CEP package reactions show mixed views on EU circular economy plans

© Informa 2015 1of17
CEP makes waves – but not
always good ones
by liz newmark
It was all systems go on 2 December, following the release of the long-awaited new circular economy package
(CEP) from the European Commission – with the proverbial environment and waste world and his wife anxious to
give its reactions.
The general feeling was that the CEP lacked ambition and was weaker, not more ambitious, than its 2014
predecessor. Notably, it contains lower 2030 targets for recycling and packaging waste: a 65% municipal waste
recycling target instead of 70%; and, a 75% rather than 80% packaging recycling target.
Meanwhile, many environmental organisations and MEPs were disappointed that there was no longer a food
waste cutting target, set at 30% in the original version. However, the food industry at least was pleased – with
FoodDrinkEurope saying that industry had already taken steps to prevent and tackle food waste and Pack2Go
Europe welcoming the more “balanced” and realistic proposals.
The packaging industry represented by the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment
(EUROPEN) was relieved that the CEP takes note of internal market aims and applauded the Commission’s
recognition of the “enabling contribution” packaging makes in a circular economy.
EUROPEN joined the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) in further welcoming the
Commission’s intention to improve the transparency of and rule enforcement for existing EPR schemes as well as
the accountability of different actors in EPR implementation.
While delighted to see reinforced EPR requirements and the will to set up an EPR information exchange system,
EXPRA recommends further defining EPR and its scope and to formalise EPR criteria in the packaging and
packaging waste directive.
EXPRA adds that setting new packaging recycling targets is arguably too soon, when current EU statistics do not
show a fully comparable and reliable picture of packaging recycling across the EU.
The paper industry too called on the Commission to set “realistic and meaningful” paper recycling targets. In its
reaction, the Confederation of European Paper Industries was pleased about the separate collection obligation
for key materials such as paper, as well as the call to cut landfill to 10% of all waste streams.
Bioplastics manufacturers were less happy with the new CEP – saying that it failed to see bioplastics’ potential.
European Bioplastics argued that the legislative proposals accompanying the package do not recognise the
advantages of organic waste collection and that bioplastics should play an important role in revising the waste targets.
In other packaging news, France has announced several measures aimed at cutting the number of freeriders
that avoid paying fees for the recycling of packaging; the UK’s Environment Minister wants to radically reduce the
amount of different recycling systems from around 300 at present to just five or six to boost recycling rates and
cut costs; and, following news that recycling rates are falling in Northern Ireland, the country is looking into setting
up an independent Environmental Protection Agency.
Turning to chemicals, a top Commission official recently outlined progress on the delayed sustainable use of
pesticides report, now due in the first half of 2016; while Sweden’s National Food Administration has warned that
several rice products such as rice cakes and rice noodles contain “harmful levels of arsenic”.
On the environment front, the big news continues to be the United Nations Climate Change conference in Paris.
The European Steel Association is urging negotiators to come to a comprehensive binding agreement at the
talks that end this week; while the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, in the light
of COP21 and a possible 40% energy efficiency target for 2030, is claiming that by this date, the building sector
could be the one producing the fewest emissions.
Finally, as always, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be hot news. The European Parliament’s
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee has called on the Commission not to authorise the use of
glyphosate-tolerant GM maize in food and feed and adds that the current authorisation procedure is not working well.
Last but not least, MEPs are also calling on the Commission to propose an EU ‘Fair Tax Payer’ label to fight tax
avoidance from all major companies.
All these stories and more are here to read in European Environment & Packaging Law’s 60th
Weekly Briefing,
with others from the week available online.
9 December 2015
www.eupackaginglaw.com
Y O U R W E E K LY B R I E F I N G
Liz Newmark
Editor

www.eupackaginglaw.com | 9 December 2015
© Informa 2015 2 of 17
Steel industry demands binding
agreement at UN climate conference
by liz newmark
The European Steel Association (EUROFER) is urging negotiators to come to a comprehensive and global
agreement at the Paris climate talks.
“A legally binding arrangement with comparable commitments and obligations has the greatest potential to tackle
the climate change challenge,” EUROFER said last week.
“EUROFER calls on policy makers to make sure that any Paris agreement not only mitigates, insofar as
possible, the risk of carbon leakage but also incentivises investments in Europe. Energy-intensive industries
exposed to fierce global competition, such as steel, should be able to compete in a fair way whilst on their way to
decarbonisation,” Axel Eggert, Director General of EUROFER, made clear.
In the 1 December statement, the steel industry went on to outline several objectives it wants to see in any agreement:
• A legally binding framework with transparent and comparable emissions reduction commitments from major
emitters leading to comparable reduction obligations for competing industries countries worldwide;
• Effective and equivalent international measurement, reporting and verification obligations to all parties;
• Use of market-based instruments (international credits) with a view to cost-effective mitigation action;
• A binding dispute settlement regime and clear sanctioning rules; and,
• Protection of intellectual property rights for technology dissemination and deployment.
“Presently, Europe is unilaterally imposing costs on its energy-intensive industries,” Eggert added. “Without an
international agreement, with comparable commitments and obligations from third countries, there is the risk that
this unilateral policy could dissolve Europe’s industry in climate costs, whilst simultaneously failing in the EU’s aim
to reduce global emissions.
“The European steel industry is a supporter of action on climate change: indeed, a recent BCG study
demonstrated how the use of steel in eight advanced applications could mitigate 443 million tonnes of CO2
per year,” Eggert said further. “However, we must emphasise that these CO2 reduction efforts must be done
worldwide in order to be effective.”
Buildings key to meeting energy
efficiency goals, says EuroACE
by liz newmark
In 2030, the building sector could become the one producing the fewest emissions, the European alliance of
companies for energy efficiency in buildings (EuroACE) said last week.
Its claim follows the release of a Joint Research Centre (JRC) report entitled “Securing Energy Efficiency to
Secure the Energy Union: how energy efficiency meets the EU Climate and Energy Goals”.
In this piece of work, the JRC, the European Commission’s in-house science service, shows the central role of
energy efficiency in meeting the Energy Union goals, and demonstrates that a 40% energy efficiency target for
2030 is the way forward. The report released on 30 November also said that a 40% energy efficiency target in
2030 would allow the EU to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 44%, compared to the 1990 level.
“Buildings can play a major role in this regard,” EuroACE said, “as they consume 40% of all final energy produced
in the EU, and emit 36% of energy-related CO2. They represent the largest cost-effective potential in terms of
energy savings, beyond the multiple societal benefits mentioned above.
“In fact, if increased ambition in energy renovation of existing buildings and roll-out of nZEB standards for new
buildings are effectively put in place, energy demand stemming from buildings will be reduced,” the EuroACE
statement continues.
“And in 2030, the building sector could become the sector responsible for the lowest emissions. Thus, putting a
special emphasis on the energy performance of the building stock in the EU is fundamental to deliver the Energy
Union objectives to citizens and businesses.”
environment & energy

