WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Counterfeiting of Italian tinned tomatoes.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, consumer information, consumer protection, food processing, foodstuffs legislation, fruit vegetable, industrial counterfeiting, labelling, preserved product

C 242 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

the EC Treaty, particularly Articles 154 and 155, defines the Community’s sphere of
Title XV of
jurisdiction in terms of setting up and developing the trans-European transport infrastructure network, as
implemented through Decision No 1692/96/EC (1), which lays down Community guidelines for the
development of the trans-European transport network,
its characteristics and scope as well as broad
guidelines. In order to promote the deployment of these networks, the Commission has also proposed
increasing the maximum level of Community cofinancing for construction works to 20 % of the total
investment cost (instead of the 10 % set by the current Financial Regulation) for cross-border railway
projects crossing natural barriers (2).

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines

for the development of the trans-European transport network (cid:1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) COM(2003) 38 final.

(2003/C 242 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Counterfeiting of Italian tinned tomatoes

(Europe’s

following an investigation carried out by Coldiretti

In February 2003,
farmers’
organisation), it was revealed that 82 000 out of the 396 000 tonnes of tinned tomatoes produced in
Italy in 2002 were imported from China. If this is true it would mean that some Italian tinned products
contain tomato concentrate from China. It is obvious, therefore, that some processing companies place on
the Italian market tinned goods which contain a mixture of Italian and Chinese produce (cid:1) although this is
not clearly specified on the label. This constitutes food counterfeiting, since labels carry no indication
whatsoever concerning the origin of the raw materials; they merely state the place in which the raw
materials were processed and the product itself was manufactured (cid:1) and opportunistically bear an image
of a traditional Italian tomato-growing area. All of this creates enormous confusion amongst Italian
purchasers/consumers, who enjoy no protection whatsoever at the time of purchase and are not properly
informed regarding product origin.

largest

The consequence of this for the Italian processing industry, which uses only products of Italian origin and
which is subject to customs duties, is a huge loss of profit (Italy being the world’s second largest tomato
producer after the USA) and distorted competition.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether or not this state of affairs infringes Articles 30 and 135 of the EC Treaty on consumer

protection and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty on competition;

2. whether or not this state of affairs contravenes Directive 2000/13/EC (1) (in particular recitals 6 and 8
and Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;

3. whether or not this state of affairs contravenes Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) (in particular recitals
1, 2, 8, 10 and 22 and Articles 1(1), 5(1), 7(1), 8, 11, 16, 17 and 18 on the general principles and
requirements of food legislation;

4. what action it intends to take in order to put a stop to the repeated infringements of EU law?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/169

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

In 2002 the Community as a whole imported approximately 155 000 tonnes of tomato preparations
(concentrates, purees, crushed peeled tomatoes, etc), of which 125 000 tonnes came from China and
approximately 125 000 tonnes were for inward processing. Italy is the chief importer of these products:
126 000 tonnes imported,
including 110 000 tonnes from China and 120 000 tonnes for inward
processing. Concentrates of Chinese origin imported into Italy for use in products intended for the
domestic market amounted to only 3 400 tonnes. These figures indicate that the bulk of the importations
of tomato preparations into Italy from China is destined for re-exportation to third countries, principally in
Africa.

As regards Article 30 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would emphasise that this Article relates to the
free movement of goods between Member States. Article 153 lays down the principles and types of
measures to be adopted by the Community to ensure consumer protection.

therefore provide a directly applicable legal basis for assessing whether the
These Articles do not
information provided to consumers through the labels on tins of Italian tomatoes is inadequate or
incomplete.

The provisions actually applicable in this instance, as the Honourable Member mentions, are those of
Directive 2000/13/EC of
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs.

the European Parliament and of

As regards giving the particulars of the place of origin or provenance of foodstuffs, Article 3 of the
Directive provides that this is compulsory only where failure to do so might mislead the consumer to a
material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff.

Consequently,
if there is any element that could mislead the consumer as to the precise origin or
provenance of a foodstuff, the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff in question must be indicated so
that,
in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 2, the consumer cannot be misled by the
labelling or the method of presentation.

The Commission has not so far received any information to indicate that such a situation exists with
regard to tinned tomatoes from Italy.

As regards Articles 5 and 7 of the aforementioned Directive, which relate respectively to the names under
which products are sold and the statement of quantity of the ingredients, the Commission does not believe
that they are effective in the case in question.

As regards the applicability of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing
the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, it is important
to point out that this Regulation lays down general objectives, general definitions and general principles
relating to food legislation.

The principles laid down in Article 8 of this Regulation are admittedly relevant as regards deceptive
practices, since this Article provides that food legislation shall aim to protect consumers’ interests and, in
particular, prevent fraudulent or deceptive practices. However, this Article imposes an obligation on the
lawmakers, not the operators. Also, as already mentioned, the legislation applicable to the case in question
is Directive 2000/13/EC, and this Directive already meets the objectives laid down in Article 8.

Of the other Articles of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 cited by the Honourable Member, it should first of
all be noted that Articles 11, 16, 17 and 18 are not due to become applicable until 1 January 2005. These
Articles lay down general principles concerning the importation, presentation, control and traceability of
foodstuffs, and are therefore not directly applicable to the case in question. As to the other Articles cited,
they have no effect. Article 1, for example, simply states that the Regulation provides the basis for the

C 242 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

assurance of a high level of consumer protection, and is therefore not directly applicable. Similarly,
Article 5(1) sets out a framework for lawmakers, stipulating that food law shall pursue one or more general
objectives,
interests. Article 7(1), concerning the precautionary
principle, relates to circumstances where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility
of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists. The problem raised by the
Honourable Member does not reflect this type of situation.

including the protection of consumers’

As regards the labelling rules applicable in general to all foodstuffs, the Commission has just launched an
evaluation of
in particular Directive 2000/13/EC, with a view
subsequently to proposing relevant adaptations aimed at ensuring that consumers are given the best
possible information.

the legislation currently in force,

(2003/C 242 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0742/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation to EU fishermen and shipowners for temporary cessation of activity

Article 16 of the current FIFG regulation (2792/1999 (1)) describes a number of conditions under which
Member States are allowed to compensate fishermen and shipowners for the temporary cessation of
activities.

How often has this measure been used by the Member States?

For each time that compensation has been awarded, can the Commission indicate:

(cid:1) which of the circumstances listed in Article 16 was invoked;

(cid:1) which Member State was involved, for which fishery and for what period of time;

(cid:1) how many fishermen and/or ship-owners were involved;

(cid:1) how much money was awarded, broken down by Community participation and State participation?

Is the Commission aware of any similar compensation paid by the Member State(s) without the use of
Community funds? If so, could similar information be provided?

Under the previous FIFG regulation (3699/1993 (2)), compensation was possible for temporary cessation of
activities under Article 14. Could the Commission provide similar information for any such use of funds
under that regulation?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

In the present programming period 2000-2006, the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) aid
foreseen for temporary cessation, compared to the total aid, is rather limited, about 3,9 %. Spain alone
represents more than 80 % of the total amount programmed for this measure.