Reform of EU trade policy instruments (debate)
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mr Barón Crespo, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the Commission Green Paper and public consultation on a possible reform of EU trade policy instruments B6-0009/2007).
deputising for the author. - Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call 'globalisation'. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world - and Europe among them - know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders' views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I do not think I have ever been asked to reply, in any Parliament in which I have been President-in-Office, to an opening question or a speech with which I have agreed more than the speech I have just listened to. In terms of its description of the spirit, purpose and context of this exercise, I must say I thought the honourable Member captured in every respect what we are doing most accurately and well.
The only stage at which, I have to say, I somewhat part company is when he asks me why our services - DG Trade - are applying new rules before the conclusion of the review. I have absolutely no idea what instances or issues he is referring to, and I would be pleased to hear because I do not know of any.
On 29 May last year, I informed the European Parliament of the necessity to review our trade defence instruments. I am pleased to be able to be back here and to update you on this process. We are now coming to the end of the consultation that we launched in December. That consultation solicited opinion from Member States, business, NGOs, individuals and, of course, the European Parliament. What it did not do in any way was question the importance of trade defence instruments. TDI is necessary to combat unfair trade in an international economy that has no international equivalent to the competition rules we take for granted in our own domestic economies. TDI, in my view, is the flip side of an open economy. It is the guarantee that others will not abuse that openness by trading unfairly. The Green Paper asks if we could use TDI better, if our tools have adapted to a changing global economy and whether our rules could be clearer and operate more transparently.
I think the justification for such an exercise is pretty obvious. The last review of our trade defence instruments was in 1996, and a lot has changed in the ways EU companies operate and as regards the role of global supply chains in our economy. Many more EU companies now produce goods wholly or partially outside the EU for import into the EU. These changes challenge traditional understanding of what constitutes EU production and the EU's economic interests. They make a definition of European workers' interests harder to write, as cases are more complex. Because these interests overall are those in which trade defence is rooted, that is good reason to assess the way we work and the way those rules operate.
But the Green Paper launched a consultation; it contains no recommendations for reform and is not intended to. It puts forward a set of questions. I have repeatedly emphasised that this is an open process and I have no preconceived ideas. There was a question asked of me about the intentions behind the six categories of question in the consultation paper. They are designed simply to put the various issues in context. Some are linked to the impact of globalisation on our trade defence system. Others, especially those related to transparency, were raised by stakeholders and experts with whom I had informal discussions in July last year.
So there are no intentions beyond the desire for intelligent debate and to rebuild the consensus and solidarity that has underpinned TDI and has come under strain in some recent cases. I fully echo the honourable Member's initial observation: we need to replace national selfishness with European solidarity, and that is what I hope to rebuild through the process of this review.
I do not come to you today with substantive proposals because that is not my role at this stage. Right now, we are listening. The scope of any proposed changes will depend on what we hear. Somebody asked how this review fits with our attempts to reform anti-dumping rules in the WTO. The honourable Member reflected that question. Actually, it is a rather good question. It is vital to push through the WTO to ensure others match the kind of standards we apply to ourselves. We are doing that and we will keep doing that in the DDA negotiations.
But EU legislation on TDI already goes beyond WTO requirements in many ways. The most obvious examples are the compulsory lesser duty rule and the Community interest test which we apply in all investigations. These are rules we introduced because they make the system work better in the wider EU interest. Of course we will push others to adopt similar rules, but reform at the international level is difficult and some of our key partners are, frankly, stubborn. So long as our refinements do not put us at a competitive disadvantage, so long as they reflect the EU's economic interests, why should we not pursue further reform?
That point relates to the question about the EU's general posture on anti-dumping. Are we protectionist or do we follow a 'response and defence' approach? In my view, protectionism is the shielding of a domestic industry from foreign competition, from fair competition - tough competition, yes, but fair nonetheless. That is not the intention of EU TDI policy and I will, of course, remain vigilant on that. We are not going to see our trade defence instruments turned into measures to protect EU industry from fair, legitimate competition. A protectionist does not recognise the difference between tough competition and unfair competition. We do. Our system does. That is the difference between protection and protectionism.
The EU process is complaint driven. We act only when EU industry can provide sufficient evidence that they are threatened by unfair trade, but we defend European production only against unfair trade, and we are bound by law to ensure that any trade defence measure is truly in the wider European economic interest. We are prudent and we are restrained but, above all, we are objective and dispassionate. A number of questions have gone right to this issue of making sure that TDI is effective and serves Europe's growth and competitiveness agenda.
As you know, this review is part of the global Europe framework policy that I launched last year, which is explicitly intended to put EU trade policy at the service of this growth and job strategy. Beyond saying that, I think TDI can and should be part of our wider strategy for ensuring that EU companies compete on a level playing field internationally. I think it is for stakeholders to suggest how well the system is working to that end, and that is the purpose of the review.
The question about the effectiveness of our measures is a good one. The possibility of review of trade defence measures always exists and measures cannot be extended without clear evidence that they are functioning as intended. The Commission also undertakes internal analysis to ensure the effectiveness of its work. DG Trade has recently started to analyse the impact of trade defence measures on certain companies and sectors. A credible TDI system has to be based on this sort of analysis.
A question was asked about public information and about the results of the consultation process. As you know, the Commission has very clear rules on the transparency of decision-making. Some of you may have attended the seminar on the Green Paper that took place only yesterday in Brussels. This event was open to the public and relayed on the website. Unless a contributor requests anonymity, we are publishing all responses to the Green Paper on the website of DG Trade. The whole process has been totally transparent.
Finally, on cooperation and dialogue with Parliament: you know that I have constantly appeared before you on all important trade policy matters, and I will continue to do so. Parliament has a very important role in the TDI reflection process. Your report will be central to the ongoing review process, and I will study its recommendations very closely.
I thank you for hearing me again today and I look forward to being back here again soon to discuss any and every issue of trade policy, on which I delight in remaining answerable to this House.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SV) Mr President, Mr Mandelson, trade defence instruments - the name is quite revealing: an instrument for defending ourselves against trade. To protect ourselves against trade would be both expensive and stupid, however, and there are therefore few economists who make a habit of supporting the use of this instrument. I myself have on more than one occasion here in Parliament talked, for example, about the way in which consumers are forced to pay astronomically high prices for a limited producer interest. The fact is, however, that, in the future too, we shall have some form of trade defence instrument. Until such time as we have common competition legislation right around the world, all countries will probably feel a need to protect themselves against what they perceive as unfair trade. I therefore believe that we need to design the instrument now so that it is legitimate and viewed as such by everyone - producers, importers, consumers and all the Member States.
We must get away from the predictable conflicts pitting North against South and producers against importers and consumers, as the conflicts in themselves undermine confidence in the instrument and, in the longer term, in EU trade policy. If we are to have any consensus surrounding these trade defence instruments, we must do more to emulate competition legislation. Everyone I meet demands, for example, more transparency, more predictability and, above all, less political horse-trading on this issue. I can understand them, as it is frankly ridiculous that the Member States should only be given a few days in which to assess thousands of pages prior to decisions on anti-dumping duties. The fact that, in Brussels, we have an army of consultants who run around in pursuit of rumours of Commission proposals concerning new defence measures is ridiculous too, as is the political horse-trading whereby duties on shoes can be exchanged for exemptions from the working time directive - exemptions that, in turn, can be exchanged for duties on Norwegian salmon. All this shows that a fundamental overhaul is required.
What is more, the world has changed. As global duties become bound and lower, more of our trading partners use instruments to prevent the import of goods in the traditional way, and, given that Europe is the biggest actor in the world market, we must show leadership. I should therefore like to conclude by asking you how we are to ensure that this reform does not, in actual fact, continue down the road of seriously becoming one that Frédéric Bastiat, for example, would characterise in terms of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I welcome the Green Paper as it is clear that our trade defence instruments are in need of reform.
