PARLAMENTO EUROPEO: POR UNA TRANSICIÓN CLIMÁTICA SOCIALMENTE EQUITATIVA

 

24 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2021: PREGUNTA PRESENTADA POR EL PARLAMENTARIO MIHAI TUDOSE  – [E-005721/2021][1]

 

Las recomendaciones de la Comisión del 14 de diciembre de 2021 para limitar el impacto social de la transición ecológica son, en mi opinión, insuficientes. La Comisión toma decisiones sobre cuestiones económicas, pero para las sociales, se contenta con hacer recomendaciones. Lo que estamos viendo es un doble rasero, como también ha sido criticado por la Confederación Europea de Sindicatos.

La Comisión debe tomar medidas decisivas para gestionar las consecuencias socioeconómicas del Pacto Verde, y no solo con el fin de impulsar la transformación ecológica, porque los cambios son necesarios, siempre que sean económicamente sostenibles y socialmente justos.

1. Acojo con satisfacción la previsión de la Comisión de que la transición ecológica podría crear un millón de nuevos puestos de trabajo en la UE para 2030 y dos millones para 2050. Sin embargo, ¿cuántos puestos de trabajo estima la Comisión que se perderán como resultado de la transición de la UE hacia una economía climáticamente neutra?

2. Dado que la escala de la transición verde está más allá de la capacidad de respuesta de las políticas nacionales, ¿piensa la Comisión ejercer sus poderes compartidos para la protección de los ciudadanos de la UE, y de una manera que sea más coherente que las directrices políticas generales, utilizando instrumentos más sensibles y realistas que el Fondo Social para el Clima, que tiene fuentes de financiación poco fiables y no se espera que esté operativo hasta 2025?

 

Respuesta del Sr. Schmit en nombre de la Comisión Europea (11 de marzo de 2022):

«En general, la ecologización de la economía podría fomentar la expansión del mercado laboral, al tiempo que implica una importante reasignación de mano de obra entre y dentro de los sectores. Las políticas de acompañamiento adecuadas pueden ayudar a crear alrededor de 1 millón de empleos netos de calidad en la UE para 2030 y 2 millones para 2050, teniendo en cuenta las pérdidas de empleo previstas de alrededor de 495 000 personas en sectores vinculados a la industria de la minería del carbón y al motor de combustión[2]. Se crearán nuevos puestos de trabajo en energías renovables, construcción, economía circular y electromovilidad[3].

Para garantizar una transición justa, la Comisión ha puesto en marcha una amplia estrategia e iniciativas políticas que abarcan los aspectos sociales y laborales (Recomendación EASE[4], la “Agenda de Capacidades Europea”[5], Paquete Fit for 55[6], la “Estrategia Industrial”[7]). Junto al Fondo Social para el Clima[8] ya propuesto, hay múltiples oportunidades de financiación disponibles: el Fondo de Transición Justa[9], con 19.300 millones €, que apoya a los trabajadores y las regiones que se espera que sean los más afectados negativamente por la transición verde, por ejemplo mediante la formación y diversificación económica; el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia[10], con 723.800 millones €, de los cuales un 37 % dedicado al gasto ecológico y los Estados miembros un 30 % asignado a objetivos sociales; El Fondo Social Europeo ‘Plus’[11], con 99.300 millones €, para apoyar políticas de capacitación y reformas estructurales, reforzado por REACT-EU[12], con 55.000 millones €; Invest EU[13], con 26.200 millones €, relativo a la escasez de capacidades, la renovación del rendimiento energético y las energías renovables. La propuesta de Recomendación del Consejo sobre una transición justa[14] proporciona orientación para aplicar herramientas políticas y hacer un uso óptimo de los instrumentos de financiación[15].».

 

---

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

[2] As an example, the deployment of renewable energy technologies in today’s coal regions can create up to 315.000 jobs by 2030.

[3] SWD(2020) 176 final.

[4] C(2021) 1372 final.

[5] COM(2020) 274 final.

[6] COM(2021) 550 final.

[7] COM(2021) 350 final, including specific transition pathways.