EuroACE further said on 30 November that the 40% target should also feed into the assessment of different
policy options when revising the Energy Performance of Buildings and Energy Efficiency Directives next year.
First presented in February 2015, the Energy Union is underpinned by five dimensions, including energy
efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy demand. In this Communication, the Commission pledged
to “fundamentally rethink energy efficiency and treat it as an energy source in its own right.”
Building on these political statements, the JRC has analysed the contribution of energy efficiency to the EU
energy and climate policies, and its role within the EU’s energy system.
More precisely, it has quantified the impact of energy efficiency on import dependency, reduction of GHG
emissions, and competitiveness of the EU economy. The report demonstrates that with a 40% energy savings
target in 2030, the sum of energy savings and renewables will overtake the sum of imported fossil fuels.
For EuroACE, “this is even more important as in 2013, the trade deficits of several EU member states, such
as Austria, Finland, Lithuania, Poland and Spain, were entirely due to energy, and as most member states
experienced increased energy trade deficits in the last five years.”
For more information: the full report is available at http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/system/tdf/2015-
11-30_securing_energy_efficient_to_secure_the_energy_union_online.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=9106
Northern Ireland calls for independent
Environment Protection Agency
by marianne geater
Following the news that recycling rates in Northern Ireland are decreasing, the country’s Environment Minister,
Mark H Durkan, has called for views on potential options for an independent environmental protection agency.
In May 2016, the government departments of Northern Ireland will be restructured. According to Durkan, this
“creates an opportunity to put the appropriate structures in place to ensure our environment gets the level of
protection it deserves.”
The Minister has circulated a new discussion document, “Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland” to key
stakeholders from business and industry, agriculture, local government and non-governmental organisations.
“Some key stakeholders have expressed concerns since after May there will no longer be a Department of the
Environment, with its functions being transferred across a number of departments. They fear that environmental
protection functions will have to compete with other priorities in these new Departments.
“While I share some of these concerns, I also want to seize the opportunity that this offers. Most jurisdictions on
these islands and Europe have some form of independent environment body. They have successfully demonstrated
the advantages of a clear separation of roles and responsibilities between central government departments and
those responsible for overseeing and implementing protection and regulatory responsibilities,” said the Minister.
According to him, an independent environmental protection agency is the way forward he said and the move
should be discussed now, as restructuring plans are underway. “We need to get this right and the only way to do
this is collaboratively,” Durkan added.
On 26 November, new data showed that the country had failed to reach the 45% target set for 2015 in the
Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government in 2012 with a recycling rate at 40.6% for 2014. Landfill
rates have, however, dropped by 5.2% to 43.4%. The reason for this, as in other European countries, is the
increased waste sent to energy-from-waste facilities.
For more information: To read the consultation, go to:
https://www.doeni.gov.uk/consultations/environmental-governance-discussion-paper
EXPRA welcomes EPR criteria in
new circular economy package
by liz newmark
The Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) has welcomed the European Commission’s recognition
that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes form an essential part of an efficient waste management
process, and that their potential can be put to good use if the right framework is applied.
packaging & recycling

“We are pleased to see that EPR has found its place in EU legislation,” said William Vermeir, EXPRA President.
“Yet, for several reasons, including internal market considerations, it would be wise to further define EPR and
its scope, should that be financial, organisational or a combination of both,” Vermeir, also chief executive officer
of Belgium’s packaging recovery organisation Fost Plus, emphasised. “The extended responsibility should only
embrace activities that the obligated industry, through PROs, can actually impact.”
EXPRA’s Managing Director, Joachim Quoden, agreed: “EXPRA is delighted to see reinforced EPR requirements
within the waste proposals that will hopefully contribute to a level-playing field for EPR in the EU and therefore
help boost our systems’ performance and cost-efficiency. We will examine the provisions in detail, and contribute
with policy solutions particularly with regards to EPR, target levels and data harmonisation.”
The Commission, in adopting the long awaited “new” circular economy package last Wednesday 2 December,
proposed common requirements for EPR. For EXPRA, given that EPR is implemented in several different ways
across the bloc, these requirements should ensure a level playing field for producers, producer responsibility
organisations (PROs) and other actors in the waste management chain.
However, EXPRA says that these criteria should be enhanced, particularly as concerns the roles and
responsibilities of the various EPR players. The Alliance also wants these criteria to be formalised in the
packaging and packaging waste directive (PPWD), arguing that “This would help the functioning of EPR in this
specific waste stream, which involves a large number of companies from various industry sectors and requires a
dense waste management infrastructure”.
The Alliance is further pleased that the Commission is planning to set up an EPR information exchange platform.
“The initiative will certainly contribute to identifying best practice across the EU, as well as understanding the
difficulties facing some member states,” EXPRA said in its 2 December statement. “With over 20 years of
experience in this field, EXPRA would be delighted to take part in this platform.”
Targets
The Commission’s new packaging notably sets EU recycling targets of 65% for municipal waste and 75% for
packaging waste by 2030. It also proposes to reduce landfill’s share to a maximum of 10% of all waste by 2030.
The legislative proposal in addition sets material specific recycling targets of 55% for plastic; 60% for wood; and
75% for ferrous metal and aluminium; glass and paper and cardboard to be reached by 2025; increasing to 75%
for wood and 85% for metals, glass and paper and cardboard by 2030.
EXPRA’s view is that setting new targets is perhaps too soon, when current EU statistics do not show a fully
comparable and reliable picture of packaging recycling across the EU. An EXPRA-owned study revealed that
between 2006 and 2012, data inconsistencies and variances are so large that it would be premature to affirm that
member states have actually reached their packaging waste targets.
EXPRA moreover highlights that combining “preparation for reuse” and recycling operations under the said
targets will further complicate the target calculation, thus hindering, in a more prominent way, the comparability of
results amongst member states.
“There are divergent interpretations of what these processes stand for, and how the targets should actually
be calculated,” EXPRA said, adding that “At the same time, we welcome the options set out for recycling
measurement, that take into account the multiple modalities through which recycling can be calculated. Efforts will
however need to be directed towards monitoring and enforcement, therefore ensuring quality recycling.”
Founded in 2013, EXPRA is the organisation for packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling systems
owned by obliged industry and work on a not-for-profit or profit not for distribution basis. EXPRA acts as the
authoritative voice and common policy platform representing the interests of its members, all founded and run by
or on behalf of obliged industry.
Over the past 20 years, its 25 members across 23 countries including 17 EU member states have co-organised
the collection, sorting and recycling of used packaging (with a focus on household packaging) on behalf of the
obligated industry. In so doing, they fulfil their legal take back and recycling obligations, serving over 200 million
inhabitants and recycling over 18 million tonnes of packaging per year.
For more information: see www.expra.eu. The packaging waste proposal is at http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-
growth-investment/circular-economy/docs/amending-directive-packaging-waste_en.pdf
EUROPEN applauds internal
market emphasis in new CEP
by liz newmark
Packaging producers gave the European Commission’s new circular economy package released on 2 December
a thumbs up, particularly as it took note of internal market aims.