The vast majority of stakeholders are unhappy with the status quo. As they stand, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations lack transparency, consistency, objectivity and are over-politicised and inappropriate to the realities of a modern economy adapting to the forces of globalisation.
While it is probably impossible to create a totally objective process, there can and must be improvements to the current investigation procedure in order to depoliticise it and ensure that the interests of all European citizens are best served.
In order to do this, as the Commissioner has indicated, we must redefine and give greater weight to the Community interest. If the European Union is to become more relevant to people's lives, it must take genuine steps to look after citizens' interests. This, of course, means the protection of jobs against unfair and anti-competitive behaviour. However, too often the narrow interests of an outspoken group of producers have won out against the interests of the millions of consumers who stand to gain from the process of globalisation and whose voice has often not been heard.
Moreover, the potential damage to European companies who set up global supply chains in order to remain competitive in a globalised economy must also be given greater consideration when considering the Community interest. In terms of the process of anti-dumping investigations, there is widespread dissatisfaction across stakeholders with the access they currently enjoy even to non-confidential documents and information.
The use of analogue countries must also be questioned. I am referring in particular to last year's shoe case where the Brazilian economy was used to make comparisons with China, whereas in reality their two economies are as comparable as their football teams.
I would also be eager for the Commission to investigate the viability of expanding trade defence instruments to deter environmental and social dumping in order to ensure that an unfair advantage is not obtained through the abuse of the environment or through failure to ensure decent labour standards.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the question that we are debating, the content of which I support, is a strong appeal to the European executive to ensure that, without going back on its commitment to revive multilateral dialogue, to open markets and to lay down rules that encourage development rather than blocking it with non-tariff barriers, the Union does not take unilateral action that penalises us more than we would wish in relation not only to emerging countries but also to the major developed nations, primarily the United States.
Reviving competitiveness and consistency with the Lisbon Strategy, opening markets, protecting consumers, including by introducing obligatory origin marking on imported goods, the success of measures adopted to defend the effectiveness of free competition; these elements are all inextricably linked. We emphasise that we are opposed to a distorted use of anti-dumping measures and to forms of disguised and non-agreed protectionism presented as fighting unfair competition, of which our global competitors accuse us. We do ask, however, that reform of anti-dumping rules by the European Union should not act as indirect support for those in the world who have not come out in favour of liberalisation.
At this stage and for a good while yet, I believe, liberalisation and regulation must, more than ever, be strictly linked in the interest of the market itself. The rules must however be objective, as was the case when drafting those governing competition, which are clearly defined, accessible, effective and easy to apply. For this reason, we must minimise the element of discretion used in applying defence measures, and small and medium-sized enterprises must be able to actually uphold the rules when prices are subject to abnormal changes.
Commissioner, we hope that the European executive will take account of these considerations, in the knowledge that Europe's real economy needs to feel part of a strong community that encourages and urges it to take up the challenges of an ever more globalised world, yet defends it from those that breach the rules to unjustly pursue their own development at the expense of others.
on behalf of the UEN Group.- (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the launch of the debate on the reform of trade policy instruments.
The current system of trade policy instruments, which has remained unchanged for several decades, is no longer effective enough to counteract the negative effects of burgeoning globalisation. As this is too large a topic to discuss in any great detail here, I would like to draw attention to those issues where reform is needed.
Firstly, anti-dumping tariffs are imposed by the Commission on a product on the basis of proof that its price on the EU market does not exceed the cost of production. To this end the Commission considers mainly production factors such as wages, cost of materials and energy for example. The Commission does not, however, establish whether the enterprise bears the cost of social security for its employees, or of environmental protection measures. It is therefore difficult to establish whether the costs submitted are incomplete, and consequently that the price of a product that does not take account of them has been artificially reduced.
Secondly, it is often the case that the relatively high prices of some products originating in the European Union, and hence their lack of competitiveness on the world market, arise from the very high standards demanded, regarding animal welfare, for instance. The European Union must require that products from third countries sold on its market also meet these standards.
Thirdly, the European Commission is very cautious in applying so-called protective clauses whose aim is to prevent the European Union market from being suddenly flooded by a particular type of product. These instruments, however, are much faster and easier to use than anti-dumping tariffs.
Finally, the Commission should also try to shorten to a minimum the period between the start of a particular procedure and the implementation of the relevant protection instrument. Currently this takes many months, and for anti-dumping tariffs as long as nine months, which exposes European producers to huge losses.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, free trade is no good if it is unfair, and trade defence measures are an attempt to make it fairer. I think that the Commission places a little too much emphasis on multinational companies, and I am uneasy about redefining the Community interest. I wish to clarify the fact that, if an EU-based transnational company is involved in social or environmental dumping, either for its own part or through subsidiary companies or subcontractors, it cannot be regarded as a Community interest just because it is EU-registered. It must be punished for engaging in such practices.
The Green Paper also addresses many interesting issues that we are to debate, for example increased transparency and more influence for small companies and non-governmental organisations. One important dimension is missing, however: the Green Paper is insufficiently green. The whole dimension of environmental dumping is absent. Let me remind you of paragraph 11 of the Muscardini report from October, whereby the European Parliament 'invites the Commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to radically revise the rules on the use of trade defence ... measures under the WTO aegis', and this for the purpose of including non-compliance with global agreements and with conventions on the environment and social issues as forms of dumping or subsidy.
The fact is that countries that have weak environmental legislation or that lack the environmental taxes of their competitors must be seen as subsidising or dumping their production costs; in other words, as engaging in nothing less than traditional dumping. This will become a growing problem when the global level of ambition increases. There must, then, be no free zones for environmental destruction that undermines global environmental work. We must, for example, introduce a Kyoto tariff for countries that do not comply with the Kyoto Agreement. Other countries must be brought before the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and perhaps we shall win and perhaps we shall lose. Many believe the WTO to be a powerful organisation, but one thing is certain: the climate cares not one jot for the WTO and, if we do not introduce climate measures into trade policy, will change irrespective of what the WTO thinks.
One final comment: if we are now to have solidarity and we have a one per cent limit, when is Malta to be able to apply these defence measures and when is it to obtain more than one per cent of internal trade?
(HU) Free trade works well if its rules are followed. But this is not always the case. Unfair trade practices and dumping are increasingly being used against the EU and its producers. In several cases of dumping it has been demonstrated that it is the vendors rather than the consumers who profit. There is no reason for the EU to water down the current trade rules. It is unacceptable that we should punish those companies that have remained in Europe, that have retained European jobs, and reward those which moved their production offshore.
We need protection against unfair competition. We should not loosen the rules against unfair trade, but rather enforce them. This is especially true in the case of countries that are not market economies, where for instance the state is using complex and non-transparent means of giving aid to companies that are producing for export. Moreover, China is using its increasing trade revenues not to expand democracy, reduce poverty, protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, but rather to purchase armaments. This year, China is increasing its military expenditures by 18%. According to official statistics, this will reach USD 45 billion. Moreover, according to some experts on security policy, the true amount they are spending on armaments will be three times this sum.
Commissioner, there is not much point for us to support China's military build-up by cutting European jobs.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Guardans Cambó for having taken the initiative in putting this oral question to the Commission.
The whole issue of our trade defence instruments is in fact of the utmost importance, not only in that they ensure that European producers are protected effectively against forms of unfair competition, but also when considered within the context of the broader debate on the place of the European Union in a globalised economy and on the rules that it wishes to promote for its governance.
Even though the European Union has always defended the WTO's multilateral system, I think it surprising to say the least that the Commission should launch a public consultation of this kind and be contemplating a potentially major reform of our defence instruments at a time when the WTO negotiations on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard measures have not yet been completed and when the results of these will impact upon the way in which these instruments are used.
