Would you expect this from the executive institution, which represents Europe’s common interests and supervises the Member-States’ correct implementation of EU legislation? Well, as to the food labels, the European Commission has chosen not to choose.
Via a draft decree notified to the European Commission a few days ago, France introduces the obligation for meat and milk, including fresh milk, to be indicated on the product label solely in the case they are present in food that is produced and sold on the French ground. Further more, this would be subject to a quite anomalous procedure.
Surprisingly, a national Minister twits over the pertinent European Commissioner’s informal approval of the proposed measure whereas, in fact, it is still under discussion within the pertinent Commission’s services. The Commission would be expected, according to some rumors among Brussels’ stakeholders, to rapidly, informally though, approve (by an even expected date) in compliance with the engagement that has allegedly been taken at the highest political level, despite major still pending technical hesitations.
Let us look at them in details. Besides and despite the institutionally poor and arguable formal way of proceeding, the European legislator seems to be under the effect of schizophrenia: on one side he makes some studies public showing that the consumer would have much less advantages than additional costs to bear as a consequence of such a legislative initiative and, on the other side, he prefers to run away from his own responsibility and allow France to take the opposite way than the most suitable European common path. This is even more detrimental as the European legislator is aware that this example will be imitated by other Member States and hence will pave the way for a total fragmentation of the EU single market.
The question is then: for whom is all this for? Certainly not for the consumers as on the French market (as well as in the countries where this example will be followed) imported products will not provide them with the same national indications and guarantees. Hence, this will cause raising confusion and bad information.
This initiative would not even help the more compliant producers as they will have to additionally use different labels according to the different destinations their products will head to (national or foreign market).
The sole and single defended interest in this framework seems to be the one of who is wiling to keep Europe weak, fragmented, divided, incapable and afraid of taking any decision and whose sole worry is not to disturb the strong countries.
This scenario is not new: the European Commission’s scarcely determined infringement procedure against UK for the proposed labeling traffic light system is another clear example.
No firm position is taken although this system proves to have a biasing and penalizing effect on many European food and agriculture PDOs and PGIs of excellence, which are also promoted by the European Commission with a large amount of resources.
But what does compliance really matter at a time of a threatening Brexit? Let us see what will happen with the French proposed measure in the next few days, although the Commission’s decision seems to be more than predictable, to our regret.
Equally predictable seems to be the Member States’ lack of courage at the Committee on April 12th while expressing themselves on the French proposed decree.
It is very likely to expect them not really to urge the European Commission to make one single coherent choice for all, although this behavior would be just normal and fair as there is no different category of consumers.
Unfortunately coherence is not around. The European executive institution should then rather openly declare its own incapacity to ignore more powerful interests at some higher level, which is difficult to be understood by the ones that think with a different rationale in mind. For the sake of the EU founding principles and primarily the ones of the European citizens, the first ones to be protected. In principle.
