Mostrando postagens com marcador União Europeia/Unión Europea. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador União Europeia/Unión Europea. Mostrar todas as postagens

sexta-feira, maio 20, 2022

💡 FRANCIA: ¿Una buena idea para mejorar la comprensión de la fecha de caducidad ("use by") en el etiquetado alimentario?

 



No cabe duda de que las fechas de durabilidad, reguladas siguiendo las normativas de la Unión Europea, confunden más que informan al consumidor y esta desorientación tiene un impacto notable, por ejemplo, en el despilfarro y perdidas de alimentos.

El hecho de que Francia en cumplimiento de lo previsto en la Directiva (UE) 2015/1535, de 9 de septiembre de 2015, por la que se establece un procedimiento de información en materia de reglamentaciones técnicas y de reglas relativas a los servicios de la sociedad de la información[1] un proyecto de Decreto sobre normas detalladas para informar a los consumidores sobre la idoneidad de los productos alimenticios para el consumo después de su fecha de duración mínima.

Al hacerlo, Francia, cumplió su obligación, impuesta a todos los Estados miembros de la Unión de informar a la Comisión de su intención de adoptar una normativa técnica antes de propulgarla.

Dicho proyecto incluye una interesante propuesta[2], que si no se plantean objeciones será aplicable a todos los productos alimenticios preenvasados con una fecha de duración mínima:

«El Decreto se adopta de conformidad con el artículo L. 412-7 del Código de Consumo derivado del artículo 35 de la Ley n.º 2020-105, de 10 de febrero, de lucha contra los residuos y de economía circular. Especifica las indicaciones que deben seguir los profesionales cuando opten, según lo permite el artículo L. 412-7 del Código de Consumo, por informar a los consumidores de que un producto alimenticio sigue pudiendo consumirse una vez transcurrida su fecha de duración mínima.

Se ofrecen tres posibilidades:

- añadir las palabras «Para un sabor óptimo», antes de indicar la fecha de duración mínima,

- la indicación «Este producto podrá consumirse después de esta fecha» o cualquier indicación que tenga el mismo significado para el consumidor, en el mismo campo visual que la fecha de duración mínima, o

- la combinación de estos enunciados.

 

Opinamos que esta proposición podría ser copiada por otros Estados o, incluso mejor: que se modificara el Reglamento vigente en materia de etiquetado alimentario para incluir esa solución; y decimos solución porque os consumidores a menudo confunden las fechas de caducidad[3] con las fechas de duración mínima, lo que lleva a desechar productos que todavía pueden consumirse y a desperdiciar alimentos. 

Por consiguiente, Francia propone una indicación adicional a la fecha de duración mínima prevista en el Reglamento (UE) n.º 1169/2011, a fin de informar de forma más clara de que el producto sigue pudiendo consumirse una vez superada su fecha de duración mínima.

Se trata de una indicación que podrán colocar voluntariamente los operadores, a la espera de la finalización de la revisión del Reglamento (UE) n.º 1169/2011 anunciada sobre este asunto.

Luis González Vaqué              




 


[2] Texto del proyecto notificado disponible (en español) en: https://app.box.com/s/b0mecbcetu3khvjvgf94j2aa9kjs4m5f 

[3] “Fecha de caducidad” es una errónea versión, nunca corregida por las autoridades competentes, de “the minimum durability date – use by date”.

 

 

 

 

quarta-feira, dezembro 29, 2021

PARLAMENTO EUROPEO: Consulta pública sobre la legislación relativa a plantas producidas por determinadas nuevas técnicas genómicas

 

• 22 de noviembre de 2021 - Claudia Gamon y Jan Huitema – [P-005228/2021] - Tema: Consulta pública sobre la legislación relativa a plantas producidas por determinadas nuevas técnicas genómicas[1]

 


Basándose en las conclusiones de su estudio, la Comisión propone la adopción de una legislación sobre plantas producidas mediante determinadas nuevas técnicas genómicas (NGT). Entre el 24 de septiembre y el 22 de octubre de 2021 se realizó una consulta pública online. Los Verdes / EFA y varias organizaciones alimentarias internacionales llevaron a cabo una campaña eficaz mediante formularios precompletados utilizando la aplicación ‘Proca’[2]. Se enviaron 70.894 comentarios en total[3].

 

1. ¿Conoce la Comisión el uso de presentaciones estándar automatizadas en este proceso de consulta pública, específicamente a través de aplicaciones como ‘Proca’ que permiten a los participantes enviar más de una respuesta a la página de comentarios de la consulta pública?