Let me, then, remind the Commission that it did itself commission a study evaluating the European trade defence instruments, the conclusion of which was that the status quo was both the most reasonable solution and the one best suited to addressing the concerns of all parties. This study also lends support to the idea that there is, at the present time, no visible and pressing need to review or amend the Community's existing trade defence instruments.
I would like, therefore, to know just what concrete changes the Commission is planning and how this House is going to be involved in every stage of the process, and I call on the Commission to take account of these different factors within the framework of its forthcoming discussions at Council level, as well as taking account of the views of the Members of this House and of the results of the public consultation that it itself initiated for the purpose of drawing up its future proposals.
(PL) The Green Paper and the debate on trade policy instruments are extremely important to our economy and could bring us considerable added value.
European foreign trade policy must respond adequately to any change that takes place in the manufacture and sale of goods on the internal and external markets. For example, in the framework of agreements, our market can promote the purchase of materials for biofuels, the sale of which has good development prospects, and restrict imports, thus reducing the output of the sugar industry, for instance. Through our mutual relationships we should help those of our suppliers who could start up production in line with our needs within the scope of promotional or association agreements.
As far as dumping goes, our response is long-winded and indecisive, doing us more harm than good. For example, in the case of frozen strawberries from China it took several years to put anti-dumping measures in place, by which time numerous farms had folded and gone bankrupt. An analysis of operational efficiency, and radically shortening existing bureaucratic procedures could lead to clear working regulations and responsibilities which would allow applications to be processed quickly.
Another problem for the European Union is defining the principles of our common trade policy to avoid unfair competition on the external market. The issues I have mentioned require constant monitoring. I thank other Members for engaging in the debate on this issue.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU must think carefully about how to better defend its own interests. The strategy of making early concessions in the hope of later benefits will certainly not work. Instead, the rules must be observed in the interests of free, fair competition. Unfair trade practices should not be tolerated, and therefore, without a doubt, effective trade defence instruments form an integral part of the European strategy for competitiveness. In this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Glattfelder: the defence instruments must not be further watered down.
As I see it, Commissioner, the timing of the Green Paper is very unfortunate, as the results of the current multilateral negotiations on trade defence instruments should not be forestalled. There should be no reforms in Europe before the conclusion of these negotiations, whether successful - which I hope - or not.
The second thing I want to say is that the present instruments have fundamentally proved their worth. If there have to be reforms at all, these should be geared towards improving the existing system.
We need to make a clear distinction - as the Commissioner rightly mentioned - between real dumping on the one hand and pricing in line with competition law on the other. Anti-dumping measures must not be abused for protectionist purposes. On the other hand, however, the long-term preservation of European production should not be sacrificed to apparent short-term consumer interests. From the procedural point of view, it must be ensured that the assessment of cases is as objective as possible, and not influenced by specific national interests in the Council. It is my firm conviction that, whilst third countries are making intensive use - often abuse - of trade defence instruments against us, we must not relax ours.
All of this is possible under the existing rules if they are just applied correctly, and so I would ask the Commissioner to be very sensitive in this regard, and I would recommend to him the stimulating reading that is my latest draft report on external trade strategy, in which I also discuss the subject of trade defence instruments.
(EL) Mr President, my special thanks to Commissioner Mandelson.
I believe that this evening's debate highlights an internal strategic split in the European Union. I believe that, as Mr Fjellner said in his speech, on the one hand there is the Europe of major commercial consumer protection networks and, on the other hand, the Europe of productive powers, of the protection of the productive and industrial fabric and of employment and of the defence of the workers. We must reconcile these two strategic approaches for the good of the European Union. Of course no one wants to turn the European Union into a protectionist fortress. On the other hand, however, it would be an illusion to believe that the European Union can remain unarmed in the face of the challenges and the negative consequences of globalisation, that it can remain unarmed in the face of unfair international trading practices, in the face of social and environmental dumping by certain emergent economies in the developing world.
I believe that the Green Paper presented by Mr Mandelson can form a good basis for further discussion. We need trade defence measures on the basic precondition that they will be effective, that they will help to defend the commercial interests of the European Union, that they will help to defend the principle of transparency and faster decision-making. Provided, Mr Mandelson, that your proposal moves in the direction of improving the trade defence mechanisms of the European Union, we really can hold a debate and make a positive contribution to that debate.
(LT) Today for discussion we have the Commission's Green Paper, which focuses on Europe's trade defence instruments in a changing world economy. In the communiqué, concerns have been expressed about trade defence instruments which would not affect high productivity. Also mentioned is the issue of coordinating the Community's interests and those of high productivity, importers, consumers and even the interests of developing countries.
The figures provided show that the USA and India, in protecting their markets, have initiated more studies on how to apply defence instruments than has the EU. The EU is having difficulty implementing the Lisbon Strategy and creating new jobs, and there is a catastrophic lack of qualified workers in the engineering profession, and of scientists who could create new competitive technologies.
In the current situation, by no means should defence instruments be relaxed, as that would stifle current EU productivity, especially small and medium-size businesses, particularly in new Member States.
Furthermore, I would urge the Commission to quickly carry out anti-dumping studies, as delay on this has already bankrupted the Lithuanian telescope manufacturer 'Ekranas'.
(PT) Mr Mandelson, this Commission initiative straight away has the merit of promoting debate on a issue to which there are no simple answers. There are sectors in Europe that lean more towards the demagogic and populist responses of those who feel they have simple answers to this question. They may be simple answers, but they are wrong.
The key issue is how the EU should use the trade defence instruments at its disposal to guarantee compliance with the rules of fair trade and to take an active role in the process of regulating international trade.
The European economic and social model must be defended, but it must never overstep the boundary into protectionism. This is currently the most important issue facing the EU.
We have already seen that there are natural differences of opinion and opposing interests within the EU itself. The interests of the manufacturers do not necessarily coincide with those of the major importers, and the immediate interests of consumers do not necessarily coincide with each other. What is needed is a guideline that always emphasises a key principle - that of how the EU will participate actively, seriously and intelligently in the process of regulating international trade. In this context, it must seek to project onto an international scale, within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, some of the basic values that identify it, namely a competitive economy and, at the same time, a society that shows greater solidarity and more cohesion and that is very alert to the preservation of certain key environmental values.
This is the challenge now facing the EU, and I therefore feel that the Commission has done the right thing in promoting this debate.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I too should like to thank the Commission for having opened this debate on the EU's trade defence instruments, and I should also like to congratulate Mr Guardans Cambó on having offered us the opportunity to debate the subject today.
What I find striking about the Commission's questionnaire, or, more broadly speaking, about all its thinking about trade policy, is the lack of any reference whatsoever to the issue of the euro exchange rate against the currencies of our main trading partners. I want to know from Commissioner Mandelson just how he thinks the European Union's trading interests can be effectively defended when the euro stands as it does against the dollar, the yuan and the yen?
If, then, I may take the example of the aerospace industry, which, with its plans for redundancies and cutbacks and its threats of farming work out and of moving it to other sites, holds the centre of the stage today, a ten-cent change in the euro/dollar exchange rate amounts to the loss or gain of a billion euros in Airbus' year-end figures. Is it not the case that competitive currency devaluations on the part of our competitors are the most flagrant examples of dumping, the consequence of these being that Airbus, the flagship of European industry, now finds it does better to produce some of its aircraft outside the euro zone if it wants to be able to compete with Boeing? Just what we always wanted!
I would encourage Commissioner Mandelson to look to the European Central Bank and do something, today, about making it responsible not only when the euro's value goes down but also when it goes up, for has the time not come for the Council and the Commission, by virtue of the powers accorded them by Article 111 of the Treaty, to at last discharge their responsibilities and enable us to equip ourselves with something we cannot do without - the general outlines of an exchange rate policy?