In a first reaction to the publication, the European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN)’s
chair Martin Reynolds said that EUROPEN members were “committed to continuously improving the
environmental performance of packaged products in a sustainable manner”.
“Being able to take advantage of the scale of the EU Internal Market has been crucial to unlocking the packaging
supply chain’s investment in resource efficient innovations,” Reynolds made clear. “Therefore, we strongly
support the retention of the Internal Market safeguard, which remains vital to achieving a competitive and
resource efficient circular economy for our industry.”
The package includes legislative proposals on packaging and packaging waste, notably a 75% packaging waste
recycling target by 2030 – with material specific targets of 55% for plastics, 75% for wood and 85% for glass,
metals and paper and cardboard. It also proposes stricter rules for packaging recovery “extended producer
responsibility” (EPR) schemes – a commitment applauded by industry.
“We welcome the proposal’s intention to improve the transparency of and rule enforcement for existing Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, as well as the accountability of different actors in EPR implementation,”
EUROPEN Managing Director Virginia Janssens said. “In line with this shared responsibility, we will now assess
the implications of some of the proposed wording in particular related to producers’ financial contributions to
these EPR schemes.”
In its 2 December statement, EUROPEN further welcomed that the proposal recognises the “enabling
contribution” packaging makes in a circular economy.
“Over the last 20 years, the packaging supply chain has demonstrated considerable progress towards efficient
use of resources of packaged goods along their value chains, whilst preserving and extending the value of
products and materials in the economy.”
New circular economy package
fails to see bioplastics’ potential
by liz newmark
Legislative proposals to amend the waste framework directive as part of the European Commission’s new circular
economy package (CEP) do not recognise the advantages of organic waste collection, European Bioplastics said
on “CEP” day last Wednesday.
“Organic waste accounts for the largest fraction (30-45%) in municipal waste,” the organisation said on 2
December. “Yet, today, only 25% of the 90 million tonnes of bio-waste in Europe is collected separately and
recycled in a resource efficient and sustainable manner by composting and anaerobic digestion.”
The organisation emphasised that with the right waste legislation, “an additional 60 million tonnes of biowaste
could be recycled, which would result in the creation of 30,000 new jobs.”
European Bioplastics further said that bioplastics should play an important role to revise waste targets, “as they
contribute to multiplying end-of-life options, such as mechanical recycling, organic recycling and waste to ‘bio’-
energy. Furthermore, the material properties of bioplastics should be recognised within the context of ecodesign
measures, given the significant environmental benefits they offer.
On the positive side, the bioplastics industry said that the Commission Communication ‘Closing the loop – an EU
action plan for the Circular Economy’ acknowledges that “bio-based materials present advantages due to their
renewability, biodegradability and compostability”.
“The proposal is an important step towards closing the carbon loop in Europe,” European Bioplastics chair
François de Bie said. He said that closing the loop, “whilst urgently necessary, should be complemented by
measures to boost the bio-economy.
“Biodegradable plastics contribute to proper organic waste collection and bio-based plastics help to minimise
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, particularly durable bioplastics have the potential to sequester the bio-
based carbon. If mechanically recycled, this benefit of carbon sequestration can be sustained throughout many
life cycles, making a significant contribution to a circular economy.
Bioplastics potential
European Bioplastics said that it was essential to boost the bioplastics industry both economically and
legislatively, as “Even though production will continue to grow steadily in the coming years, forecasts show that in
2019, more than 95% of bioplastics production capacities will be located outside Europe.

“If EU member states want to attract investment and jobs in this sector, they need to tackle the problem of limited
economic and political support, which currently hampers the scale-up of production capacities and market
penetration of bioplastic products in Europe,” de Bie said. “The right strategy and conditions are needed to reverse
this trend and help to make full use of bioplastics’ environmental, economic and social potential in Europe.”
Packaging biggest bioplastics player
Bioplastics are a large family of innovative plastic materials that are either bio-based or biodegradable, or both.
The global market for bioplastics is predicted to grow by more than 350% in the mid-term. The latest market data
by European Bioplastics shows that global bioplastics production capacity is set to increase from around 1.7
million tonnes in 2014 to approximately 7.8 million tonnes in 2019.
Packaging remains the single largest field of application for bioplastics with almost 70% of the total bioplastics
market. The data also confirms a decisive increase in the uptake of bioplastics materials in many other sectors,
including textiles, automotive, and consumer goods.
European Bioplastics is the European association representing the interests of industry along the entire
bioplastics value chain. Its members produce, refine and distribute bioplastics, plastics that are bio-based,
biodegradable or both.
For more information: see www.european-bioplastics.org
Paper industry calls for realistic
and meaningful recycling targets
by liz newmark
Paper recycling targets should be “meaningful but realistic”, the Confederation of European Paper Industries
(CEPI) told EE&PL, following the European Commission’s long awaited release of its circular economy package
(CEP) on 2 December.
“The paper industry is asking for meaningful but realistic targets,” CEPI told us on 3 December. “Ending the
landfilling of separately collected waste together with the separate collection obligation for key materials such as
paper is a crucial target we strongly support.”
Commenting on the 75% paper recycling target for 2025 and 85% goal for 2030 set in the package’s
accompanying proposal to amend the packaging and packaging waste directive, CEPI said that “We see the
European target for paper and cardboard recycling as a positive signal, since it will further increase recycling
particularly in member states so far under average.”
Turning to the calculation method – which now embraces a range of options rather than, as in the previous
version, only looking at what went into the recycling process – CEPI was pleased at the change. “The calculation
method in the new Circular Economy package seems to be reasonable since it is aiming at harmonisation and
does not end with sorting,” CEPI Director General, Marco Mensink, said.
In welcoming the adoption of the Commission’s new package, Mensink said that “Our expectations have been
met. This major policy initiative has correctly identified the synergies needed to find real solutions. The package
has reached a level of ambition rarely seen in policymaking.”
CEPI’s general 2 December statement goes on to say that “By recognising the contribution of biomass and bio-
based products to the Circular Economy the European Commission now takes into account that circularity in
many cases starts with raw materials from renewable sources. CEPI is looking forward to concrete actions in the
field of bio-based product in the future.”
In addition, the Commission has recognised the importance of ending waste management options that do not
create value for Europe, CEPI makes clear.
“Paper recycling is part of our daily lives in Europe,” Mensink emphasised, adding that “We can still do more. It is great
to see that the Commission recognises the need for separate collection of paper, providing good quality raw materials.”
New targets
The Commission’s headline targets for 2030 in the new CEP are to recycle 65% of municipal waste, 75% of
packaging waste and to cut landfill to a maximum of 10% of all waste streams.
“We also appreciate that further limits to landfilling are being put in place,” Mensink said. For CEPI, “This is a file
where the needs of industry closely align with many other stakeholder positions. The Commission proposes a
logical step forward and one that should be taken from legislation to reality as soon as possible.”

