WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/03 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Size of apples.
Date: 2003-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: harmonisation of standards, marketing, marketing standard, pip fruit, product quality, quality standard

C 84 E/244

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Size of apples

With effect from 1 May 2004 the Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee will allow apples with a
diameter of 5 cm to be placed on the European market. In response to this decision, many companies in
the sector have already expressed their utmost concern at the damaging effect which this will have on
quality produce.

Given that the proposal has not yet been put into effect (since it has still to be approved by the
Commission):

1. Does the Commission not agree that such a decision flies in the face of the quality policies which have
so far been promoted by the Commission and the EU by means including the CAP reform and the
COM in fruit and vegetables?

2. How is the Commission intending to respond to the proposal put forward by the Fruit and Vegetable

Management Committee?

3. Does the Commission not think that, instead of forcing a decline in quality, it should encourage the
growers of small apples to improve the quality of their produce? Furthermore, does the Commission
not fear an adverse reaction from EU consumers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The proposal for a Commission Regulation to which the Honourable Member refers has indeed been
presented by the Commission to the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, which
examined it recently.

In that draft, the Commission proposes harmonising the minimum apple size applicable in the Community
with the minimum apple size provided for by international standards. The minimum apple size applicable
in the Community will therefore be reduced by 5 millimetres (mm) from 1 August 2005. For small-fruit
to 50 mm, as the
varieties (20 % of Community production)
Honourable Member emphasises, but only in grade II (the lowest quality grade). The minimum size for
those varieties will remain unchanged for the quality grades which constitute the bulk of the market. For
other varieties (80 % of the market), the minimum size will be 60 mm in grades I and II.

the minimum size will

indeed fall

The proposal must be considered in the light of new ripeness criteria being introduced at the same time as
the marketing standard for apples.

Apple quality depends on many factors. Two criteria have traditionally been used: red colour (for varieties
which turn at least partially red when ripe) and size. But other criteria seem more appropriate for assessing
apple quality as accurately as possible, for example sugar content, firmness or acidity. These three criteria
reveal much more about the fruit’s taste, whereas colour and size describe its appearance (even though the
two types of criteria do correlate to some extent).

The Commission is therefore proposing adopting these new criteria, rather than minimum size, as the
main quality criteria. This will make it possible to ensure that all apples on sale (cid:1) including those large in
size (cid:1) are of better quality, that small apples of acceptable quality (for which outlets are developing

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/245

rapidly) are no longer excluded from the market and, in respect of size, that Community rules are brought
into line with the Community’s international commitments (cid:1) particularly as regards the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) agreement on technical barriers to trade.

Hence the Commission considers overall that the proposal will lead to tastier apples being on sale, which
is fully in tune with EU policies on quality. Nor does the Commission regard the proposal as a retrograde
step for quality growers (cid:1) on the contrary, the proposal encourages their efforts by introducing real
quality indicators applicable to all apple growers. The Commission therefore anticipates a positive reaction
from consumers.

(2004/C 84 E/0290)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3526/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject: The difference between unanimity and consensus

The Convention’s draft EU Constitution lays down that, except where the Constitution provides otherwise,
decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus. (Article 20(4)). Could the Council please
state whether a single country can block the taking of a decision by consensus in the European Council,
and what the precise definition of a decision taken by consensus is?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot express a view on matters falling within
the ambit of the Intergovernmental Conference.

However, as the question also concerns the present treaties and,
Council works, the following brief reply may be made.

in particular, the way the European

In the present treaties (as in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) only three voting
arrangements for adopting an act or a decision requiring a vote by the Council (or the European Council
in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution) are legally defined: simple majority, qualified majority and
unanimity.

Consensus is not a voting rule and has no legal definition. It is the way the European Council already
agrees on conclusions or other texts of a political nature which are not in the form of an act having
binding legal effects on third parties.

In its most usual sense, consensus means that a text is generally acceptable, with no delegation having any
formal objection, although some delegations may have reservations on the substance or on certain aspects
of the text without standing in the way of a consensus.

The Honourable Member might also like to refer to the outcome of proceedings of the Working Party of
Legal Experts of the Intergovernmental Conference (1). The Working Party suggests amending the text
drawn up by the Convention so as to specify the applicable voting rule explicitly in all cases where the
draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe confers on the European Council the power to adopt
binding legal acts.

(1) See CIG 50/03 and the report by the Chairman of the Working Party, 51/03, available on the Internet site of the

Intergovernmental Conference.