Member of the Commission. Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself.
Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt.
Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person's legitimate protection is another person's protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission.
But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected.
I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either.
I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way.
The debate is closed.
Written statement (Rule 142)
in writing. - (FR) The Commission has adopted a Green Paper and launched a public consultation on the use of the EU's trade defence instruments (TDIs) in a changing global economy. This public consultation should prepare the way for proposals by the Commission aimed at reforming its trade defence instruments (anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard clauses).
This reform project needs, however, to be considered with prudence. The European Union must not act unilaterally or precipitately, for any revision of its instruments must be carried out within the legal framework of the ongoing negotiations on the multilateral disciplines applicable to TDIs, forming part of the Doha round. Quite apart from the need to be in line with the WTO calendar, it is also imperative that the Commission should take into account the fact that the liberalisation of trade makes TDIs indispensable.
TDIs are typically used in moderation and are in no way the straitjackets for which free-traders take them, or the weaponry of protectionists. As regulators, they are in fact effective as means of restoring the conditions of fair competition to international trading markets and of limiting illegal practices' adverse effects on industry, growth and employment in the European Community.


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 24.00)


Common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings - Food additives - Flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties - Food enzymes (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the following recommendations for second reading on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety:
on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (16673/2/2007 - C6-0138/2008 - (Rapporteur: Mrs Westlund);
on food additives (16675/2/2007 - C6-0141/2008 - (Rapporteur: Mrs Westlund);
on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1576/89 and (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 and Directive 2000/13/EC (16677/3/2007 - C6-0139/2008 - - (Rapporteur: Mrs Drčar Murko);
on food enzymes and amending Council Directive 83/417/EEC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, Directive 2000/13/EC, Council Directive 2001/112/EC and Regulation (EC) No 258/97, (16676/1/2007 - C6-0140/2008 - (Rapporteur: Mrs Doyle).
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the Commission, Commissioner Vassiliou and her always helpful staff, the Slovenian Presidency, the Council of Ministers, my fellow rapporteurs, Avril Doyle and Mojca Drčar Murko, and of course the shadow rapporteurs from all the parties for excellent cooperation over the years we have worked on these matters.
I am glad that we have now settled on a compromise which brings simplification for the industry and at the same time strengthens consumer protection in a number of areas. Previously, for example, allergy sufferers were not even mentioned in the legislation. They will be if we approve the compromise tomorrow; it will then be easier in future to take account of how allergy sufferers are affected by additives.
I am also proud that we from Parliament have secured three crucial changes to the new rules. The first relates to so-called azo dyes. These are found, for example, in soft drinks and sweets, despite the fact that it has been shown scientifically that certain azo dyes can render children hyperactive. It was therefore important to me and to Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to get these substances banned. We did not succeed in this because the Member States are strongly opposed to both a ban and special labelling. Despite this opposition we did at least get a commitment that food containing these azo dye substances would be accompanied by a clear warning text.
The second change relates to the environmental effect of additives. An example of the potential of additives to affect the environment is the sweetener sucralose. Sucralose has been found to pass straight through the body and is not treated in our sewage systems. If the compromise is adopted, it will be clear that we have to take the environment into account when we make decisions on additives.
The third change relates to nanotechnology. Under the compromise, if an additive which has already been approved is altered by nanotechnology, it must be counted as a new additive and must be subjected to a new approval procedure.
As regards the regulation on the common authorisation procedure, firstly I welcome the fact that we are now to get such a common procedure. Secondly, it was important to ensure that EFSA is given sufficient time for its evaluations of various substances.
The Greens have tabled an amendment to ban azo dyes, which thus goes against the compromise with the Council on additives. By doing so they put at risk all the improvements mentioned, including a special warning text for azo dyes. I would like to have seen a ban, but it is not possible to get it accepted by the Council of Ministers. I am therefore minded to vote against a ban, since otherwise we risk not getting either a ban or a warning text, which would really not be in the interests of children.
Finally I urge all Members here in the Chamber to support the compromise tomorrow and vote against all other amendments.
rapporteur. - Mr President, flavourings are defined as the addition of odour or taste to meals and are mostly a mixture of a large number of aromatic preparations.
The European Parliament insisted on amendments which it believed would be the basis for a balanced and enforceable regulation taking into account scientific and technological developments. It is known that the Council and Parliament took a different stance on the issue of herbs and spices. Parliament believed that it has not yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt that prepared food in which certain undesirable compounds are naturally present has the same toxicological potential as when they are tested in isolation. Herbs and spices have been used since time immemorial without known adverse effects.
As the rapporteur, I was not seeking complete exemptions for herbs and spices from the limits set out in Annex III. Appropriate exemptions were requested to be granted only where scientific evidence is not complete and, therefore, possibly the situation is not yet mature enough to be harmonised at European level.
The second-reading compromise consisted, therefore, of appropriate guarantees given for some herbs and spices that exempted them from limits set out in Annex III. This helps to maintain the limits as proposed by the Council: 4 out of 11 purified active principles and in respect of some 30 out of 40 food categories. This is the most that could have been achieved and I, therefore, ask the European Parliament to vote for it.
As an individual MEP, however, I still have some concerns that I hope the Commission will take care of during the implementation stage. The compromise in the footnote does not apply when herbs and spices appear together with flavourings in compound food. The unintended effect of this could be that the food industry would move away from herbs and spices because extracts and flavourings are much easier to standardise. Due to the varying levels of active principles in herbs and spices, food manufacturers would have to vary their recipes on a batch-by-batch basis, and this would be very costly. The herbs and spices industry could even be wiped off the European market.
This must not happen because European consumers do not want such a limitation on their right to choose as well as for reasons of public health. The consumer would in this case paradoxically consume higher levels of flavourings, which, according to the so-called purification hierarchy, are closer to the undesirable active principles than herbs and spices. I would appreciate it if the Commissioner could reassure me that possible negative developments will be properly monitored and stopped if necessary.
Mr President, I am going to speak on behalf of the rapporteur, Mrs Doyle. I apologise on her behalf that she is unable to be here, as she is currently on the way to Strasbourg. Mrs Doyle welcomes the compromise with the Council on this Food Improvement Agents package, which is so essential.
Enzymes are added to food to perform a wide range of technological functions in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport or storage of such food. They are most commonly used in baking, beer making, cheese production and the production of alcohol and other beverages. They play an increasingly important role in food production and can be used as an alternative to chemicals in improving the texture, appearance, nutritional value and taste of food. They also help in certain production processes.
This proposal is, in fact, the first specific European Union legislation aimed at food enzymes. There are currently no harmonised rules at Community level controlling the use of enzymes, which not only creates obstacles to trade and a lack of legal certainty, but also different consumer protection standards in the 27 Member States. Only three Member States have their own risk assessment procedures: the United Kingdom, France and Denmark.
Under the new legislation, which we will vote on tomorrow, harmonised rules will be established in the European Union for assessing, approving and controlling the enzymes used in food.
The rapporteur thinks that all of this is very important, as food safety will be improved and consumer choice will be increased, and consumers will have more information on what is in the food they eat.
She particularly welcomes the fact that the Council has agreed that the two authorisation procedures for any substance produced from genetically modified organisms may be carried out simultaneously, thus avoiding double authorisation of these products.
She is also very pleased that the Council has agreed to Parliament's wish to have a single legal basis, namely Article 95 of the EC Treaty, on the internal market, in accordance with the amendment tabled by her at first reading. It is also particularly helpful for the industry that the Council has provided a one-year transition period from the date of entry into force of the proposed Regulation, during which time food that is legally marketed or labelled that year may be sold up until a minimum storage life or the expiry date.
