madam president one of the most contentious items in this debate has been country of origin labelling
i firmly believe that consumers have a right to know the origin of the food they purchase and particularly in the case of meat if it has been produced to high welfare standards and has not been transported over great distances prior to slaughter
but the sourcing of raw materials in processed food is irreversibly complex as ingredients are chosen based on price quality and availability and countries of origin in a single meat processing plant may alter day by day and even hour by hour
the constant adaptation of labels would carry higher costs and will inevitably increase packaging waste
these additional costs would be passed on to the consumer
that is why i believe that the feasibility of mandatory labelling rules must first be subject to an impact assessment and i am glad that commissioner dalli said that he supports that
but while this debate focuses on raw materials or ingredients of foodstuffs it does not cover the origin of the final product
this is particularly important for specific products like whisky
it is still possible for low-quality whiskies from countries like india china and japan to pass themselves off as the genuine article by carrying pictures images or names on their labels which are reminiscent of the traditional whisky-producing countries in the eu in order to increase their competitive advantage and mislead the consumer
we must guard against this and i therefore urge you to support amendment two hundred and fifty-four
