Select Committee on European Legislation Seventeenth Report


LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC DRINKS

9. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance, but make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:-

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(17902) 5954/97 COM(97)20 Draft Directive amending 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.
Legal base: Article 100a; co-decision; qualified majority voting.

Background

    9.1  The long-running consideration of a package of proposed amendments to this Directive was finally agreed on 10 January 1997. The labelling of alcoholic drinks was dropped from the package in June 1995 because agreement could not be reached on a suitable requirement. The Commission has now revived the proposal for mandatory ingredient listing to be extended to alcoholic beverages when alcoholic strength is more than 1.2% by volume.

The Commission proposal

    9.2  The Commission argues that, since some Member States have adopted national provisions making the listing of ingredients compulsory for certain alcoholic drinks, including beer, there is a need for common requirements to avoid the creation of new barriers to trade. It has therefore re-launched the proposal first put forward to the Council in April 1992[24]. It argues that the new proposals take account of criticisms voiced during discussion on the previous proposal "... particularly regarding the maximum time limit for adopting the rules for the labelling of ingredients and the simultaneous entry into force for all beverages of the obligation to label the ingredients." The rules will be adopted no later than 30 June 2001. In those cases where there was an appropriate product sector management committee, for example, for wine, the rules will be adopted through management Committee procedure, with the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs determining rules for products not covered by a specific product sector.

The Government's view

    9.3  In her Explanatory Memorandum of 7 March, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs Browning) says:

        "When this proposal was discussed in 1992, the main concerns of producers and traders of alcohol drinks were that the resulting rules should be both practicable and capable of uniform application across the different product sectors. The present text does not meet these concerns: by permitting different committees to adopt different rules for different alcoholic drink sectors it risks creating uneven application of the principle and potential confusion among consumers."

    9.4  The Parliamentary Secretary adds that interested parties are currently being consulted about the proposal and the Government's aim is to ensure that any rules, if adopted, would provide information which was helpful to consumers and did not place unreasonable burdens on industry.

    9.5  The Government has given us a preliminary Compliance Cost Assessment, which indicates that the total number of prepacked product lines in the alcoholic drink sector is between 3,000 and 4,000. Changes in the labels would be required for each of them, and these could cost anything from £500 to £1000 per product. However, since labels are revised on a 3 to 5 year cycle, an adequate transitional period would lower the cost; if the changes were likely to be substantial the cost would obviously be at the higher end. 700 interested parties representing and including the brewing, distilling and retail trade, consumers and enforcement authorities are being consulted, with responses requested by 21 March. The Government will submit a final Compliance Cost Assessment as soon as possible after that.

Conclusion

    9.6  We note the concern of the producers and traders that rules should be capable of uniform application across the different product sectors, and we also note that the cost to UK enforcement authorities is likely to increase significantly. The Parliamentary Secretary indicates that it is unlikely that discussion in the Council will start until July. We would like to see the response to the full Compliance Cost consultation before making a final recommendation; we are therefore not clearing the document at this stage.

24  (12762) 7001/92; see HC 79-iii (1992-93), paragraph 9 (1 July 1992). Back


 
previous page contents next page
House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 24 March 1997