CEPI also believes that the Commission is right in recognising recyclability as waste prevention and in
harmonising the method for the calculation of recycling rates to make data more comparable and reliable.
CEPI finally notes that the new CEP is released as the European paper industry, together with its partners in
the paper value chain, is about to publish the European Declaration on Paper Recycling committing to a further
increase in paper recycling from today’s already high 71.7% paper recycling rate.
France fights packaging free riders
by marianne geater
The French government has announced that it will launch a number of measures aimed at reducing
the number of freeriders that do not respect their obligations under the principle of Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR).
Any company that places products on the market that fall under an EPR scheme must either adhere to an
individual system or to an approved recovery scheme to ensure that the waste that results from these products
are managed efficiently. To finance this system, companies must pay a fee to the EPR which will be passed on
to the end user. However, for various reasons, not all companies pay this fee and the French government has
decided it is time to tackle this freerider issue.
Responding to a parliamentary question, France’s Environment Minister Ségolène Royal announced that she had
launched “resolute actions” to address this problem.
“Some 1,334 reminder letters have been sent,” Royal said, while noting that in most cases companies regularised
their situation without delay. When this was not the case, “130 enforcement notices and 36 fines” had to be
imposed. The end result, Royal said, is that several million euros of missing fees are now available for the
recovery schemes, “meaning that costs can be reduced for the virtuous companies”.
To deal with waste operators and illegal practices, the government has also set up an inter-ministerial unit. This
body, established in 2013 following the country’s major environmental conference, has already launched several
operational campaigns, Royal added – with further actions relating to construction waste and electronic waste
also in the pipeline.
UK’s Environment Minister eyes
big reduction in recycling systems
by marianne geater
The UK’s Environment Minister is looking into cutting the amount of different recycling systems from around 300
at present to just five or six in a bid to boost recycling rates and cut costs.
At a recent conference in London, Rory Stewart said he wanted to address “the craziness that we have over 300
different recycling systems in Britain. Almost every council is running a different recycling system. We really need
to find a way of co-ordinating better.”
Standardised recycling collections are his “priority”, Stewart said, adding that while achieving this will be “difficult”
(mainly because many local councils are resistant to central government efforts to standardise local waste and
recycling policies) he believes getting down “to around five or six systems” was possible. This would help save
money and “drive down costs”.
The Minister said that any reforms would be carried out on a voluntary basis in co-operation with councils. “I’ve
got to convince councils of this. But if we can do it, we can save the councils money, we can save rate payers
money, and we drive up our recycling rates quite dramatically because there would be enormous economies of
scale for the recycling industry in having a standardised system.”
Stewart also suggested that there were particular issues in collecting glass and paper together; but that he
believed finding a solution would also present “real opportunities” for the sector.
The UK government has been carrying out work on more standardised collection systems by local authorities in
the UK, but not a “one size fits all approach”.

New circular economy package
slammed for lacking ambition
by marianne geater
Despite promises that the new circular economy package, unveiled on 2 December by EU Commission First
Vice-President Frans Timmermans, would be more ambitious than its 2014 version, it appears the European
Commission has caved in to BusinessEurope’s lobbying and presented a much weaker version of the package, a
move widely criticised by MEPs, non-governmental organisations and the waste industry.
The new package has lower 2030 targets for recycling and packaging waste: a 65% target for municipal waste
instead of 70% and a 75% recycling target for packaging instead of 80%.
Timmermans, aware that his package was about to disappoint many, told the 2 December press conference that
“We could have said 100% so it was even more ambitious. But what would that have meant in the real world? I
prefer realistic ambitious steps forward to just pie in the sky.”
He also added that the targets could be revised upwards in the future. “If we see that we are on the way to easily
reach that target, we will increase our ambition to 70% and beyond, if that is possible,” he said.
The Commissioner for Better Regulation pointed to aspects in the new package, outlined in an action plan, rather
than a legislative proposal, that aim to encourage better design of products to facilitate easy recycling.
Referring to eco-design, he said, “This package is much more ambitious than the previous because it is the full
circle. The previous one was only about waste.”
He insisted that it would be “very unfair” to describe the new package as less ambitious simply because
the recycling targets were 5% lower. He said the 65% target was a more “realistic” target for EU member
governments to meet.
Yet the new package drops food waste and marine litter targets, citing the precedence of internationally agreed
Sustainable Development Goals, and targets for resource efficiency. Instead, the package contains a requirement
for all member states to take measures that “promote the prevention of food waste” in line with the UN
Sustainable Development goal of halving food waste by 2030.
The language around the separate collection of bio-waste has also been softened, to require separate collection
where “technically, environmentally and economically practicable”.
The zero-landfill goal has also been dumped, although the proposal contains a binding target to reduce landfill
waste to a maximum of 10% of waste streams by 2030 across all member states.
The Commission also allows for the seven member states that currently have the lowest recycling targets –
Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovakia – to recycle 60% of their waste by 2030, a move
criticised by UK Liberal MEP Catherine Bearder. “It is shocking that those governments not doing enough to meet
current recycling targets are being let off the hook. All EU countries should play their part in cutting waste and
preserving the planet’s precious resources.”
Turning to ecodesign, the package promises to provide repair guides for electronics, but not until 2018 and only
where “proportionate”.
According to the UK’s Green Alliance, the lower targets and less ambitious approach in the new package will
create fewer jobs than its 2014 predecessor.
The draft legislation will now be debated and amended by MEPs and member states.
The positive aspects
According to the Commission, waste prevention, ecodesign, re-use and similar measures could bring net savings
of €600 billion, or 8% of annual turnover, for businesses in the EU, while reducing total annual greenhouse gas
emissions by 2-4 %.
In the sectors of re-use and repair, for example, the cost of remanufacturing mobile phones could be halved
if it were easier to take them apart. If 95% of mobile phones were collected, this could generate savings on
manufacturing material costs of more than €1 billion, the Commission says.
The package calls for new measures that will promote reparability, durability and recyclability to be built into
products from the outset. During his speech, Timmermans criticised products that are designed to fail as soon as
their warranty has lapsed. Specifically, these measures will be built into the Ecodesign Directive which currently
tries to improve the energy efficiency of consumer goods.
waste management