 

2. ¿Cree que puede resultar una imagen distorsionada debido al uso de presentaciones estándar y, de no ser así, por qué no?

 

3. ¿Puede indicar cómo utilizará los resultados de esta campaña en el análisis que conducirá a recomendaciones sobre legislación para plantas producidas por NGT, y cómo garantizará que los resultados no se vean afectados negativamente por respuestas unilaterales como estas?

 

Respuesta de la Sra. Kyriakides en nombre de la Comisión Europea (20 de diciembre de 2021):

 

«1. En el curso de la recepción de los comentarios sobre la evaluación de impacto inicial de la legislación sobre plantas producidas mediante determinadas técnicas genómicas nuevas, la Comisión recibió 70.894 respuestas, de las cuales el 98% se identificaron como procedentes de campañas[4]. En el sitio web del grupo Verdes / Alianza Libre Europea (ALE) del Parlamento Europeo se puso a disposición una plantilla de respuesta precompilada y modificable por el usuario; también se publicaron plantillas similares en los sitios web de organizaciones no gubernamentales.

 

2. De acuerdo con las orientaciones para la mejora de la legislación, la Comisión comprueba sistemáticamente si las contribuciones se crean artificialmente o si las respuestas proceden de campañas. Las respuestas de la campaña se consultarán y analizarán por separado de las respuestas individuales que no pertenecen a la campaña. El análisis de la retroalimentación está actualmente en curso.

 

3. La Comisión está plenamente comprometida a recopilar las opiniones de todos los interesados, informar de forma transparente sobre los resultados de las actividades de consulta y sobre cómo se utilizan las contribuciones en el proceso de formulación de políticas. Las aportaciones de los ciudadanos, las empresas y la sociedad civil se publican en el informe de evaluación de impacto, junto con explicaciones sobre cómo se tiene en cuenta esta información.».

 



[1] Traducción no oficial; lenguas originales: alemán y holandés.

 

[2] https://proca.app/

 

[3] https://schillipaeppa.net/2021/10/21/demokratie-sabotiert/

 

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/br_toolbox_-_nov_2021_-_chapter_7.pdf

 

sexta-feira, dezembro 03, 2021

✔️ Parlamento Europeo: Pregunta y respuesta sobre el Acuerdo UE-Mercosur (15 de septiembre de 2021)

 


• 15 de septiembre de 2021 – Alexander Bernhuber – [P-004254/2021] - Tema: Discurso sobre el estado de la Unión[1]

 

La presidenta de la Comisión, Ursula von der Leyen, mencionó en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión que la Comisión tiene la intención de presentar una propuesta para prohibir la importación de productos fabricados mediante trabajo forzoso.

 

1. ¿En qué medida se ajusta esta propuesta al resultado de las negociaciones sobre el acuerdo comercial UE-Mercosur?

 

2. ¿La propuesta actual de acuerdo comercial UE-Mercosur prohíbe la importación de bienes producidos mediante trabajo forzoso?

 

3. ¿Cómo piensa la Comisión garantizar el cumplimiento de esta propuesta en terceros países y cómo piensa supervisar su aplicación?

 

Respuesta del Vicepresidente ejecutivo Dombrovskis en nombre de la Comisión Europea (17 de noviembre de 2021):

 

La presidenta de la Comisión anunció en el discurso sobre el estado de la Unión 2021[2] que la UE prohibirá la comercialización en su mercado interior de los bienes producidos con trabajo forzoso, sin importar dónde tuvo lugar el trabajo forzoso. La Comisión está analizando actualmente opciones legislativas para introducir tal medida. En esta etapa no es posible proporcionar detalles específicos, incluido el cumplimiento y el seguimiento de su implementación.

 

Como se establece en la Comunicación sobre el examen de las políticas comerciales de 18 de febrero de 2021[3], la Comisión tiene la intención de utilizar diferentes instrumentos para garantizar que el comercio sea sostenible, responsable y coherente con los valores y compromisos internacionales, incluidos los acuerdos comerciales, las normas de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) y otras medidas autónomas.

 

El acuerdo UE-Mercosur, aunque todavía no ha entrado en vigor, contiene, como todos los acuerdos comerciales más recientes celebrados por la UE con terceros países, un Capítulo de Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible que establece compromisos para las partes en cuestiones laborales, sociales y medioambientales, incluido el trabajo forzoso. En particular, el artículo 4.3 del capítulo establece que cada Parte respetará, promoverá e implementará eficazmente las normativas laborales fundamentales reconocidas internacionalmente, tal como se definen en los acuerdos fundamentales de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), incluida la Convención sobre el trabajo forzoso de la OIT (C029) y la Convención sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso (C105). Además, recordando que la eliminación del trabajo forzoso es uno de los objetivos de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible de las Naciones Unidas, las Partes subrayan en el artículo 4.5 la importancia de la ratificación y la aplicación efectiva del Protocolo de 2014 del Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso (P029).».