To conclude, the rapporteur would like to thank her colleagues for their support and cooperation, in particular Mrs Westlund and Mrs Drčar Murko and all the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the Slovenian Presidency, for their hard work. We have successfully coordinated four proposals for legislation and we will therefore improve the single market in this field, which promotes European innovation and competitiveness, at the same time ensuring a high level of food safety and environmental protection.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would first like to thank Parliament, and especially the three rapporteurs - Mrs Drčar Murko, Mrs Doyle and Mrs Westlund - for the considerable efforts they have made and the time they devoted to this important legislative package. In particular, I appreciate the efforts to keep the proposals together as a package, therefore achieving a consistent approach on these similar cases.
This legislative package makes an important contribution to the Commission's simplification programme. It provides for harmonisation within the respective fields and also promotes consistency between the three areas. The common authorisation procedure will establish a system for assessing and authorising additives, enzymes and flavourings in a consistent manner.
This is of major importance for consumer safety and the competitiveness of the food industry. The operators would, in particular, benefit fully from the advantage of a centralised, transparent and time-limited procedure.
In relation to the proposal on food additives, the regulation of such substances is important to ensure the safety of food and also to ensure that the consumer is not misled. These criteria, along with the evidence of technological need for the use of food additives, are important prerequisites for the use of food additives. Although these principles are established in the current legislation, I welcome the changes and additional clarifications that have been introduced to strengthen these important aspects. It is also a requirement that the legislation is kept up to date in the light of scientific and technological developments.
In this regard I can, in particular, support the amendments which have been introduced following EFSA's evaluation of the results of the Southampton study. These will require labelling of the possible adverse effects on children's behaviour which has been associated with certain food colours. This labelling will ensure that adequate information is provided to consumers who may wish to avoid these colours.
During the discussions on this proposal, there has also been some concern about the possible allergenic effects of some food colours which are commonly referred to as 'azo colours'. Specific procedures and legislation apply to potentially allergenic foods and I can, therefore, state very clearly that the Commission will request the European Food Safety Authority to explicitly address the potential allergenic effects of azo colours during the re-evaluation of these food additives. If necessary as a result of this re-evaluation the Commission will consider taking appropriate action to amend Annex III, part A, to European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC to provide adequate information to consumers suffering from food allergies.
In relation to enzymes, enzymes have been used traditionally in the production of foods such as bread, cheese, beer and wine. Enzymes can improve the texture, the appearance and the nutritional value of food, and can be used as alternatives to chemical-based technology. Up until now, the legislation on food enzymes has not been fully harmonised in the EU and, as a consequence, this lack of harmonisation has created barriers to trade and hindered growth in this field.
The successful conclusion of this proposed regulation will bridge the current regulatory gap by creating harmonised rules for the scientific evaluation, authorisation and use of food enzymes in the Community.
I would like to welcome the changes that strengthen the precautionary principle and the criterion of not misleading the consumer, which are underlying principles of the proposed regulation. I also welcome the change that clarifies further the interplay between the regulation on enzymes and the GM food and feed legislation.
In relation to flavourings, the proposal offers high protection for the consumer while allowing the industry to continue to develop new flavourings and new applications, in order to respond to the increasing consumer demand for more convenient foods. The framework will enable the European industry to maintain and consolidate its leading position in the global market.
Flavourings are used to impart or modify odour and/or taste of foods for the benefit of the consumer. The use of flavourings should not mislead the consumer about the nature or quality of his or her food. The new rules for the labelling of flavourings will indeed better inform the consumer and help to avoid the consumer being mislead.
During the discussions, there were differences of view on the need to include spices and herbs in the scope of the regulation. The Commission welcomes the agreement that has been found which will improve consumer protection and at the same time takes into the account possible impact on traditional uses.
I have listened carefully to Mrs Drčar Murko and I wish to assure her and also confirm that from the entry into force of the regulation the Commission will carefully monitor, based on information provided by the Member States, the development in the respective use of spices and herbs and natural flavouring extracts. With this information, and taking into account the latest scientific developments with respect to toxicological concern and consumer exposure, it will, if appropriate, propose amendments to Annex III, part B.
Mr President, Commissioner, I am now speaking on my own behalf, and I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Drčar Murko, on the hard work that she has done, and the other shadow rapporteurs as well as the Slovenian Presidency and the Commission, for being prepared to negotiate in order to reach an agreement at second reading on this report. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs for the other reports in the package, Mrs Westlund and Mrs Doyle, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, for their help and collaboration in seeking solutions to the horizontal problems raised by these proposals.
The most controversial subject that has been raised in this proposal on flavourings, from the start of the debate, has been the biologically active principles that are naturally present in herbs and spices, which posed a major problem for herb and spice producers, as they found that they were unable to comply with the requirements of the proposal, given the special nature of their products: different harvesting locations, times of the year in which they were harvested, eating habits in the various countries, etc.
Regarding this aspect, I would like to say that what the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has been aiming for since the start has been consumer protection. I therefore think that it is positive that an agreement has been reached with the Council and the Commission that the maximum levels shall not apply to certain substances where a compound food contains no added flavourings and the only food ingredients with flavouring properties which have been added are fresh, dried or frozen herbs and spices.
To conclude, I would like to welcome the fact that these proposals for legislation on the Food Improvement Agents package are going to be voted on tomorrow, because not only will they bring the legislation up to date but it will also be possible to assess the risks of marketing flavourings, which will provide a great deal of protection for European consumers.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her work, for trying to find a consensus with the shadow rapporteurs and for the efforts made to try to reach the desired agreement between the parties.
The proposal for a Regulation on flavourings aims to clarify and update the rules on the use of flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties taking into account technological and scientific progress in the area of flavouring, developments in food legislation in the European Union and, at the same time, human health protection requirements.
The Regulation lays down the general conditions for the use of flavourings or food ingredients with flavouring properties, it includes a clear definition of flavourings, general rules for their use, rules on labelling and maximum levels for substances that pose a risk to human health. The compromise reached in this second reading process is the result of cooperation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament. Several meetings have been held, the more controversial points have been negotiated and there have been concessions from all sides. The agreement nevertheless reflects the principles of various amendments put forward by Parliament, which take into account two key objectives: informing consumers and protecting their interests, as well as protecting public health.
Flavourings and flavouring substances must be safe and their use should not mislead consumers. In this context, the new legislation lays down maximum levels for certain substances in flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties that are potentially toxic and of risk to human health, taking the European Food Safety Authority's scientific opinions into consideration. These maximum levels do not apply to three substances: estragole, safrole and methyleugenol, when present in compound foods to which no flavourings have been added and only food ingredients with flavouring properties in the form of herbs and/or spices have been added. Nevertheless, this exception shall be reviewed should scientific evidence come to light proving that their consumption carries health risks.
The notion of natural is still confusing for consumers but the new proposal for labelling natural flavourings does correspond more effectively to consumers' expectations as use of the term natural is limited to flavourings obtained from natural flavouring substances where at least 95% of the flavouring component must be obtained from the natural source referred to.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, as regards the regulation on additives, my group welcomed the proposal to modernise and harmonise European legislation and supported the rapporteur Mrs Westlund in her efforts to secure sustainable protection of consumers and their health, in particular the vulnerable groups of the population.
It is a fact of life that food manufacturers respond to the growing demand by steady development of new products, and their diversification is achieved mostly by adding additives. The legislation on foods should be proportionate and balanced while serving public health and guaranteeing a level playing field for food producers.
This principle is simple, but obviously there are many interpretations of it. Where can we achieve a substantial gain in terms of public health but at the same time not hamper the technological development of European food production?