[8] COM(2021) 568 final.

[9] Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

[10] Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

[11] Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013.

[12] Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards additional resources and implementing arrangements to provide assistance for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy (REACT-EU).

[13] Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017.

[14] Proposal for a Council Recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality COM (2021) 801 final, and accompanying SWD (2021) 452 final.

[15] SWD(2021) 452 final, Annex 3.

 

Study shows surprising environmental impact of organic farming

Growing organic crops takes a bigger toll on the environment than growing crops conventionally, according to a study [ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z ]  published recently in the journal Nature.

The impact stems from the fact that more land is typically required for organic growing—something that really shouldn’t be all that surprising, according to researcher Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and one of the study’s authors. Still, however, for many, the research results were unexpected and alarming.

“People have been not only surprised, but also rather upset, even angry,” says Wirsenius. “Quite a few have seen it as an ‘attack’ on organic farming. Our research just points out something that should be very obvious: that using more land for the same output, which organic farming does because of its lower yields per area, has consequences in terms of carbon storage.

“Our study,” he continues, “shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50% bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference. For example, with organic Swedish winter wheat, the difference is closer to 70%.”

The researchers developed a new metric called “Carbon Opportunity Cost” to use in their assessment of environmental impact. Wirsenius explains that when land is converted from forest to farmland, the deforestation means that carbon stored in the previously existing forest is converted to carbon dioxide, which increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. What’s more, the researcher says, by continuing to use land for agricultural crops, the opportunity for carbon storage that could be achieved if the land were allowed to revert to forest is lost. According to Wirsenius, existing methods for assessing the climate impacts of different land use fail to consistently account for the effects of carbon storage.

“What I hope that people would take home from this research is that there is almost always a carbon storage cost of using land, regardless of purpose,” he says.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z

UK supermarket chain Iceland eliminates palm oil from its own-brand products – Does removing palm oil from food products really help the environment?

On 9 April 2018, Iceland Foods Ltd (hereinafter, Iceland), a British supermarket chain with an emphasis on the sale of frozen foods, including prepared meals and vegetables, announced its drastic decision to eliminate palm oil from all of its own-brand products. More specifically, on its website, Iceland states that, by the end of 2018, 100% of its own-brand food products would no longer contain palm oil. In recent years, palm oil has been at the centre of controversies for allegedly driving deforestation, putting wildlife in danger and having negative effects on human health. Iceland claims that its decision to remove palm oil from its products was based on environmental protection reasons alone, in an effort to stop deforestation. This simplistic and deceptive view falls short of addressing the many environmental questions that undoubtedly must be addressed on a global level. Singling out and discriminating against palm oil alone appears to be a marketing stunt, diverting attention from the real issues and based on a number of misleading assumptions.

Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil, which is extracted from the fruit of oil palm trees. The oil palm tree produces high quality oil used not only for cooking, but also as an ingredient in food products, detergents, cosmetics and biofuels. Palm oil is a very productive crop that produces a high quantity and quality of oil at a relatively low cost and that requires a smaller area of cultivation compared to other vegetable oil crops, such as rapeseed, soybean and sunflower (in terms of the same yield). Indonesia and Malaysia are the world’s most important palm oil producing countries. The use of palm oil in the food industry has increased rapidly over the last few years and increased demand of palm oil led to a growing number of oil palm plantations. However, environmental allegations with respect to oil palm cultivation, deforestation, and effects on wildlife often appear to be unsubstantiated misleading generalisations.

Anti-palm oil campaigns are not new. Marketing and labelling issues play an important commercial role in the EU and are starting to play an important role around the world. Recently, at the end of 2017, French supermarket chain Système U intensified its aggressive marketing campaign with respect to its decision to substitute so-called ‘controversial substances’, including palm oil. Similarly, already in 2012, the French supermarket chain Casinointroduced a ‘palm oil-free’ label on its own-brand products, claiming better nutritional quality. For several years, EU food business operators and retailers, particularly in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, have increasingly been labelling a number of foodstuffs as ‘palm oil-free’ and continue waging related marketing campaigns with a denigrating agenda. This trend continues despite the arguable illegality of such labels within the EU (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 4 of 20 February 2015).