 



[1] Traducción no oficial; lengua original: alemán.

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/soteu_2021_address_en_0.pdf 

[3] Comunicación de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones “Examen de las políticas comerciales: una política comercial abierta, sostenible y asertiva”, 18.2.2021 - COM (2021) 66 final: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/february/tradoc_159438.pdf





 


quarta-feira, novembro 17, 2021

🧭 Nutriscore: A high-level dialogue between science, citizens and operators (Virtual Event) - 23 de noviembre de 2021

Draft Agenda 

 14h00 Welcome Speech 

 Yves Madre, President, Farm Europe (France). 

  

14h05 Opening Remarks 

 Francesco Capozzi, Professor, Head of Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Agrofood Research, University of Bologna (Italy). 

 Luis González Vaqué, Professor, Director of Food and Agrarian Policies of the “Fundación Triptolemos” (Spain).

 Nicolai Worm, Nutritionist, University of Munich (Germany). 

 

14h30 Round Table 

Ettore Prandini, President, Coldiretti (Italy). 

Sergio Martín Rubio, Director of Technical and Legislation Department, ANICE (Spain). 

Luciano Stella, Founder, No-Nutriscore Alliance (Belgium). 

Sebastien Vignette, Secretary-General, Roquefort Confederation (France) – invited. 

Marco Campomenosi, MEP, ID (Italy). 

Paolo De Castro, MEP, S&D (Italy). 

Dolors Montserrat, MEP, EPP (Spain) – invited

Adrian Vázquez Lazara, MEP, RE (Spain) – invited

Marc Tarabella, MEP, S&D (Belgium).

 

15h45 Conclusions

Representative from the European Commission – invited.

 

Information and registration:

nutrition@eat-europe.eu


l.stella@mustconsulting.com

https://www.farm-europe.eu/contact-us/

 



 

segunda-feira, abril 13, 2020

Unión Europea: Coronavirus: Added Flexibility for carrying out Official Controls on the Agri-food Chain




In response to the Coronavirus pandemic, the EU Commission has published an implementing regulation  [en español: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32020R0466&from=EN ] providing greater flexibility to Member States when carrying out official controls on the agri-food chain. This measure is aimed at facilitating the continued movement of animals, plants, food and feed into and within the EU, in spite of the current circumstances, while also helping to prevent the spread of Covid-19 amongst or through those involved in administering official controls.


  • For inspections, veterinary and phytosanitary controls on animals, plants, food and feed may exceptionally be carried out using specifically designated persons (e.g. where staff of competent authorities cannot reach the place where the control should be carried out, due to movement restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of the Coronavirus) (Article 3).

  • For border checks, electronically submitted documents may exceptionally be accepted for completing checks if the person responsible commits to provide the original as soon as possible (Article 4).

  • For testing and analysis, designated laboratories can exceptionally be used where normally used official laboratories are not available (Article 5).

  • Physical meetings with operators may be replaced by contacts using available means of communication (Article 5).

Notwithstanding this added flexibility, it has been emphasised that the measure does not modify the substantive rules set out in EU legislation regulating public and animal health, food and feed safety and animal welfare.


Official Controls

The general principles with regard to feed and food law applicable in the European Union are laid down in Regulation (EC) 178/2002. In addition to those basic rules, further legislation addresses more specific feed and food law areas such as feed and food hygiene, food information for consumers and labelling, pesticides, feed and food additives, materials in contact with food, quality and compositional requirements, novel foods, foods for specific groups, health claims, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to name but a few.


While one of the core tenets of European food regulation provided for in Regulation (EC) 178/2002 is that ultimate responsibility for compliance with relevant legislation rests with food business operators themselves, Member States are required to enforce EU feed and food legislation as well as monitor and verify that the relevant requirements are fulfilled by business operators at all stages of the agri-food chain.



"Official Controls" are therefore defined as any form of control that a competent authority or the European Community performs for the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. In Ireland, the competent authority in this regard is the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.