We agreed on sound amendments I think - aiming to safeguard the interests of consumers, in particular with exact labelling - but we wanted to contribute to raising consumer awareness too. I am convinced that informed, attentive consumers can influence very much the production of prepared food in the European Union. We supported the amendments aimed at strengthening the Commission's proposal, particularly on three points: involvement in the authorisation procedure of additives, transparency of the authorisation procedure and specific conditions for authorisation.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, our voters want good, safe food they can trust. Will they get it with these regulations? Parliament has succeeded in getting some improvements accepted. What I am personally very pleased about is that nanotechnology, in particular, will finally be regulated and can no longer be slipped onto the market without proper vetting. The inclusion of the environment as one of the criteria for the approval of additives is an improvement. The fact that the presence of azo dyes must be shown on labels is an improvement. So there are things to be glad about. Moreover, on the point of flavourings, Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that naturally flavoured products will not be completely disadvantaged in favour of the products of the artificial flavourings industry.
Despite this, I am surprised that the Council goes against the wishes of its voters. How can our governments actively oppose a text which says that additives must not mislead consumers into thinking that a food contains ingredients other than those it actually does? How can they actively oppose that? The ministers actively oppose the notion that there must be a special reason for using dyes in otherwise colourless substances. The Council of Ministers actively opposed a ban on azo dyes. They actively opposed a requirement that product labels must show that pesticides used as preservatives are included, so that the consumers would be aware of the fact.
I think that if we approve the proposal for the Greens for a ban on azo dyes in products for children, we shall force the Council out into the open to defend its position in the public debate. After all, it is easy for the Council to stick to its position on such matters when it negotiates with us behind closed doors, but what government will stand up and approve additives which we know lead to hyperactivity in children and which we have good reason to believe gives rise to allergies in children? I wonder whether the Commission could not go straight for a ban. Dyes are after all hardly essential and irreplaceable additives. Besides, there are dyes other than azo dyes. If we insist on applying the precautionary principle, as soon as EFSA has shown that there are allergy risks and a heightened risk of allergy, then all we have to do is to ban it. After that, we no longer need to discuss azo dyes.
I should like to start by expressing my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation on the devil of a job this has been. The end result may not be entirely as I should have liked, but I believe it represents the best that could be achieved in these political conditions.
As I see it, two things take precedence in all these dossiers: maximum consumer protection and complete transparency. As far as I am concerned, economic interests are entirely secondary to these two key concepts. Maximum consumer protection means systematic application of the precautionary principle. If it is not known with 100% certainty that something is safe, market authorisation should not be granted. Misleading the consumer at the time of purchase must also be prevented at all costs. Maximum transparency means that we do not yield to pressure from food multinationals to keep their formulae and production methods secret. Consumers have a right to know exactly what is in their food and the conditions under which it has been produced.
Assessing the four reports in the light of these two principles, I note that, even though they are not always perfect, they represent a clear improvement on the original proposals. They benefit consumer protection and transparency, and therefore I shall be supporting the compromises. It is a shame we were not able to also regulate GM labelling directly.
I should like to add one more thing by way of conclusion. I think it most extraordinary that, in new proposals such as novel foods, the Commission is launching the uniform procedure even before this has Parliament's approval. This does not strike me as showing very great respect for European democracy, to put it mildly.
(SK) I should first of all like to mention the work of Mrs Doyle and to thank her for her attempt to produce a balanced document, intended mainly to protect citizens' health.
Food enzymes are contained in many products consumed every day at every level of society, such as rolls and bread. It is therefore very important to monitor their production. It is also very important to ensure that they are harmless to health and to harmonise such control throughout the European Union.
It is very important to gain the confidence of citizens of the European Union in the preparation of European directives, especially in a period when Europe is being shaken by the scandal of 'rotting cheese recycling'. In order to prevent another such situation, we must concentrate not only on the preparation of a directive, but above all on monitoring its implementation in the various Member States. Since we know that up to 80% of food enzymes are manufactured by four companies, I think that quality control of production should not be a problem. Production methods, however, may become a problem and I therefore believe that Mrs Doyle's report is right to draw attention to this key problem.
(FR) Mr President, at a time when yet another food scandal is erupting in some EU Member States, even if it is doubtless due to fraud on a massive scale, it is no wonder that the consumer is questioning and expressing doubts regarding anything that might seem 'artificial'. The Europe that offers protection also guarantees consumer safety and public health.
Food additives, flavourings and enzymes play an important role in the manufacture of our food. This is why we need clear, harmonised rules regarding the safety, authorisation and sale of these substances in order to protect consumers and above all increase public confidence in the food produced using these substances. It is important, therefore, that the rules are based on reliable scientific opinion.
We also need to fill the legal void that has always existed at European level when it comes to enzymes, which are used in the manufacture of bread or dairy produce, for example. I am delighted to see that additional safeguards have therefore been introduced to ensure transparency through clear and more comprehensible labelling. This is particularly important where these products are also said to be 'natural'.
A key aspect of the draft legislation lies in the introduction of a single common authorisation procedure for food additives, flavourings and enzymes, with a safety assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority for all of these, which are certainly being used increasingly in the food industry.
Of course, Parliament will be watching to see that these substances are monitored. Under no circumstances should food additives endanger the health of consumers or mislead them, because it is absolutely essential that we guarantee consumer protection and food safety while at the same time maintaining the innovativeness and competitiveness of the food industry.
Mr President, I should like to talk to the Commissioner about one of the reports on food additives, and in particularly about the food colourings known as azo dyes. I am extremely pleased that we have some very good news: from now on they will have to be labelled on all food products. I want to congratulate Åsa Westlund, who has worked very hard to get this. When she started out on this work, nobody was suggesting there could be such progress, and yet we have got progress. It is a real improvement on the status quo. But I do not think it goes far enough.
You will be aware I am sure of the study by Southampton University last Autumn which shows a link between the behaviour of children who are fed a cocktail of different sweets and soft drinks and azo dyes. It is a very serious study; it was published in The Lancet. It is peer-reviewed and it is so serious that the United Kingdom, through its Standards Agency, has now called for a ban on these colourings in food products. Many companies in Europe are voting with their feet and are actually phasing them out voluntarily.
The single market is failing on this issue already. It is quite well known that these products have no dietary value, and there are natural flavourings available. I saw something in one of our newspapers asking: 'Do we need an end to Smarties?' (these are very brightly coloured sweets), but there are perfectly good natural alternatives to those colourings available. We do not need to have these colourings.
We welcome what has happened today but hope you will keep working with the European Food Safety Authority to speed up its work on reviewing these substances. I do not think people in Europe want these artificial colourings, and I think we should be looking more at what people need to have in their food, not what companies want to add. I hope you will push the EFSA to work more quickly and to get a resolution to this problem.
Mr President, I wish to speak about the food enzymes proposal on which I was a shadow rapporteur. In that respect I would like to offer my congratulations to Mrs Doyle - and I hope she gets here safely from Ireland tonight - for an excellent report.
I also wish to express my thanks for the very good cooperation afforded to the shadow rapporteurs, a cooperation which was always conducted in a spirit of understanding, an effective exchange of political as well as adequate scientific wisdom.
This cooperation was good enough to produce a much-desired compromise which has widespread support across the political groups of this House, and which I believe contains many eminently sensible parameters which will strengthen the piece of legislation under consideration, and will make it much more effective and more easily applicable.
With this compromise package in mind, I think that the objective of the proposed regulation - which, as is well known, is to harmonise legislation controlling the use of enzymes in food processing in the EU, with the primary aim of protecting human health but also secondarily to promote fair trade and competition - will be very largely achieved.
We are particularly pleased that the precautionary principle, which is held in sacred regard not just by my group of MEPs but by the large majority of MEPs in Parliament in general, features prominently in this report, and this should make European consumers feel that much is being done to secure the protection of their health as regards enzymes in food.
Additionally, special emphasis is placed on guaranteeing that the information given to the consumer is precise and useful.
As expected, the issue of GMO involvement has been an area of some controversy. However, a sufficient compromise has been reached.
In concluding, I wish to say that this is a good report and my group will strongly support it.
