out in
the Annex to the Directive; identify critical hazards to consumer safety and establish adequate procedures
to deal with these hazards on the basis of the HACCP system (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point).

Derogations from certain provisions of the Annex may be granted according to the procedure laid down in
Article 14 of this Directive.

As far as the name under which a product is sold is concerned, Article 5 of Directive 2000/13/EC states, in
substance, that in the absence of Community provisions, the name under which a product is sold shall be
the name customary in the Member State in which it is sold or a description of the foodstuff, and if
necessary of its use, which is clear enough to let the purchaser know its true nature and distinguish it from
other products with which it might be confused.

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/209

It falls to the national authorities to monitor respect for these provisions to ensure the correct application
of hygiene regulations by food business operators and, in the case referred to by the Honourable Member,
to verify whether the use of the name ‘bread’ for the products in question is in accordance with the
principles set out above.

(1) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.
(2) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109,
6.5.2000.

(2003/C 110 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Environmental requirements and rules on the awarding of public contracts

The Commission has pointed out in a reasoned opinion that when Kalmar Länstrafik invited tenders for
bus services in 2001, there was a breach of the rules governing the awarding of public contracts. Kalmar
Länstrafik had also asked prospective tenderers to provide an environmental programme with their
documentation and had set requirements in terms of the development of staff skills. According to
newspaper reports, the Commission is questioning the criteria established by Kalmar Länstrafik on the
grounds that they concern the characteristics of the bus companies as such and not just the service to be
purchased.

The Court of Justice has ruled in case C-513/99, which concerns a contract awarded by the municipality of
Helsinki for bus transport services, that a contracting authority may take environmental criteria into
consideration.

Did the Commission take account of the judgment in case C-513/99 before the reasoned opinion was sent
to Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

In the Commission’s view environmental programs of tenderers may be used as criteria for selecting
suitable tenderers on the condition that those programs have an impact on the capacity of a company (for
example on its equipment and technicians)
contract with environmental
requirements (1).

to execute a public

The reasoned opinion referred to in the written question addresses indeed the fact that the contracting
entity in question has used environmental programmes at the award stage of a public procurement
contract although, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (2), they may only be used at the stage
of the procedure where suitable candidates are selected.

The judgement of the Court of Justice of 17 September 2002 in the case C-513/99 (Stagecoach Finland),
of which the Commission is well aware, has not changed the principle of the separation of selection and
award criteria. The Court has consistently maintained that award criteria only aim at identifying the most
economically advantageous tender and have therefore to be linked to the subject matter of the contract
and not to the quality/features of the service provider as such. Indeed, in the above mentioned judgement
the criteria of level of nitrogen oxide emissions and the noise level of buses, which were considered as
legitimate award criteria, were related to characteristics of the vehicle fleet and not to the operator’s
capacities.