This trend now appears to have reached the UK. On 9 April 2018, the British supermarket chain Icelandannounced its decision to eliminate palm oil from all its own-brand products by the end of 2018 (currently half of its products do not contain palm oil). Iceland stated that its decision was part of its environmental commitments. More specifically, Iceland intends to stop deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia and to protect wildlife. On its website, Iceland alleges that palm oil was one of the world’s “biggest causes of deforestation” and posed “a significant threat to a number of species already facing extinction”. According to Iceland, its decision to remove palm oil from its products, would lower the demand for palm oil by more than 500 metric tonnes per year. A small amount, considering that, currently, businesses in the UK import around 400,000 metric tonnes per year. Iceland’s Managing Director stated that until Iceland could “guarantee palm oil is not causing rainforest destruction, we are simply saying ‘no to palm oil’, we don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘sustainable’ palm oil available to retailers”. Iceland’s managing director underlined that the decision to eliminate palm oil was intended to provide consumers with a choice about what they buy. Iceland plans to replace palm oil with “oils and fats that do not destroy the rainforest”. Moreover and perhaps more disturbingly, in light of the legal arguments often provided in Trade Perspectives, Iceland also intends to attach a ‘no palm oil’ sticker on products’ packaging (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 23 of 12 December 2014 and Issue No. 4 of 20 February 2015).

Palm oil-producers and academics have expressed their disagreement with Iceland’s move. Palm oil-producing countries pointed out that the ban on palm oil was discriminatory and could further fuel the global campaigns of denigration against palm oil. Furthermore, palm oil-producing countries stated that replacing palm oil with other vegetable oils would actually increase the use of land to satisfy the global demand for vegetable oils. Such measure could thereby accelerate ground degradation, which could cause more flora and fauna damage and increase CO2 emissions. The Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries (hereinafter, CPOPC) stated that the claims against palm oil and the decision taken by Iceland were misleading consumers on the environmental benefits of other vegetable oils. Researchers from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Biology (hereinafter, DICE) of the University of Kent published their concerns vis-à-vis Iceland’s decision, underlining that banning palm oil from products was actually a step backwards in the effort to prevent deforestation and to promote sustainability. Currently, researchers at DICE are working with palm oil certification bodies and companies to improve the way in which oil palm cultivation interacts with the environment. The work at DICE seeks to demonstrate the advantages of connecting high-quality rainforest patches in oil palm plantations to allow wildlife to move freely. If sustainability certification of palm oil became more widespread, this would benefit the environment a lot more than switching to other vegetable oils. According to the research at DICE, Iceland should work with the industry to find sustainably sourced solutions, highlighting that “[e]nvironmentally conscious consumers should demand palm oil from certified sources, but avoiding it altogether runs the risk of putting pressure on other crops that are equally to blame for the world’s environmental problems”.

The issue of sustainability is already being addressed by palm oil-producing countries, often in concerted efforts with the relevant industries and NGOs. Establishing sustainability certification and implementing such standards is the main tool to improve the environmental impact of palm oil production, as it is for all other forms of human activity that have environmental impacts. The statement by Iceland’s Managing Director that there was no such thing as “sustainable palm oil” clearly contradicts the important efforts already underway, such as the initiative in palm oil-producing countries (e.g., the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) and the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standards), the concerted efforts within the CPOPC, and the initiatives by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Palm oil producers and palm oil-producing countries clearly recognise the need for improving the sustainability of palm oil production. The overall importance of environmental protection is also undisputed. However, discriminatory and denigrating measures taken with respect to one specific product, whether they are ‘private’ or ‘public’ in nature, clearly do not achieve the desired result. The small effect by Iceland’s action is already demonstrated by the neglectable amount it would remove from overall UK palm oil imports. A number of other products also impact the environment and, in many cases, probably more so than palm oil. Why is Iceland not taking action against those products? Is it perhaps because palm oil is an easy scapegoat and convenient target that is not cultivated in the UK or the EU? For instance, soy is one of the crop alternatives to produce vegetable oil. However, on average, eight hectares of soybeans are needed to produce the same amount of vegetable oil that can be achieved with one hectare of oil palm. Beef is another important example, the production of which also has a big impact on the environment. Cattle farms, are being accused of deforestation and of ever-increasing methane emissions contributing to climate change, but we do not see many campaigns of the type that are being waged in Europe against palm oil. Will removing palm oil from Iceland’s products help the environment? Clearly not, despite the rather hypocritical illusion that is being marketed by its proponents.

