Luxemburg, 25/10/2006 (Agence Europe) - In Luxemburg on 24 October, EU agriculture ministers drew up a first outline of a compromise on updating rules on labelling and definition of spirit drinks, as the Finnish Presidency insisted upon. The European Commission, however, has indicated that it opposed the main elements of this general thrust, which has the backing of most Member States, especially for the solution proposed for sales denominations for vodka. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel expressed serious doubts on whether the suggested new definition of vodka was compatible with Community and WTO rules. The spirit drinks affair has still some way to go, firstly because the general majority thrust noted by the Presidency is far from satisfactory to everyone and secondly because the European Parliament is only due to give its first reading opinion (co-decision procedure) in March 2007. Only after this stage can negotiations really begin within the Council and between the Council and the EP.
Finnish minister Juha Korkeaoja whose country holds the six-monthly Presidency of the Agriculture Council, said after the debate that “a large majority” of Member States had backed his compromise text on spirit drinks. He acknowledged that the Council's and the Commission's legal services still had to discuss the validity of the text in the light of Community law and that compatibility with WTO rules would have to be checked.
During the debate, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Cyprus opposed the compromise text. They were against the Presidency's attempt to create a distinction (which, they felt, would be discriminatory) between vodka produced from traditional raw materials (cereals, potatoes, and sugar beet molasses) ands vodka produced from other raw materials of agricultural origin.
Like the Commission, these Member States point out that this definition has been challenged by the industry and certain third countries, such as South Africa and the United States. This situation may cause the EU legal problems at the WTO, according to these countries and the Commission. Poland and Lithuania also rejected a compromise text of the Presidency, but for reasons diametrically opposed to those of the previous countries. They feel that only one vodka is worthy of the name (that produced from grain or potatoes or, at a push, sugar beet molasses).
The other Member States which took position more or less supported the modified proposal presented to them: Sweden, Latvia and Estonia (all stating their preference for a single high-quality vodka category), Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, as well as France and Italy (who nonetheless felt that there was some basis for the comments of the Commission and the United Kingdom).
The Commission reiterated its initial proposal on vodka, which consists of keeping the current non-restrictive definition which has existed for 17 years ("a spirit drink made from ethylic alcohol of agricultural origin obtained by the fermenting of agricultural raw materials"). According to Ms Fischer Boel, "our proposal is fully compatible with EU legislation and WTO requirements". According to the Commission, the definition presented by the Presidency "limits the definition of vodka to that made from potatoes, grain and sugar beet molasses" and imposes strict labelling conditions for vodka distilled from other raw materials. The legal services of the Commission have not yet returned their opinion on this proposal, but a "preliminary analysis leads me to express doubts on its compatibility with Community legislation and WTO requirements", said Ms Fischer Boel.
Furthermore, the Commission opposes the comitology procedure referred to in the Presidency text to modify the annexes of the regulation on the presentation and definition of spirit drinks. The Presidency and the vast majority of delegations are calling for this power to be reserved for a regulatory committee, whilst the Commission had proposed a procedure involving the management committee. (lc)