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
|
