AMENDMENT APPLICATION Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1) U.K. AMENDMENT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 9 U.K.
‘PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA’
EC No: IT-PDO-0317-01028-9.8.2012
PGI ( ) PDO (X)
1. Headings in the specification affected by the amendments U.K.
Description of product
Method of production
Labelling
2. Type of amendment(s) U.K.
Amendment to Single Document or Summary Sheet
3. Amendment(s) U.K.
A summary of the amendments made to the Single Document and to the text of the specification is given below.
The first amendment concerns part B of the specification and point 5.2 of the Single Document; it relates to the moisture and salt criteria which characterise the product. In general, the standard has been simplified in order to facilitate its application. The substantive amendment concerns the reduction of the minimum and maximum average values for the salt criterion. The maximum value for this criterion has been reduced from 6,9 % to 6,2 % and the minimum value from 4,5 % to 4,2 %, in order to obtain an average value for salt in the product which is considerably lower than the previous values. This decision was taken following nutritional claims which have now been confirmed by the headquarters of the World Health Organisation.
The second amendment also relates to part B (last point on labelling) as well as to part H of the specification and to point 3.7 of the Single Document; it concerns the labelling of sliced and pre-packed ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. More precisely, the specific provisions laid down in the text have been replaced by more generic wording which does not contain technical requirements. This amendment is intended to simplify possible subsequent amendments relating to the graphic presentation of the packaging concerned in the sense that it will be easier to make amendments, in this case to the specification only, or to one of its annexes (the guideline referred to), instead of amending these documents and the Single Document at the same time.
The third amendment relates to part H of the specification, but not to the Single Document. It also concerns the graphic representation shown on the packaging of sliced and pre-packed ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. Also in the interests of greater commercial transparency, it has been laid down in particular that under the ducal crown the packaging/slicing firm’s acronym must be inserted instead of the producer’s. The packaging/slicing firm is in fact the last operator involved in making the product before it is placed on the market and is primarily responsible vis-à-vis the consumer. The rules on labelling in fact lay down that the packaging firm’s head office must be added to the label. In the interests of consistency, next to that information the alphanumeric abbreviation must also be included which identifies that operator within the sector protected by the PDO ‘Prosciutto di Parma’.
The subsequent amendments, relating to Articles 13 and 14 of the slicing guideline for sliced and pre-packed ‘Prosciutto di Parma’, are closely linked to the preceding amendment. The aim of the amendments in question is to make it compulsory to include on the packaging of sliced and pre-packed ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ the name of the producer or the packaging firm which are registered in the PDO monitoring system and which are subject to all the monitoring and certification procedures laid down by the system governing the PDO ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. In order to do this, the existing Article 13 has been supplemented and a new Article 14 has been added.
The reasons for this amendment are as follows. The version of the specification which is the subject of the amendment application does not require the inclusion on the product’s labelling or packaging of the name of the producer or the packaging firm, thus leaving the possibility, provided for in the national and EU rules, of simply stating the name of the person who distributes or markets the product. The latter operator is clearly not involved in any activity relating to the production, monitoring and packaging of the product or to the checks carried out by the certifying body for the PDO ‘Prosciutto di Parma’.
In order to adhere to the general idea and to a number of new principles established by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular to the provisions of Article 8 et seq., it has been decided, in an anticipatory manner because the Regulation has not yet definitively entered into force, to identify a ‘food business operator responsible for the food information’ (a function expressly provided for by the abovementioned Regulation) who is really able to guarantee that ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ complies with what is stated on its label. Only the producers who have made and checked the products and the firms which have carried out the slicing and packaging are able to provide this guarantee, it being known that slicing and packaging constitute a single, indivisible operation and that therefore the packaging firm is also the firm which carries out the slicing. These two operators are able to provide a substantive guarantee as regards the information given on the product and therefore they may legitimately be regarded as ‘responsible’ vis-à-vis consumers. In this connection, the compulsory inclusion on the label of only the producer’s name could prove discriminatory and not justified with regard to the grounds for the amendment application.