Recent Developments

Most of the provisions of a new Official Controls Regulation (the "NOCR") took effect on 14 December 2019. In this jurisdiction, the NOCR is also supplemented by the European Union (Official Controls in Relation to Food Legislation) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 79/2020) published on 20 March 2020. These new Irish Regulations revoke the European Communities (Official Control of Foodstuffs) Regulations 2010 and the European Communities (Official Control of Foodstuffs) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.


The following are some of the key changes introduced by the NOCR:

  1. "Other Official Activities"

Article 2 of the NOCR introduces a definition for what are termed "other official activities", which cover activities performed by competent authorities or delegated bodies other than "official controls". These "other official activities" include certain enforcement measures and/or remedial actions following non-compliance as well as the management of lists of registered/approved food and feed business operators or the issuance of official certificates. The NOCR sets out rules necessary to ensure that such activities are properly and effectively performed.


  1. Food Fraud

The general risk-based approach provided for in existing legislation, and detailed in Article 9 of the NOCR, is maintained. However, further provisions now clarify that competent authorities are required to carry out regular risk-based official controls directed at identifying and combatting fraudulent and deceptive practices by food business operators. Article 139(2) also provides that Member States shall ensure that financial penalties for violations of the provisions of the NOCR, perpetrated through fraudulent or deceptive practices, reflect either the economic advantage for the operator or, as appropriate, a percentage of the operator's turnover.


  1. Online Trading and Mystery Shoppers

Owing to the specific challenges arising from monitoring enforcement and ensuring compliance in the digital sphere, Article 15 of the NOCR includes provisions requiring food business operators to keep competent authorities updated regarding their online activities. Articles 35 and 36 of the NOCR relating to ‘second expert opinion’ and ‘sampling of animals and goods offered for sale by means of distance communication’ also provide that competent authorities may also now engage in mystery-shopping where they can purchase products online, disclosing only afterwards their official identity and the objective to perform an official control. Samples ordered online from operators by the competent authorities without identifying themselves may be used for the purposes of an official control, however, the operator is informed of this fact, and of their right to a second expert opinion, after authorities have taken possession of samples. Article 138(2) also makes provision for the closing of internet sites in the event of proven non-compliance.


  1. Witnesses and Whistleblowers

Article 140 relates to the reporting of infringements and provides that competent authorities have effective mechanisms to enable reporting of actual or potential infringements. These mechanisms must include procedures for the receipt of reports of infringements and their follow-up. These mechanisms must also include appropriate protection for persons reporting an infringement against retaliation, discrimination or other types of unfair treatment as well as the protection of the personal data of the person reporting an infringement.


  1. Transparency Requirements

Transparency requirements for competent authorities are clarified in Article 11 of the NOCR by identifying the minimum level of information which must be made public and at what frequency. Competent authorities are required to provide food business operators with copies of reports where non-compliance has been detected as well as where compliance has been achieved. New provisions regulate the delegation of specific tasks relating to ‘other official activities’ and the conditions to be met for delegating certain official tasks. The NOCR also expands upon the European Union’s existing legal basis for the financing of official controls. This includes, in particular at Article 85, a greater emphasis on transparency.


  1. Import Controls

Articles 43 – 77, 90, 126 -128 and Article 134 of the NOCR contain revised rules regarding import controls and import conditions on animals and goods arriving in the European Union from third countries. These changes are intended to create a common framework for all goods covered by the NOCR across the agri-food chain. Central to this project is the re-designation of all existing specialised border facilities, such as Designated Points of Entry (DPEs) and Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) as Border Control Posts (BCPs). Furthermore, existing entry documents, such as the Common Entry Document (CED) for high-risk food not of animal origin and the Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) for products of animal origin, will be amalgamated as Common Health Entry Documents (CHEDs). These systemic changes will be underpinned by a new Information Management System for Official Controls (IMSOC). This platform will link existing systems, such as RASFF and TRACES, rather than replacing any elements of the Commission’s existing IT monitoring infrastructure.


  1. National Reference Laboratories & Official Control Laboratories

National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) & official control laboratories (OCLs) will see minor changes to the responsibilities placed upon them (Articles 34, 38, 40, 42, 92, 94, 100 & 101), although the changes for NRLs have applied since April 2018. Changes to the responsibilities of OCLs (applicable from December 2019) will mean that competent authorities are required to have closer contact with the laboratories and greater oversight of delegated laboratories.


  1. Cross-Border Incidents

Articles 102 – 108 of the NOCR subject competent authorities to tighter rules and more formalised processes for interacting with authorities in other Member States when responding to cross-border incidents. For example, competent authorities who receive a request for assistance from authorities in another Member State can be required to indicate within ten working days from the date of receipt of the request, the estimated time necessary to provide an informed response to the request - Article 104(1)(b).


