Conciliation over health claims looks likely
reaching an agreement over the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Made
on Foods proposal without conciliation looked more unlikely than
ever at a first exchange of views in advance of the second reading.
At yesterday's meeting of the Environmental Committee, MEPs vented their frustration that the Council of Ministers has not taken on board the majority of the amendments made at the first reading. EEP-ED Shadow Rapporteur Renate Sommer MEP called the Council's common position "scandalous".
Chris Whitehouse, MD of the Whitehouse Consultancy, said: "The Council and Commission accepted around one seventh of the Parliament's first reading amendments. There is little surprise that MEPs are angry and frustrated."
If the two do not reach an agreement at second reading, 25 MEPs and 25 representatives from Member States will have to hammer it out at a conciliation behind closed doors.
Miguel Fernandez da Silva, an advisor for European Advisory Services told NutraIngredients.com: "We all think it is very likely. Everyone wants to avoid conciliation, but the situation is very tense and I think they will not come to an agreement."
There are two main points over which Parliament and Council disagree. The first is over article four, on nutrient profiling. Under the original proposal foods with a high content of substances regarded as detrimental to health, such as sugar or fat would be barred from carrying health claims even if they were also rich in or fortified with other beneficial nutrients.
Parliament deleted the article at the first reading, but in its common position the Council disregarded Parliament's position and kept it in.
The question now is whether Parliament will try to delete it again, or propose another way forward.
The problem is that there is no clear consensus within Parliament. While the Socialists and the Liberals are both split between for and against, the Christian Democrats are mostly against it.
However an absolute majority vote of more than 367 MEPS must be obtained in order for the article to be deleted again - and since this is more than the votes in favour of the deletion at first reading it seems unlikely this will be achieved.
"They will probably have to work on some kind of compromise," said da Silva.
One compromise, put forward by German MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, would to adopt a disclosure option.
This would mean that even if foods do not respect the nutrient profiling they would still be able to make health claims as long as this is indicated on the label - that is, own up to their high sugar, fat, salt content.
"This idea looks like a compromise," said da Silva. "People are discussing it a lot."
The second point of disagreement is over authorisation procedure. At the first reading the Parliament adopted a notification procedure, which would allow manufacturers to put a product on the market with a specific health claim without receiving authorization in advance. If doubts were raised over scientific basis on the claim, EFSA would then be called on to make a decision.
The notification procedure would be quicker and cheaper for manufacturers, and would be particularly helpful for small and medium enterprises. Again, however, the Council disregarded Parliament's opinion.
Da Silva said that it is likely that Parliament will put forward the notification at the second reading once again, since it already had an absolute majority in favour of this at first reading.
The deadlines for amendments for February 15, the vote in committee for March 21 and the vote in plenary during the May 15 to 18 sitting.
If the stale mate remains at the end of this process, Parliament and Council will proceed into conciliation to seek a compromise and a way forward.