Another worrisome aspect of Iceland’s campaign concerns its intention to attach a ‘no palm oil’ sticker on its packaging. In principle, businesses are free to decide which kind of raw materials they use in their products, free to choose whether or not to use palm oil. However, waging denigrating marketing campaigns and attaching unauthorised labels to food products might violate the law. Since 13 December 2014, Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (hereinafter, the Food Information Regulation, FIR) provides that the specific vegetable oils must be indicated in the list of ingredients (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 23 of 12 December 2014). Any consumer can read in the list of ingredients whether a product does or does not contain palm oil, which can no longer be ‘hidden’ behind the generic term ‘vegetable oils’. Therefore, since the specific origin of the vegetable oil used in any given foodstuff must be declared, ‘palm-oil free’ claims are arguably unnecessary, irrelevant and illegal pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of the FIR. When made in a nutritional context, or in case of accompanying further nutritional or environmental allegations, they often appear to be unsubstantiated misleading generalisations, and could also be considered misleading pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the FIR. Finally, ‘palm oil-free’ claims are arguably not permitted nutrition claims in the sense of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, which, for instance, allows the claim ‘saturated fat-free’.

Iceland’s decision to eliminate palm oil from its own-brand products is obviously legitimate as a company decision, but it is arguably a discriminatory form of denigration against palm oil and, in view of other products’ impact on the environment, such as soy or beef, clearly hypocritical. Efforts by palm oil producers and palm oil-producing countries should be recognised and encouraged by paying a premium for sustainable palm oil. Instead, palm oil is used as an easy scapegoat and denigrated as a whole. Legal avenues against misleading advertising and misleading food product labelling are available and should be considered to ensure that consumers are not deceived.

 Issue No. 8 of 20 April 2018

Another step against ‘palm oil-free’ labels – Members of the European Parliament call for a ban of certain misleading ‘free from’ labels

Another step against ‘palm oil-free’ labels – Members of the European Parliament call for a ban of certain misleading ‘free from’ labels

On 1 March 2018, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (hereinafter, ECON) submitted its draft report for a European Parliament Resolution on the European Commission’s (hereinafter, Commission) annual ‘Report on competition policy’ to the European Parliament’s plenary. In the context of the adoption of the report by the Committee, it reportedly rejected an amendment tabled by an Italian Member of the European Parliament (hereinafter, MEP) that aimed at obliging “advertisers to declare or list only the characteristics of the ingredients actually present in the product and exclude those that are not contained therein unless the presence or absence of certain ingredients is related to congenital diseases”. While this report might not be the most pertinent choice to advance this issue, the struggle against anti-competitive, misleading and illegal ‘free from’ claims and labels, such as ‘palm oil-free’, has finally reached the European Parliament.

Every year, the Commission publishes a ‘Report on Competition Policy’, which provides detailed information on the most important policy and legislative initiatives, and on decisions adopted by the Commission in the application of EU competition law during the previous year. The Commission report is composed of two documents: 1) A Communication from the Commission; and 2) The Commission Staff Working Paper, describing the developments in more detail. Typically, the European Parliament uses this opportunity to comment on the Commission report through a resolution. The European Parliament’s ECON Committee is responsible for the preparation and consolidation of the resolution, in cooperation with further Committees of the European Parliament.