The package further introduces a variety of market mechanisms designed to encourage ‘circular’ behaviour.
This includes economic instruments to discourage landfilling (such as a landfill tax) and incentives for producers
to put greener products on the market and to support recovery schemes (for example for packaging, batteries,
and electronic equipment).
There is support for a higher uptake of green public procurement. The Commission also calls for the development
of quality standards for secondary raw materials to increase the confidence of operators in the single market.
Plastics
The package includes a new strategy on plastics in the circular economy, addressing issues of recyclability,
biodegradability, the presence of hazardous substances in plastics, and the Sustainable Development Goals
target for significantly reducing marine litter. The Commission is aiming to reduce the substantial amount of
plastics waste that litters landfills and oceans where they endanger marine life. A prospective plastics recycling
target for 2025 has been set at 55%.
“The Commission may propose revised levels of the targets for plastics for 2030 based on a review of progress
made by member states towards reaching those targets, taking into account the evolution of the types of plastics
placed on the market and the development of new recycling technologies and the demand for recycled plastics.”
Water reuse is also addressed, with a legislative proposal on minimum requirements for the reuse of wastewater
while there are concrete measures to promote re-use and stimulate industrial symbiosis –turning one industry’s
by-product into another industry’s raw material.
Economic potential
The Commission’s Vice President responsible for jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness, Jyrki Katainen,
said: “These proposals give a positive signal to those waiting to invest in the circular economy.
“The job creation potential of the circular economy is huge, and the demand for better, more efficient products
and services is booming. We will remove barriers that make it difficult for businesses to optimise their resource
use and we will boost the internal market for secondary raw materials.”
Regulation surrounding packaging waste has been streamlined, and implementation reports prepared by
member states every three years will be scrapped as they “have not proved to be an effective tool for verifying
compliance” and are “generating unnecessary administrative burden”.
There is, however, little in the report to suggest how redesign of products or a review of product lifecycle could
help stimulate a reduction in packaging waste.
On food, the package will look for a common way to measure food waste across the bloc and review date-
marking on labels, which it says urges consumers to throw away food too soon.
The Commission also plans to harmonise and simplify the legal framework on by-products so that they can be more
effectively reused for other industrial purposes. It proposes to introduce an Early Warning System for monitoring
compliance with recycling targets which would ensure that member states cannot fall behind in their performance.
Under extended producer responsibility the Commission proposes an obligatory reporting system.
Reinventing the economy
Timmermans insisted that the proposals, which include investment and regulatory strategies to make it easier to
repair, re-use and recycle everything from electrical appliances to building rubble, were a step toward “reinventing
the European economy”.
It also commits more than €6 billion of EU funding to the initiative, with €650 million coming from Horizon 2020 –
the EU’s research and innovation initiative – and €5.5 billion from structural funds.
“This mix of smart regulation and incentives at EU level will help businesses and consumers, as well as national
and local authorities, to drive this transformation,” Timmermans said in a statement.
MEPs to fight the package
MEPs from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), which represents 190 of the European
Parliament’s 751 MEPs, are adamant that the 70% recycling target should be reinstated when the Commission’s
circular economy package passes through Parliament. They also call for “recycled content standards” to boost
the market for secondary raw materials.
The Italian MEP responsible for the waste package, Simona Bonafè, said: “We think that the 65% target for
recycling of municipal waste by 2030 is not enough. The proposal that was initially discussed already with the
Barroso Commission back in 2014 set the goal to 70% and this is the minimum we will call for in the Parliament.”
She said her group would push for greater extended producer responsibility schemes and a bio and recycled
content standards to “boost the demand on high quality secondary and bio-based raw materials”.

© Informa 2015 10 of 17
Finnish centre right MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen, who wrote a report calling for a total landfill ban, said that the new
package “fell short”.
“The European Parliament asked for a clear 30% resource efficiency target by 2030. The problem with the lack of
a clear target, or setting targets too low is that we risk locking ourselves in misguided and suboptimal investments
and end up losing a lot of money.”
British Liberal Bearder said, “Timmermans promised us a more ambitious package, but the only ambition shown
here has been for watering down targets.”
The European Conservatives and Reformists group’s Julie Girling, a lead MEP on the previous proposal, was less
damning, saying that the package, “needs to be ambitious, but find balance, so we can tackle the transition to a
more sustainable future, tackling climate change and energy needs whilst stimulating EU jobs and economic growth.
“It’s been quite a delay since the discussion a year ago on withdrawal; it’s now time to get to work on this.”
Industry view
Jobs and Growth Commissioner Jyrki Katainen, speaking at the press conference alongside Timmermans,
warned that the Commission would be unable to satisfy everyone.
“There are always two extreme groups which are criticising these kinds of proposals. The first group are saying
that we are not doing enough, the other ones are saying we are doing too much,” said the Commissioner.
“Our message is that there is plenty of room in the middle for the moderate substance or indeed people who want
to get really results and who want to create market economy which is more sustainable for the people and for the
environment,” added Katainen.
The only organisations who wholeheartedly welcomed the new package were BusinessEurope,
EUROCHAMBRES and FEVE (the European Container Glass Federation). Other groups were rather lukewarm.
EUROCHAMBRES said the package was “ a step in the right direction” and was “better balanced and more
holistic than the withdrawn 2014 package,” although it still found the packaging targets “unrealistic” and
suggested “ an extension of timeframes”.
BusinessEurope held a similar position. “The new package outlines a more coherent and consistent way to
approach all phases of the circle. While waste management remains an important part, it is now better included in
a full range of initiatives required all along the wheel,” said Director General Markus J. Beyrer, who welcomed that
a one-size-fits-all approach was not used.
FEVE said that “at last” it welcomed the circular economy package.
“Our industry is engaged in a real circular business model! We endlessly recycle glass bottles to produce new
ones since 40 years, and by doing so we reduce environmental impacts, we create jobs, we reduce costs and
grow our businesses. It is encouraging that the closed loop now becomes the model for the whole EU economy,”
FEVE President Vitaliano Torno said.
Torno added that “The proposed recycling targets for glass packaging are challenging especially for those
countries where a lot still needs to be done; more investment will be needed to develop glass recycling
infrastructures.”
However, the Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) regretted that the proposals “fall short in
promoting the use of renewable materials and innovation in recycling technologies”.
“Just increasing the individual recycling targets for key materials like paper, plastics and aluminium will not
be sufficient to match innovation,” said ACE Director General Bertil Heerink. “Measures must be taken that
strengthen existing recycling solutions, foster innovation in new recyclable materials and recycling techniques,
resulting in a further increase in recycling of beverage cartons across Europe.”
UK reactions
Reactions from business in the UK were also less than ecstatic.
Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group, said that the Commission needs to provide more detail
on specific proposals. “The package provides a decent starting point, but it is not yet detailed enough to give the
resource efficiency makeover the EU economy needs,” Molho warns.
“The package needs a clear overall resource efficiency goal, clear standards to facilitate material reuse across
all key products, quality standards to boost consumer confidence in secondary materials and a clear strategy to
favour those businesses that are more resource efficient through public procurement policy.”
The UK waste industry also issued several statements on 2 December regretting the lack of ambition in the
new package.