Mr President, we talk a great deal here about protecting children. Evidence abounds to suggest that artificial flavourings and supplements are detrimental to the health of children on many counts. Firstly, we can consider the 435% increase we have seen in the rates of children with autism in the last 15 years and the rates of ADHD, which currently affects 3-5% of children. Then we can consider the symptoms attributed to flavourings, of which there are so many, but let us take as an example MSG, which is found in children's sweets, drinks, snacks and dinners. There are 92 symptoms, but among them are hyperactivity and mood irregularities.
As a mother myself, my primary concern in food is safety and transparency. I feel that we are seriously compromising children and their ability to learn when we allow cocktails of colourings, preservatives and additives into their food. Children need good fresh food, grown as locally and naturally as possible. Therefore, let us really begin to protect children.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks to all the rapporteurs, especially Mrs Drčar Murko and Mrs Ayuso, for their constructive cooperation and trust. The Food Improvement Agents package will lead to uniform, harmonised rules on the use of additives becoming applicable throughout Europe. In the future, too, when additives, enzymes and flavourings are used in food, there will be a high level of consumer health protection - which is the way it should be.
The package adapts the current legislation to the technical and scientific developments in the area of food additives. Where there is a scientific basis that indicates health risks, threshold values must be set so as to prevent all hazards.
However, we must not become hysterical or incite unwarranted panic. There are food additives such as konjac, a humectant, and beeswax, an anti-caking agent, which have been used in the preparation of food and drink for centuries. In addition, certain stone fruits such as cherries, peaches and apricots naturally contain small amounts of hydrocyanic acid, yet we have been eating these fruits for thousands of years without any problems. Similarly, some herbs and spices naturally contain substances which, in high concentrations, can cause health problems. Yet we have been using herbs and spices such as basil, tarragon and nutmeg in the preparation of our food since the year dot without any problems, but only in small, safe doses, of course.
I therefore welcome the compromise in the new Regulation on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods. Where there is no cause for concern, exceptions are made to the threshold values, although only when exclusively fresh or dried herbs are used for food preparation. This way, we promote the use of natural products and natural ingredients, so that recipes with thousands of years of history, such as Italian pesto, will be maintained into the future.
(HU) I welcome the fact that, after the REACH regulation and the regulation of pesticides, we are turning to the regulation of the use of frequently condemned chemical substances and food additives.
The effect of the increasing number of scandals has been that European public opinion is thinking about these substances, which are suspicious for consumers, with ever greater concern. An average person consumes approximately 3 kg of the roughly 2 600 different additives with E numbers each year, without being clear about their harmful effects.
There have already been some well-founded accusations relating to a significant proportion of additives. Additives create a false impression in consumers and give foods vivid, bright colours that are not found in nature. In addition to this health risk, they also cause psychological damage to children, accustoming them to unnatural foods when it is precisely a return to natural foods that we must make more popular among young people and adults alike.
I would like to congratulate Mrs Westlund on her report; what she has managed to achieve is that, under the new legislation, additives that are harmful to human health and to the environment may no longer be used in future. It is important that hazardous substances like the azo food colourings that cause hyperactivity in childhood at least be marked on foods, although I also agree with my fellow Members that we should have adopted a ban.
I do, however, regret the fact that, despite the recommendation of the Parliament, additives containing GMOs need not be marked strictly. A large part of the European population does not want to consume foods containing GMOs, and according to the polls 90% of them expect to know whether or not a given food contains GMOs. We cannot neglect our citizens' healthy concern and right to information to this extent.
By the way, a few of my colleagues and I are protesting in a statement that the Commission wants to introduce new GMOs to Europe by stealth. We must protect everyone's right to natural, healthy foods.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we owe our thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Westlund. She worked with a great deal of commitment and very cooperatively. I welcome this, and it means we can also be happy with the result. I believe that the new Regulation on food additives has achieved a satisfactory result for both manufacturers and consumers.
The current legislation on food additives is almost 20 years old. With the transfer of new directives and two decisions into two regulations, the text has been simplified and updated in accordance with new technological and scientific developments. It is a very good achievement to have a positive list that clearly states which substances can be used. I believe this is a good thing, and I am also in agreement with the use of the comitology procedure when new substances have to be added. We should act quickly here.
I am satisfied with the rules on GM products. We need both authorisation procedures - there will be assessments - and so I do not see why we should not proceed accordingly here, as some Members have said. Granted, thinking about azo dyes - the results of the Southampton study are indeed available - we also have to take note of the fact that the European Food Safety Authority has developed a study that has published an initial verdict in which it clearly states that the Southampton University study is not infallible. It is not 100% reliable. We must not become hysterical and start striking out because a procedure has been instituted.
The licensing procedure via the Food Safety Authority is excellent, but what bothers me - and here I should like to ask the Commission to have a rethink - is that we are giving the Food Safety Authority nine months for authorisation or risk analysis. The Commission also needs nine months to take a risk management decision. A business must therefore wait 18 months before receiving permission to place the product on the market. This is a long way from bureaucracy reduction, so we really ought to put some thought into how it could be done more quickly.
(PL) Mr President, the entry into force of new regulations concerning the principles for the use of artificial additives (enzymes, flavourings) in food products not only unifies legislation in this area, but also supports consumer health protection and facilitates food sales within the European Union. Harmonisation of enzyme use in the EU has the backing of the European food industry, which is concerned not only with the unification of principles, but also, above all, that consumers do not lose faith in their products.
As one such consumer, I would like to be sure that the food I buy is safe. The hundreds of artificial additives and the thousands of flavourings added to foods must not harm our health. Quality requirements must ensure that safety is fully maintained. It is important for foods to retain their natural character to the greatest possible extent.
(PL) Mr President, there are three issues in this debate to which I would like to draw attention.
Firstly, support must be given to the European Commission in its efforts to unify the procedures for issuing permits to use food additives - enzymes and flavourings - in the European Union, and particularly to increase the transparency of these procedures.
Secondly, the procedures for issuing permits must be directed towards maximum protection of consumer health. The consumer should be convinced that both European and national institutions are on the alert to provide him or her with maximum health protection and that, thanks to their functioning, he or she is getting healthy food that is as natural and safe as it can be.
Thirdly and finally, the principles of fully informing the consumer about the additives contained in food must be observed. Information on this subject must be clearly marked on the pack, and also drawn up in language that is clear and comprehensible to the consumer.
(DE) Mr President, I should very much like you to support the proposals put forward by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, because we want a ban on azo dyes. European consumer policy is characterised by safety, but also by the application of the precautionary principle. Without a ban, the precautionary principle would be trampled underfoot. Furthermore, there is technically no need for azo dyes because alternatives exist. This therefore amounts to deceiving the consumer; it leads people to believe something that is not really the case.
I would urge you again to take this alarming study seriously and really apply the precautionary principle - which, after all, we have enshrined in European law. I would also urge you once more to also close the labelling gap for additives manufactured using genetic technology - we are currently trying to close the labelling gap for GM products of animal origin, and it would be downright ludicrous if we did not take this opportunity.
What we need is a well-rounded authorisation procedure that takes due account of the precautionary principle but has no labelling gaps, and in which consumers have the right to make a free choice about what they eat.
(SK) I appreciate the efforts of the rapporteur to achieve greater transparency in the process of approving food additives, flavourings and enzymes and to strengthen consumer protection, especially for those who are allergic to certain substances.
Food additives should be constantly monitored and reassessed on the basis of changing conditions of use and new scientific information. Many of them are manufactured from chemicals and, in long-term use, may have a negative effect on health. It is therefore very important to mark the products in a way which is clear and obvious to consumers. This involves consumer products and there may be consequences associated with inadequate or no product marking.