On 31 May 2017, the Commission had published the 2016 issue of the ‘Report on Competition Policy’. On 23 October 2017, the European Parliament’s Rapporteur for the Resolution, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, submitted his draft report to the ECON Committee. The report will form the basis for the Parliament’s future resolution. On 28 November 2017, the Rapporteur published the amendments to the draft report. As Amendment 278, MEP Fulvio Martusciello of the Group of the European People’s Party, submitted the following addition to the report: “(protection of consumers against misleading or suggestive advertising) Calls on the Commission to oblige advertisers to declare or list only the characteristics of the ingredients actually present in the product and exclude those that are not contained therein unless the presence or absence of certain ingredients is related to congenital diseases”. On his website, MEP Martusciello noted that it was a joint initiative with MEP Alberto Cirio and published a joint statement. The two MEPs noted that the “the events of recent years related to some food products have made it clear that the large retail chains now tend to promote products by advertising not the ingredients they contain, but those they do not contain”. MEPs Martusciello and Cirio consider this to be a “very ambiguous practice that confuses the consumer and leads to deceptive purchases”. More specifically, the MEPs singled out ‘free from’ labels, such as ‘palm oil-free' or ‘GMO-free’, calling them “deceptive”. As MEP Martusciello notes on his website, his proposed amendment appears to have been adopted with 28 votes for it, 22 against it, and 5 abstentions. Reportedly, however, the amendment appears to have been eventually rejected by the Committee, when it voted on the adoption of the draft report on 21 February 2018. The consolidated draft of the report has not yet been made publicly available. The European Parliament’s plenary is scheduled to debate the report and vote on the Resolution on 16 April 2018.

Within the EU and beyond, there is an ongoing trend to label foodstuffs as ‘free from’, which is understood by many consumers as implying that these products constitute a healthier choice. An increasing number of products is labelled and marketed with the ‘salvation-promising’ word ‘free’: ‘lactose-free’, ‘fructose-free’, ‘gluten-free’, ‘GMO-free’ and ‘palm oil-free’. While certain ‘free-from’ claims are certainly beneficial for a range of consumers, such as those related to allergens or certain intolerances, others appear to be purely based on marketing priorities and campaigns. This has become a real trend in food marketing, suggesting that, as soon as something new appears, the food industry exploits it and helps spreading its supposed benefits, whether real or not. For a while, many food products were marketed as “light”, these days, products are increasingly labelled with ‘free-from’ claims. Food business operators and retailers are exploiting consumer’s concerns and fears, which are often based on rumours circulated about certain products, substances and ingredients.

Indeed, consumers in the EU do appear to be receptive towards such ‘free from’ claims and labels. A recent study, entitled ‘European consumer healthiness evaluation of ‘Free-from’ labelled food products’, tested four different ‘free-from’ labels, namely ‘lactose-free’, ‘gluten-free’, ‘GMO-free’, and ‘palm oil-free’, using different product categories on which these claims and labels typically appear. The study came to the conclusions that: 1) Products with a ‘free-from’ label are considered healthier than products without such a label; and 2) The strongest effects occurred for ‘GMO-free’ and ‘palm oil-free’ labelling. Noteworthy is that the study also confirmed an increased consumer willingness to pay a price premium for ‘free-from’ labelled products. The study showed that, in particular, French respondents were the most receptive to ‘palm-oil free’ and ‘GMO-free’ claims, and attributed this to French public debate and negative media coverage. Food labels are poised to influence and shape consumers’ food shopping behaviour. This change of behaviour must clearly be factored in when assessing the relevance and legality of certain ‘free from’ claims.

‘Free-from’ or ‘negative’ claims can be defined as claims indicating that certain ingredients, nutrients or substances are not present in a foodstuff. Legitimate uses of regulated negative claims in the EU, based on Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims, include some nutrition claims, such as ‘sugar-free’, ‘salt-free’, and ‘saturated fat-free’. Additionally, specific EU legislation exits for specific substances, such as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 828/2014 on the requirements for the provision of information to consumers on the absence or reduced presence of gluten in food concerning ‘gluten-free’ claims. Certain EU Member States, such as France and Germany, have legislated on ‘GMO-free’ claims. Furthermore, a number of products on the EU market bear claims such as ‘no additives’, ‘no preservatives’ and ‘no artificial colourings’. Such so-called ‘clean label’ claims may be made as long as they are true and the use of additives in such foods is legal.

Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, (hereinafter, FIR) on fair information practices, provides that food information must not be misleading, particularly “by suggesting that the food possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foods possess such characteristics, in particular by specifically emphasising the presence or absence of certain ingredients and/or nutrients”. On the basis of Article 7(1)(c) of the FIR, voluntary information provided by food businesses on food products must not suggest that the food possesses special characteristics when, in fact, all similar foods possess such characteristics, in particular by specifically emphasising the presence or absence of certain ingredients and/or nutrients. This provision of the FIR addresses the legal concept of ‘misleading advertisements with certainties’, which has so far been mostly applied in cases of so-called ‘clean’ labelling.

A particular case concerns the issue of labelling products as ‘palm oil-free’, the deceptive nature of which was also highlighted by MEPs Martusciello and Cirio. For a number of years, EU food business operators and retailers, particularly in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, have been increasingly labelling a number of foodstuffs as ‘palm oil-free’ and continue waging related marketing campaigns with a denigrating agenda. This trend continues despite the arguably clear illegality of such labels within the EU (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 4 of 20 February 2015). Indeed, within the EU and since 13 December 2014, the FIR provides that the specific vegetable oils must be indicated in the list of ingredients (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 23 of 12 December 2014). The mere listing of the generic indication ‘vegetable oils’ is no longer sufficient. However, products claiming that they are ‘palm oil-free’ and containing instead sunflower oil, rapeseed oil or any other vegetable oil, now mandatorily indicated in the list of ingredients, are still promoted as something ‘special’. Compared to similar foods that possess the same characteristics (i.e., products containing sunflower oil or rapeseed oil, which is indicated by law in the labelling’s ingredient list), but without a ‘palm oil-free’ label, these ‘palm oil-free’ labelled products are in no way ‘special’. Any consumer is able to read in the list of ingredients whether a product does or does not contain palm oil, which can no longer be ‘hidden’ behind the generic term ‘vegetable oils’. Therefore, now that in the EU the specific origin of the vegetable oil used in any given foodstuff must be declared, ‘palm-oil free’ claims are arguably obvious, unnecessary, irrelevant and illegal pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of the FIR.

The illegality of ‘palm oil-free’ claims and labels for other reasons has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. When made in a nutritional context, these ‘palm oil-free’ claims on foodstuffs are arguably not approved and, therefore, illegal nutrition claims under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Similarly, in case of accompanying further nutritional or environmental allegations, they often appear to be unsubstantiated misleading generalisations, and could be considered misleading pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the FIR.

In general terms, not all ‘free-from’ claims and labels are misleading and some may be helpful for all or certain groups of consumers. MEP Martusciello did not call for an outright ban of all ‘free-from’ labels, but rightfully included an exception in his amendment, calling for a ban on ‘free-from’ claims “unless the presence or absence of certain ingredients is related to congenital diseases”. The exception of “ingredients related to congenital diseases” may be too narrow, which might have contributed to the rejection of the amendment. At the same time, the increasing number of such claims and the apparent illegality of, for example, ‘palm oil-free’ claims, continues to mislead consumers and distort their choices and competition. The consumer might consider to be purchasing something ‘special’, ‘better’ or ‘healthier’, while this is not the case. The recent introduction of a ‘palm oil-free’ trademark by the International Palm Oil Free Certification Accreditation Programme is poised to further aggravate this situation.

Despite the apparent setback through the rejection of the amendment supported by MEPs Martusciello and Cirio, the struggle against anti-competitive, misleading and illegal ‘free-from’ claims and labels continues. The Commission and EU Member States’ authorities must finally realise the damage that such claims and labels are responsible for, as recently underlined by the study on the effects of ‘free from’ claims on consumers. A better enforcement of the existing rules or even the amendment of relevant EU legislation, such as the EU’s Food Information Regulation, to make the ban of such claims more explicit, should be at the top of the agenda. Entire sectors, such as palm oil producers, are suffering under the illegal campaigns waged by some irresponsible EU food and retail businesses. All interested stakeholders should contribute to the debate on the issue and engage with the relevant interlocutors.