© Informa 2015 11 of 17
The Resource Association’s Ray Georgeson said that “The argument likely to unfold about the merits or
otherwise of a 70% or 65% recycling target misses the point again that Europe would have been better served
by a serious reboot of policy, incorporating carbon metrics not weight-based percentage targets and a holistic
approach to the circular economy that incorporated real demand-pull measures, stricter approaches to eco-
design and recyclability and much greater emphasis on prevention, reuse, repair and remanufacturing.”
Peter Gerstrom, Environmental Services Association chairman, said that it was essential to “address the demand
side and that should be a key focus for the discussions that will now follow – markets for secondary raw materials
are currently weak, with little or no sign of recovery. Without sustainable markets for these materials it will be very
difficult to deliver the Commission’s vision of higher recycling rates and a more circular economy.”
Meanwhile, the UK government has expressed its concern over the package, saying it would be both costly and
burdensome for families and businesses alike. A spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs said it was “seriously concerned over the role of waste targets and we will examine their implications
for the UK.
“We will continue working with the Commission and other member states on this important issue as discussions
begin,” he said. The UK recycled 44% of its waste in 2013, but is still in danger of missing the 2020 target, leaving
it open to fines.
Green groups disappointed too
Unsurprisingly, for environmental organisations, it was the usual refrain – too little ambition, not enough binding
targets, and more action needed.
Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) slammed the proposal for not living up to its promise; and said it feared
that the circular economy proposal has become a casualty of the European Commission’s so-called “Better
Regulation” Agenda.
FoEE Director Magda Stoczkiewicz said that “This has been a year of unnecessary delay. Under the guise
of Better Regulation, the Commission has totally undermined claims of ‘ambition’ by watering down binding
measures and giving member states a free pass to shy away from tackling our overconsumption crisis. Compared
with the previous one, this package is not Better Regulation but short-termist Bad Regulation.”
Stéphane Arditi, policy manager for products and waste at the European Environmental Bureau, agreed. “The
addition of some nice initiatives does not offset the fact that the legally binding core of the package, notably the
waste targets, is weaker than in last year’s proposal. We’ve ended up with a wasted year and a proposal that is
less ambitious.”
The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)’s European Policy Office expressed its dismay over a plan “that does not
look at the whole product’s lifecycle – from sourcing to waste – and that will not reduce Europe’s enormous and
unstainable overconsumption.”
Fourthly, Surfrider Foundation Europe (SFE) regretted the lack of binding target for marine litter reduction and
called for the EU strategy on plastics to address ecodesign and put an end to the reign of single use products
and overpackaging.
“[The Strategy] will also need to tackle further waste management. Indeed, today in the EU, nearly 50% of plastic
waste is still landfilled,” SFE said in a press release. “It is a shame that the Commission did not introduce more
ambitious targets for recycling or a binding reduction target for marine litter.
“In its circular economy proposal, the European Commission integrates important provisions for prevention,
reuse and reparability. But vital improvements are still needed and must be brought forward by the Parliament
and the Council.”
Commission under fire for omitting
food waste target
by liz newmark
The European Commission should have included a food waste prevention target in its new circular
economy package (CEP), many stakeholders argued last week – although the food industry itself supported
the new approach.
The Commission unveiled new recycling and waste targets as part of the CEP, after it withdrew a similar
proposal last year, largely due to its new drive to cut red tape, environmental organisations and many MEPs
said. At the time, Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans promised that he would come up with a
“more ambitious” proposal.
waste management

© Informa 2015 12 of 17
However, the new package lowers targets in several areas and has scrapped binding targets to cut food waste.
The “headline” targets in the CEP for 2030 are to recycle 65% of municipal waste; 75% of packaging waste; and,
to reduce landfill to a maximum of 10% across all waste streams.
Draft legislation will now be debated and amended by MEPs, with a first discussion due by ministers at the 16
December Environment Council in Brussels.
Disappointment
But for many, the much vaunted new package was a let-down. “Europe must not waste this opportunity to protect
the planet’s resources and end the throwaway society,” British Liberal Democrat Catherine Bearder said.
“We were promised a more ambitious package, but the only ambition shown here has been for watering down
targets. Ambitious targets, including for food waste, must be reinstated.”
Nearly all MEPs expressed their disappointment that the revised plan has no binding food waste target – with
the head of Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, Italian Christian Democrat
Giovanni La Via, particularly noting that ENVI “would have liked more ambition on food waste, in order to have a
more balanced package,” in its reaction.
The “old” CEP did include a 30% food waste reduction target for 2025 although already shying away from a
planned chapter on “sustainable food systems” due to concerns over reliability of data. But now, the Commission
chooses to focus on more general targets, such as a common measurement methodology to measure food waste
across the EU and improved date marking, to stop consumers throwing away food too soon.
The Commission also wants to develop tools to meet the global Sustainable Development Goal to halve
food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030, notably by creating a food chain “platform” of member
state representatives and food chain operators to help define measures needed for the EU to contribute to
this goal.
The strategy further includes steps to ensure the redistribution of edible food – with a clarification to allow
“former foodstuffs”, such as broken biscuits or stale bread, to be used as animal feed – and sets out measures to
promote the efficient use of bio-based resources.
Also positive, the legislative proposal on waste calls on member states to cut food waste at each stage of the
food supply chain, to monitor food waste levels and to report back on the progress.
The Commission further says it will put forward a “simple and effective monitoring framework” to monitor the
main elements of the plan, developing indicators in areas such as waste management and the use of recycled
materials, along with the planned common methodology to measure food waste.
The Commission defines a circular economy as one in which “the value of products and materials is maintained
for as long as possible, waste and resource use are minimised and resources are kept within the economy when
a product has reached the end of its life, to be used again and again to create further value.”
FoodDrinkEurope gives package thumbs up
If environmentalists and MEPs bemoaned the lack of binding measures to cut food waste, the food industry took
a different view.
Welcoming last week’s publication, the industry’s organisation FoodDrinkEurope said it was “pleased to see that
measures to reduce food waste are an important element of the Circular Economy package”.
“We welcome the fact that the Commission has recommended Member States to take steps to reduce food
waste across the whole supply chain from farm to fork and to assess and report progress according to a set
of common methodologies,” said Mella Frewen, Director General. “We believe this approach will make an
important contribution to the global food waste commitment under the UN Sustainable Development Goals which
FoodDrinkEurope fully supports.”
In its 2 December statement, FoodDrinkEurope emphasised that “Europe’s food and drink industry has already
taken steps to help prevent and tackle food waste across the food supply chain, with the Every Crumb Counts
initiative and the practical industry toolkit ‘Maximising Food Resources’.
“Based on a report showcasing the concrete actions taken by Europe’s food and drink manufacturers, over 80%
of survey respondents said they are working to identify the causes of food wastage in their production systems
and to optimise their processes accordingly,” the statement continues. “In addition, 80% of respondents are taking
initiatives to prevent food wastage in their manufacturing operations.”
The statement ends in an equally positive note, saying that “Working together with the European Commission
and other stakeholders, Europe’s food and drink manufacturers will continue stepping up the efforts to improve
resource efficiency, and therefore to progress towards a circular economy.”