Moreover, this amendment aims to identify as persons responsible for the information relating to the product only the persons registered in the official monitoring system of the certifying body for the PDO ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. In this connection, the producers and the packaging/slicing firms both regularly undergo checks by the relevant authorities; here, too, choosing just one of them would contradict the grounds elucidated above.
For these reasons, we consider it necessary to provide for the dual possibility of showing the producer’s name or that of the packaging/slicing firm.
Moreover, the inclusion on the packaging of the firm’s full trade name (which replaces the use of alphanumeric abbreviations and of codes) improves the product traceability system, its transparency and makes that system more accessible, even to a moderately informed consumer.
When the name of the packaging/slicing firm is shown under the black triangle, the producer may also add, beside the other information shown on the label and the packaging, his own mark and company trade name.
More generally, the main aim of adding the trade name of the abovementioned operators on the front part of the packaging is to provide consumers with the guarantee that the product ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ complies with the information on its label, which is the responsibility of the operators subject to monitoring by the certifying body. The amendment aims to ensure that the information on the product’s packaging is as transparent as possible, exclusively for the benefit of consumers when buying it.
A subsequent amendment likewise relates to the guideline on slicing and concerns the revision, rationalisation and simplification of Article 12 of that guideline which lays down standards regarding the minimum shelf-life of sliced pre-packed ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. Based on the results of a number of recent studies on this, it was considered appropriate to revise the table laying down the time limits for the different product categories and the various types of packaging technology.
The last amendment concerns part C of the specification and, more particularly, the section containing provisions on rearing the pigs intended for the production of ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. The definition of the rearing techniques specifies that these ‘aim to obtain heavy pigs, an objective which must be pursued by ensuring a moderate daily weight gain, and to produce carcases falling within the main categories of the EEC classification’. The Italian rules, in addition to establishing a distinction between heavy pigs (H) and light pigs (L), lay down, in accordance with the Union rules, a classification scale subdivided into categories represented by the following letters: EUROP. Despite the absence of an express reference to the letters in the text quoted, it is nevertheless clearly apparent in the provision that ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ may be made exclusively from the legs of heavy pigs (H) belonging to the main categories of the Community scale, i.e. those falling within the categories bearing the letters ‘U’, ‘R’ and ‘O’, since carcases bearing the letters ‘E’ and ‘P’ are excluded. This choice, made when drawing up the specification, is guided by the conviction that the characteristics of the legs of carcases certified as falling under the categories ‘E’ and ‘P’ are not compatible with the ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ production requirements.
A discussion is currently taking place at Union level concerning the inclusion of the category bearing the letter ‘S’ in the abovementioned EUROP scale. The advanced stage reached in the legislative process would seem to confirm that soon the Community scale could become SEUROP, which will also have direct consequences for Italy, where the classification will concern both heavy and light pigs.
This innovation could pose major difficulties as regards the interpretation of the rules concerned contained in the specification; it would be difficult to determine the ‘main categories of the classification’ and there would be a risk of authorising the use of inadequate raw materials or of excluding those which are perfectly in keeping with the characteristics of ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. Indeed, given the new presentation of the scale, its main categories could be represented by the categories bearing the letters ‘E’, ‘U’, ‘R’ and ‘O’ or by those bearing only the letters ‘U’ and ‘R’. In the first case, pigs’ legs bearing the letter ‘E’ would be added to the main categories, which would increase the risk of using raw materials not appropriate for the production of ‘Prosciutto di Parma’. In the second case, legs bearing the letter ‘O’ would be excluded, although they have optimum characteristics.
In view of the above and in order to avoid these uncertainties regarding interpretation, it would be advisable to clarify the wording currently used in part C of the specification ‘main categories of the EEC classification’ by stating that these main categories concern carcases bearing the letters ‘U’, ‘R’ and ‘O’.
OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1).