  1. Multi-Annual National Control Plans

It is an existing requirement that all Member States have such a national control plan, the purpose of which is to ensure that effective systems are in place for monitoring and enforcing feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, and plant health law in that Member State. Progress on implementation is continually monitored and annual reports are prepared and submitted to the European Commission. In order to ensure the uniform presentation of annual reports, the NOCR provides for implementing acts to adopt and update standard model forms to be used for annual submission of the information. The EU have now finalised and published these model forms under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/723.


  1. Tertiary Legislation

Article 144 of the NOCR also empowers the creation of tertiary legislation (implementing acts and delegated acts) which allow for the creation of further detailed rules in specific areas. The majority of this tertiary legislation so far, which has been under development since 2017, has addressed import controls and conditions. New rules have also been published regarding hygiene inspections for products of animal origin. This tertiary legislation also came into force from 14 December 2019, although this feature of the NOCR does leave open the possibility of further changes going forward.


Conclusion

The food sector remains one of the most valuable and highly regulated sectors of the EU economy. Although various features of the NOCR seek to formalise and harmonise existing arrangements by integrating them into a single legislative framework for official controls, the key development brought about by this new legislation is its expanded scope across the entire agri-food chain and into sectors previously not harmonized with regard to enforcement.


This gives rise to increased opportunities and responsibilities on the part of competent authorities to extend their activities in areas such as food fraud and online enforcement. Unlike other sectors such as pharmaceuticals however, the EU food sector is far more fragmented, with a high level of turnover being accounted for by small and medium sized business. The vast majority of these operators proactively ensure that they are in compliance with food and feed law rules applicable to their business, however they are often reliant on competent authorities and their inspectors for direction and reassurance.



Notwithstanding the added flexibility now being provided to competent authorities as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, providing continued assistance and information to networks of operators seeking to ensure compliance across the entire agri-food chain in a period of unprecedented challenge should remain as a key objective going forward. 



Written by James Gallagher (Ireland) 






domingo, abril 12, 2020

Biotecnología [Biotechnology]




Noel Courage, “Biotech Salmon Show that Companies Need to be Innovative Not Just to Invent a Product, but also to Get Regulatory Approval and Market Acceptance”. B&P (2020) [Blog Source_bereskinparr/com.doc/ - available on the Internet at <https://www.bereskinparr.com//doc/biotech-salmon-show-that-companies-need-to-be-innovative-not-just-to-invent-a-product-but-also-to-ge> (last accessed on 31 March 2020)].



Dennis Eriksson et al., “Options to Reform the European Union Legislation on GMOs: Post-authorization and Beyond”. Trends in Biotechnology (2020) doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.12.015 [available on the Internet at <https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0167-7799%2819%2930310-5> (last accessed on 20 February 2020)].

Abstract
We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. In this third of three articles, we focus on labeling and coexistence as well as discuss the political reality and potential ways forward.



Lynn L. Bergeson, “USDA Requests Comments On Its Draft Instructions On Testing Methods For BE Foods”. The Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group - BRAG (2020) [Blog Source_braginfo/org.en - available on the Internet at <http://blog.braginfo.org/entry/usda-requests-comments-on-its-draft-instructions-on-testing-methods-for-be#page=1> (last accessed on 11 February 2020)].



Nupur Mondal and Seema Talwar, “Role of Agricultural Biotechnology to Mitigate Climate Change”. Journal of Energy Research and Environmental Technology (JERET), Vol. 6 No. 1 (2019) 65-66 [available on the Internet at <https://www.krishisanskriti.org/vol_image/10Jul2019080705144%20%20%20%20%20%20Nupur%20Mondal%20%20%20%2065-66.pdf> (last accessed on 10 February 2020)].

Abstract
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of twenty-first century as it is not only going to affect humankind directly, but by affecting the different regions of the globe differently, it will cause changes in agricultural ecosystems. Developing countries having tropical climate will be more severely affected as increasing temperature and drought conditions will increase the demand for water. A slight increase in temperature will affect the yields of crops in colder temperate regions as well. Grains and oilseeds will mature faster whereas, in horticulture, tomatoes, onions and fruits might be produced of low quality because of climate change. Developing countries which are densely populated, are going to be adversely affected and would experience severe food insecurity. Agriculture is one sector which not only causes climate change itself, but is also affected in worst way by climate change. There is an increased demand for use of biotechnological tools to help crops adapt to the various climatic changes which will not only help these crops to survive in adverse conditions but will also save humankind from severe food insecurity.

W