© Informa 2015 13 of 17
Europe’s convenience food packaging association Pack2Go Europe also welcomed the more “balanced” EU
circular economy proposal. The group says that the new proposal takes a more effective and realistic approach
compared to the first draft put on the table in July 2014.
In its 2 December statement, Pack2Go Europe further singles out the package’s measures requiring member
states to put in place waste management plans dealing with littering and litter.
For more information: the new CEP can be accessed at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm
Denmark to investigate circular
economy’s potential
by marianne geater
Following a new report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation which lists the potential a circular economy would
bring to Denmark, Danish politicians and businesses have expressed their wish to look into this untapped
potential as soon as possible.
The report calls on Denmark to focus on remanufacturing and to increase the packaging waste recycling rate
to 75% as well as to raise the recycling of other waste and by-products in sectors such as breweries, food
production and machine production. This, it states, can create a lasting, more innovative, resistant and productive
social economy.
By increasing recycling rates through better collection systems and working together with stakeholders on
ways to increase standardisation, Denmark would save both embedded energy and carbon. In addition,
Danish companies could develop a competitive advantage in bio-based materials, if the need for accelerated
technological development and creating functional end-of-use pathways is addressed, says the report.
In Denmark, the volume of plastic packaging waste grew 2% annually over ten years, to 184,000 tonnes in 2012,
while the volume of other packaging waste, such as glass and paper, declined by 1.3% a year over the same
period. While Denmark has spearheaded many recycling initiatives, such as one of the first successful bottle
deposit systems, recycling rates are still low for plastic packaging.
One root cause may be the large waste incineration capacity in Denmark, using combined heat and power
plants to generate electricity and provide district heating. Since low utilisation undermines incinerator economics,
the incentive to switch packaging volumes over to recycling has been limited. In the ‘Denmark Without Waste’
resource strategy, the Danish government expresses a goal to gradually move from incinerating valuable
materials – such as plastics – to recycling.
According to the report’s analysis, by 2035, Denmark could create between 7,000 and 13,000 new jobs by
applying a circular economy. The authors say that Denmark could also achieve a 3% to 6% increase in exports
and increase the country’s GNP (gross national product) by 0.8% to 1.4%, while reducing CO2 emissions and the
use of new resources.
Denmark’s Minister for Business and Growth, Troels Lund Poulsen, recently promised to work towards one of the
analysis’ recommendations: to remove any legal obstacles to a circular economy. Parts of the tax system work
against any increase in recycling, amongst other things.
“I want to lead the way when it comes to exploiting the potential of a circular economy, which is so large that any
business minister must look at this with the greatest interest,” the minister told a late November conference.
According to the Deputy Director General of the Danish Confederation of Industries, Tine Roed, a circular economy
opens up new business potential and can help solve the shortage of raw materials for production, which companies
will be facing as the world’s population grows and a larger middle class emerges, leading to higher consumption.
Giving plastic recycling a boost
According to the report, Denmark could easily boost the amount of plastic packaging collected for recycling to
up to 40% by 2020 (20% for households and 60% for businesses). This equates to an overall improvement with
10 percentage points compared to current recycling rate (5 percentage points for households and 20 percentage
points for businesses).
In addition, the report argues that a 75% recycling rate (65% for households and 85% for businesses) by 2035 is
feasible, as is the improved valorisation of the collected plastic waste.
A transition towards increased recycling would centre on three key levers – design, collection and sorting – each
with a few different enabling mechanisms: Higher collection rates for recycling, improved sorting technology and
design for recycling.
waste management

© Informa 2015 14 of 17
By 2020, increased recycling could reduce demand of virgin plastic material by 20,000- 25,000 tonnes; by 2035
this could be 70,000-100,000 tonnes.
The question that the report fails to answer, however, is what source of energy should be used to replace the heat
and electricity generated from incineration to ensure that Denmark’s carbon footprint is indeed reduced.
For more information: see http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/government/EMF_
TFPM_ExecSum_11-9-15.pdf
EU outlines progress on delayed
sustainable pesticide use report
by jackie bird
An analysis of the implementation of the EU sustainable use of pesticides directive (2009/128) will be issued in
the first half of 2016, according to Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director General for the food chain at the European
Commission’s Health and Food Safety Directorate General (DG SANTE).
A draft version is ready, Miko said, acknowledging that the Commission had missed the 26 November 2014
deadline stipulated in the Directive for the report. He was speaking at a European Parliament symposium in
November, organised by environmentalist groups and biological control associations.
The Directive started to operate in EU member states in 2011 and brought together many existing voluntary
measures such as training in good practice, adoption of IPM (integrated pest management) techniques, and
inspections of spraying equipment. Member states had to draw up National Action Plans (NAPs) to reduce
the risks and impacts of pesticide use. Professional users had to implement IPM techniques from January
2014 onwards.
The Commission’s report has to look at: the information received from member states on their NAPs; the methods
used; and, at the implications of establishing different targets to reduce the risks and use of pesticides.
Miko noted that sustainable use measures are already covered in the regular audits of member state compliance
with EU pesticide legislation, which are carried out by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO).
Nevertheless, he highlighted several areas where reporting and implementation of the Directive had been delayed.
The FVO was tasked with analysing the NAPs, but its first analyses were only discussed with member states from
September 2014. Furthermore, countries had to submit IPM reports by 30 June 2013, but this was not completed
until March 2014. At EU level, the availability of IPM guidelines has been delayed, Miko added.
Information on NAPs indicates shortcomings in the availability of certain services in member states. While nearly
all countries have established advisory services, the number declines for other items such as monitoring traps,
forecasting models and other IT systems. Guidelines on general principles and crop-specific guidelines are only
available in 16 member states, and only 12 have incentives to encourage professional users to implement crop or
sector-specific IPM guidelines, Miko made clear.
The lack of any legally binding IPM measures for farmers, or of a system to verify IPM use, was highlighted at
the meeting by Henriette Christensen of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe. Christensen complained that
member state NAPs were inconsistent, recycled existing practices and lacked ambition by not fixing quantitative
use-reduction targets. She urged the Parliament to keep pressurising the Commission for its delayed analyses of
the NAPs and the Directive’s implementation.
She also noted that member states are meant to revise their NAPs every five years, with the first revision due
in 2017 and that the Commission is required to produce another report in November 2018 with proposals to
amend the Directive. EU Agriculture Ministers in October also supported calls for measures to speed up the
implementation of sustainable crop protection.
Miko argued that progress in other legislative areas had benefited sustainable pesticide use, such as an increase
in approvals of biopesticides and other “low-risk” products under the EU agrochemical registration Regulation
(1107/2009).
But Willem Ravensberg of biocontrol company Koppert countered this by saying that, “in reality”, there had
been “little progress” in the availability and adoption of biopesticides. Earlier this year, Ravensberg, who is also
president of the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, argued that biopesticide development was
still hampered by a slow and complicated EU registration system.
chemicals, products
& sustainability

