MEPs get choice on chocolate

Date: 15/05/1997

By Michael Mann

DIVISIONS within the Euro-pean Parliament over proposed EU laws on the content of chocolate will come under the spotlight again next week.

Belgian Green MEP Paul Lannoye will present environment committee colleagues with three options for revising the European Commission's much-disputed proposal for a new directive.

In a provisional report drawn up for the committee's 21-22 May meeting, Lannoye describes the Commission's plan as “globally unacceptable in its present form”.

But rather than bring forward a formal report for his colleagues to accept or reject at this stage, Lannoye has elected to present the widest possible range of options, hoping the debate it prompts will give him a clear steer.

Although the Parliament's environment committee is taking a lead on the issue, its work is being carried out in the context of widespread condemnation of the Commission's proposed solution to a very sticky problem.

Two other parliamentary committees have already given quite different advice on how Parliament should react to the Commission's plans.

Last April, after months of internal strife, the Commission proposed allowing all member states to use up to 5&percent; non-cocoa butter in their chocolate, on condition that products were clearly labelled so that consumers would be in no doubt about what they were buying.

Industry Commissioner Martin Bangemann argued that new harmonised legislation was necessary to remove a major anomaly from the single market.

At present, seven member states - Denmark, the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Finland - allow non-cocoa vegetable fats to be used in chocolate. The others insist chocolate can only be labelled as such if it contains only cocoa butter.

Lannoye's most radical suggestion is to end the derogation which allows some countries to use non-cocoa fats in chocolate manufacture.

But, as the MEP points out, “consumers in these member states are unlikely to appreciate the disappearance of 'their' chocolate”.

A second option of rejecting the proposal would, according to Lannoye, be likely to raise new problems, without necessarily resolving the current difficulties. “The status quo risks simply causing numerous new infraction proceedings,” warns his report.

His preferred option is to amend the Commission's proposal, dealing with potential single market problems through product-labelling to specify exactly what the consumer is buying.

This would involve classing 'chocolate' containing vegetable fats separately from 100&percent; cocoa butter products.

“The only problem is that consumers in countries which authorise vegetable fats would see 'their' chocolate changing its name, thanks to the addition of an extra term allowing it to be distinguished from chocolate without vegetable fats,” claims Lannoye.

But the MEP's task has been complicated by the fact that two other parliamentary committees have come to different conclusions.

Dutch Christian Democrat MEP Hanja Maij-Weggen's report for the development committee recommended the rejection of harmonising legislation, preferring the maintenance of the status quo as the lesser of two evils.

She argued that the 5&percent; maximum of non-cocoa fats would be impossible to police, that widening the derogation to all 15 member states would go against the spirit of the 1993 International Cocoa Agreement, and would also force down cocoa prices.

For the agriculture committee, Belgian Socialist José Happart insisted that if the use of 5&percent; non-cocoa butter were to be allowed, it should not reduce the minimum cocoa content of the product. He also called for more stringent labelling requirements.

Whatever conclusions finally emerge from the Parliament, getting agreement on a new directive still seems a long way off, with almost as many opinions on the issue as there are chocolate bars in Europe's shops.

The debate will be no easier in the Council of Ministers, where EU governments will react according to the regulations which currently apply on their domestic markets.