I should also like to stress my view that, for example, genetically modified foodstuffs should be clearly and legibly marked, as in Canada for example where they consume canola or rape seed oil.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome the successful conclusion of this package of proposals and hope that Parliament will support the compromise proposal tomorrow. More importantly, this package will strengthen consumer protection and food safety. I particularly note some of the difficult issues which have been discussed and appreciate the desire to find a compromise. In this respect I would like to express once again my thanks to the three rapporteurs for their hard work and for the very good cooperation that they had with the Commission in order to reach this compromise proposal.
In particular, I would like to thank Mrs Westlund for her efforts in relation to the colourings. She knows very well that the Commission supported her proposals. We have reached a compromise proposal, but I assure you we will not remain complacent. We have already asked the EFSA to re-evaluate all their authorised additives, and if the EFSA's opinion indicates that direction we will not be hesitant in applying new rules regarding these additives.
I would like to say this in general as well because, as I said, the EFSA re-evaluates all the substances. If at any time for any substance the position of the EFSA indicates that there is any risk to human health, we will not hesitate in making use of our prerogative and push for an amendment.
There was a question regarding enzymes and the GM Food and Feed Regulation. If an enzyme is extracted from a genetically-modified organism which is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, its GM origin will be indicated on the label. However, the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 excludes food, including enzymes produced by fermentation using genetically-modified micro-organisms. The purpose of this proposal is to catch these enzymes for the safety assessment authorisation, but not for specific GM labelling.
Mention was made regarding the period of nine months given to the Commission to make its risk management. The proposal provides for nine months for the Commission to present a proposal to the standing committee for an opinion. This is the maximum time proposed and of course in many cases proposals for updating the list will be presented in a shorter time. However, there are cases, notably for food additives, where nine months will be necessary for the Commission to consult Member States and all relevant stakeholders on various matters. This can only be achieved if adequate time is available for the stakeholders to respond, so I think that a maximum of nine months is not an exaggerated period.
I would like to end by thanking you once again for your cooperation and I look forward to the adoption of the proposal at tomorrow's sitting.
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, let me once again thank Commissioner Vassiliou for her support on azo dyes. We really appreciate that this was one of the first matters you had to attend to when you took office. It showed that you are ready to take up your responsibility in the Commission, not just to follow EFSA's recommendations, but also to make it your business to undertake an independent assessment of all aspects associated with the legislation. You have really shown that you are ready to take up that responsibility.
I think that the debate here this evening has made it clear that the European Parliament will of course also be closely following EFSA's review of the allergenic effects of azo dyes and will be looking closely at the Commission's position on that assessment. It goes without saying that we shall also examine other studies which will be presented on the effects of azo dyes on children's behaviour, for example, in order possibly to return to this matter later.
Finally I would also like to say that it is one thing to draft legislation, but the legislation also has to be applied. I think that many consumers share my view that we are in fact often tricked in the shops today. I would like the Member States - and I think this is a justifiable demand - to tighten up their inspection systems and, together with the Commission, ensure that the legislation we have to vote on tomorrow is actually followed and complied with, so that consumers will not get home, for example, with a pot of fruit yoghurt believing it to contain a lot of fruit or berries, only to discover that it contains nothing but dyes when they read the package carefully.
(FR) Mr President, the food industry uses 300 food additives, 2 600 natural or artificial flavourings, plus traditional diastases or enzymes and also azo dyes. This is why our laws need to be harmonised. Since it concerns goose and duck liver, preserved truffles or snails, we can clearly understand why there are a dozen laws, plus the four regulations tabled for a common authorisation procedure with the list of products.
Yes, these additives increase the risk of sometimes serious allergies, but perhaps the precautionary principle has been taken too far here. In 2008, a year when the global food crisis is rampant, when, Mr President, Italy is selling us dioxin-contaminated mozzarella, a business worth EUR 10 million, I find it hard to believe that the 15 million unemployed in Europe should be particularly worried by enzymes and flavourings, although it is typical of the European Union to concern itself with the infinitely small in an infinitely large world.
Mr President, in addition to what has already been said today, I wish to reiterate that flavourings have considerable market value. When harmonising national rules aiming at securing the microbiological safety of prepared food, European legislators must be aware of the sensibility of the area and try to avoid distortions of the market. I hope that this will be the case, and I thank Commissioner Vassiliou for the statement she made today.
We have come a long way with the Council and the Commission by clearing up contentious areas, excluding as many ambiguities as possible and reaching the second-reading agreement.
Apart from food safety and the strengthening of the internal market, other consumer interests also needed to be taken into account. Prominent among them was the desire for food to be as natural as possible. It is not necessarily the case that all flavourings are safe from a toxicological point of view and, at the same time, beneficial to consumers. Parliament wanted to highlight in particular the right of the consumer to choose.
In the procedure for approval of flavourings, 'reasonable technological need', for example, tackles other European strategies, such as the fight against obesity, since the addition of excessively potent flavourings can mask the poor quality of prepared food. I think that this has been made clear enough in the recitals.
Concluding, I wish to thank all who were involved in the work on the food improvement agents package and helped us to make practicable and enforceable regulations.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - I would like first of all to congratulate the rapporteurs on these reports on food additives, enzymes and flavouring. It is essential that our Parliament pays the utmost attention to these regulations as they have a huge impact on public health and we ought therefore to ensure that the amendments we supported on first reading are included in the final text.
Protecting consumers' interests and ensuring food security must remain here our first priorities. We should - in line respect to the precautionary principle - avoid the use of certain compounds for which we lack reliable data and independent scientific assessment on their consequences on consumers' health. We ought indeed to ensure quality and safe food for our citizens and should therefore develop efficient methodologies to list and monitor the effects on consumers' health of potentially dangerous compounds.
Moreover, we have to increase transparency in the production, the labelling and the authorisation procedures as well as harmonising regulations on additives, enzymes and flavouring to set up a coherent regulatory package ensuring better consumer protection and public health. While ensuring consumer's protection the real challenge is to actually regain consumers' confidence and ensure a quality food production for their benefit.


Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)


Composition of political groups: see Minutes


8. Engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme (


Voting time
The next item is Voting Time.
(For results and other details of the votes: see Minutes)


30. Discharge 2005: Section III, Commission (vote)
- Report: Garriga Polledo
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to table an oral amendment intended to remove two footnotes in paragraphs 37 and 108 of the report, on pages 16 and 25 of the English version. This is because both footnotes are redundant and contribute nothing to the report. I would call upon all of the groups in the House to accept this oral amendment, please.
(The oral amendments were accepted)


Welcome
I should like to welcome Monsignor Jorge Ortiga, Archbishop of Braga, together with the bishops and the Portuguese episcopal delegation accompanying him.
Your Grace, may I take this opportunity to express our solidarity and our condolences to the people of Portugal, especially the people of Madeira, who have suffered greatly over the past few days. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them.


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For outcome of the vote and other information on the vote: see Minutes)


1. (
- Before the vote on Amendment 2
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, I wonder whether it might be advisable in this case, given that the amendments have been agreed between various groups, to take a block vote on these amendments, unless there is any opposition from the House.
(Parliament gave its assent.)


3. The performance and sustainability of the European aviation system (
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (RO) Parliament reached an agreement with the Council and this agreement is supported by five political groups. I am referring to the two reports which follow.
Thanks to the amendments submitted by two of our fellow Members - incidentally, the content of these amendments has already been included in the compromise agreed with the Council -, we must vote today on a number of articles.
Rules which I regard as incorrect have meant that the order of vote includes in some articles the text from the Committee on Transport and Tourism first and then the compromise text. I would like to request for us to vote on the compromise text today as it is actually supported by the five political groups, so that the two regulations come into force by the end of this legislature.
- Thank you for your comments. We will in fact get to where you would like to be by following the voting list and voting on the amendments.