© Informa 2015 15 of 17
Rice products tested in Sweden
contain “harmful levels of arsenic”
by scott lahart
Levels of arsenic in rice and rice products in Sweden are considered “harmful”, a new survey from the Swedish
National Food Administration (NFA) has revealed.
In the spring, the NFA started tests on 102 different rice products. The report notes that the carcinogen arsenic
is found in rice, but that most Swedes do not eat enough rice to risk their health. However, the NFA now
discourages them from eating rice every day.
“We understand that it can be difficult for those who have food traditions based on rice – for example people from
many Asian countries – but our advice is still to try and gradually eat less rice,” says Swedish NFA toxicologist
Emma Halldin Ankarberg in a press release.
The highest amount of arsenic is found in rice cakes, which is why the administration now advises against giving
the product to children under six years old.
The NFA also states that children should not eat other kinds of rice and rice products – such as rice porridge and
rice noodles – more than four times per week.
“Many children eat rice cakes as a snack, but unfortunately we have to advise against it. Other countries are also
now giving this advice,” says Halldin Ankarberg.
The agency has also examined how various cooking processes affect the arsenic content. They suggest that rice
boiled in plenty of water, which is then poured off, contains only half of the dangerous poison. Rinsing the rice in
cold water before cooking has no effect.
Arsenic occurs naturally in soil, although the levels can vary considerably from one field to another. The NFA says
that rice seems to easily take up and store arsenic, which in particular collects in the rice husk. It therefore makes
a special warning regarding whole-grain rice.
“The National Food Administration normally recommends whole grains because they are good for one’s health.
However, when it comes to rice, one should only consume whole grains occasionally,” Halldin Ankarberg said.
Whether the rice is organically produced or not has no effect on the level of arsenic, the NFA went on to say.
At the EU level, a decision has already been made regarding rice arsenic limits, which are scheduled to take
effect at the end of 2015.
“Advising on how much rice and rice products to consume doesn’t solve the problem long term. Therefore the
national food administration is working to further reduce limits, so that there are no rice products with high arsenic
levels on the market,” Halldin Ankarberg concludes. “We also urge the companies to carry out as arsenic-free rice
production as possible.”
In their study, the Swedish NFA examined various rice types (basmati, jasmine, long-grain and whole-grain), rice
cakes, fresh rice porridge, cereals, rice drinks, gluten-free bread, noodles and gluten-free pasta. These products
came from well-known brands, supermarket own brands and organic products.
MEPs veto new glyphosate-
tolerant GM maize authorisation
by sara lewis
The European Commission should not authorise the use of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize
NK603 x T25 in food and feed, according to the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food
Safety Committee.
In a 1 December resolution adopted by 40 votes to 26, with three abstentions, the Committee argues that the
Commission should suspend any authorisations for GM food and feed as long as the procedure, currently under
review, has not been improved. The resolution, which is not binding on the Commission but which nonetheless
the EU executive cannot ignore, states that the current authorisation procedure for GM food and feed is not
working well and all authorisations of such products should be suspended until it has been improved.
chemicals, products
& sustainability
technology

© Informa 2015 16 of 17
The resolution highlights that since the current GMO authorisation process came into force each authorisation
decision has been adopted by the Commission, without the support of a qualified majority of member states,
turning the exception into the norm.
Process under review
The GM authorisation process itself is under review. In October, Parliament rejected a separate proposal to
update the European authorisation procedure that would have allowed individual member states to restrict or
prohibit the sale and use of EU-approved GM food or feed on its territory.
MEPs were concerned that the proposed law might prove unworkable or that it could lead to the
reintroduction of border checks between pro- and anti-GMO countries. They called on the Commission to
table a new proposal.
Glyphosate tolerance
The resolution also underlines that in March the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organisation,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified herbicide glyphosate, to which NK603 x T25
maize confers tolerance (along with the herbicide glufosinate ammonium), as probably carcinogenic to humans.
Despite this, the European Food Safety Authority said on 12 November that the herbicide was unlikely to pose a
carcinogenic hazard to humans.
The motion for a resolution, tabled by Belgian Green Bart Staes, French Socialist Guillaume Balas, Irish
leftwinger Lynn Boylan and Italian rightwinger Eleonora Evi, will now be put to the full House for a vote during the
18-21 January plenary session in Strasbourg.
MEPs eye EU ‘Fair Tax Payer’ label
by sara lewis
The European Parliament’s influential Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee is calling on the European
Commission to propose introducing an EU ‘Fair Tax Payer’ label to fight tax avoidance in all major companies.
The call comes in a series of recommendations to improve the EU’s corporate tax transparency and shift towards
greater harmonisation in the report, jointly penned by MEPs Anneliese Dodds, a British Socialist and Luděk
Niedermayer, who is Czech and from the centre right European People’s Party, that the ECON Committee
approved on 1 December by 45 votes to three, with 10 abstentions.
These recommendations in turn build on the work of Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings, set
up in the wake of the “Luxleaks” revelations of Luxembourg’s tax avoiding sweetener deal with multinational
companies. McDonalds was one of the multinationals to benefit from a Luxembourg tax ruling and the company
gave evidence before the Special Committee last month.
Coffee chain Starbucks, brewers Anheuser Busch-InBev and soft-drinks giant Coca-Cola also appeared before
the Special Committee. Parliament approved its recommendations at the 26 November plenary session.
Providing Parliament’s plenary now backs the ECON report on 16 December, the Commission will have to
respond to every legal recommendation even if it does not submit a legislative proposal. If it is approved, the
Commission will have three months to respond to the recommendations, either with a legislative proposal or with
an explanation for not doing so.
Key among the recommendations is “A2. A new ‘Fair Tax Payer’ label for companies who engage in good tax
practices.” The resolution, which still needs backing in plenary, says that “The European Parliament calls on
the European Commission to bring forward a proposal as soon as possible on a voluntary European ‘Fair
Tax Payer’ label, as a ‘soft measure’ promoting a standard for companies wishing to indicate they are fully
tax compliant.”
The resolution goes on to say that the proposal should include a European framework of eligibility criteria, which
national bodies could use to award the label. The framework should make clear that the ‘Fair Tax Payer’ label “is
only awarded to those companies that have gone above and beyond the letter of what is required of them under
Union and national law,” the resolution states.
The ECON resolution further asks the Commission to:
• Table a proposal for country-by-country reporting on profit, tax and subsidies by June 2016;
• introduce a Common Tax Base (CCTB) as a first step, which later on should be consolidated as well
(CCCTB);
• table a proposal for a common European Tax Identification Number;
chemicals, products
& sustainability

© Informa 2015 17 of 17
• table a proposal for legal protection of whistle-blowers;
• improve cross-border taxation dispute resolution mechanisms;
• table a proposal for a new mechanism whereby member states should inform each other if they intend to
introduce a new allowance, relief, exception, incentive or any other measure that may affect the tax base of
others;
• estimate the corporate tax gap (corporate taxes owed minus what has been paid);
• strengthen the mandate and improve transparency of the Council Code of Conduct Working Group on
Business Taxation;
• provide guidelines regarding “patent boxes” so as to ensure they are not harmful;
• come up with common definitions for “permanent establishment” and “economic substance” so as to ensure
that profits are taxed where value is generated;
• come up with an EU definition of “tax haven” and counter-measures for those who use them; and,
• improve the transfer pricing framework in the EU.
Editor Liz Newmark
Tel: +32 22 13 40 75
Email: liz.newmark@informa.com
Deputy Editor Marianne Geater
Email: marianne.geater@informa.com
Environment Editor Sara Lewis
Email: sara.lewis@skynet.be
Advertising Sales Ben Watkins
Tel: +44 20 3377 3911
Email: ben.watkins@informa.com
Marketing Enquiries
Email: marketing@agra-net.com
Agribusiness & Commodities
Client Services Team
EMEA: +44 20 7017 6242 (9am-5pm BST)
APAC: +61 287 056 966 (9am-5pm AEST)
NORTH AMERICA and LATAM:
+1 21 26 52 53 22 (9am-5pm EDT)
Email: agrahelp@informa.com
Find more articles
and data online at:
www.eupackaginglaw.com
Informa UK Ltd., Christchurch Court, London EC1A 7AZ, UK
Telephone: +44 20 7017 7500
Subscribe for full access

CEP package reactions show mixed views on EU circular economy plans

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to CEP package reactions show mixed views on EU circular economy plans

Similar to CEP package reactions show mixed views on EU circular economy plans (20)

CEP package reactions show mixed views on EU circular economy plans