The control of the EU’s food traditions should remain firmly in the hands of the EU executive, according to the European Parliament, which adopted its position on overhauling the EU’s food quality scheme on Thursday (1 June).

Valued at nearly €80 billion, the scheme offers protection for products with qualities, characteristics or a reputation linked to their place of origin, such as ‘champagne’ or ‘parmesan’.

According to MEPs, the new rules governing the scheme should offer tighter protection for online products, including the automatic closure of domains that unlawfully use Geographical Indication (GIs).

Meanwhile, Parliament also called for more protection to be afforded to processed products containing a GI ingredient, as well as for a streamlined approval process to help speed new applications along.

For socialist MEP Paolo De Castro, who leads on the file, the agreed position represents “rare good news for our farmers”. He stressed that the move will support a “more competitive, sustainable and integrated agri-food system, to the benefit of our rural areas”.

“GIs represent not only our economic and social heritage but they are also a crucial tool able to create economic value without the need to invest any public funds,” he said, adding that such a ‘strong mandate’ from other lawmakers offers a great chance to create a GIs system that can “truly meet the needs of our producers”.

The approach adopted by the Parliament was deemed as ‘very positive’ by oriGIn EU, the European association of GI producers.

“It sets out an ambitious European Geographical Indication system to ensure that producers can continue contributing to the sustainable development of rural areas across the EU,” commented oriGIn EU President Charles Deparis.

Likewise, the EU organisation promoting GI wines, EFOW, supported the Parliament’s ‘wine package’ as it strengthens the protection of the use of GIs as ingredients and online while maintaining the specificities of the wine sector.

Commission should stay in charge

The latest revamping of the EU’s food quality scheme has previously come under fire from both food producers and member states over the increased involvement of the EU’s intellectual property office (EUIPO) in dealing with GIs, with the Commission’s agricultural service DG AGRI pushing to outsource some of its competencies on the matter.

However, for MEPs, the matter should remain firmly in the hands of the EU executive, and they voted to reject any delegation of competencies to the EUIPO regarding the analysis of GI product specifications.

The move was welcomed by oriGIn EU, the European branch of the GIs global alliance, who stressed that the Commission’s DG AGRI should “stay at the heart” of the management of the GI system, calling this a ‘key demand’ of GI producers.

“We remain convinced that the EUIPO can contribute to the IP component of the system, facilitating the protection and enforcement of GIs, including online, as well as strengthening the EU GI system on [the] international export market,” the association added in a statement.

Main GI-bones of contention

The European Parliament’s negotiators are now ready to begin talks with the other lawmaker, the EU Council representing the member states, on the final shape of the law since EU agriculture ministers have also adopted their position.

The Parliament’s mandate is more articulated than the EU Council’s and includes several new features not considered by the ministers.

For instance, the Council’s position does not consider the possibility of reaching the sustainability commitments requested by the Commission through initiatives that are not related to production, as well as the option for producers to draft their own sustainability reports.

The ministers did not include a time limit for the Commission to evaluate or amend the GI application or form of protection for GIs used in processed products as an ingredient.

At the same time, the Council watered down the chapter on the online protection proposed by the Commission, which is one of the main pillars of the Parliament’s position.

MEPs also proposed a new amendment to sort out the current ‘prošek’ vs. prosecco quarrel pitting Croatia against Italy, extending the existing safeguards against the registration of trademarks identical or evocative of GIs to ‘traditional terms’, meaning that traditional terms such as prošek cannot be registered as identical to or evocative of the GI prosecco.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]

Source: Euractiv.com