Lynn Boylan: Commission Misleads Consumers on Origin Labels
Lynn Boylan challenges the European Commission's delegated Act, arguing it does not comply with the court ruling and risks misleading consumers about the true origin of goods. She demands the Commission disclose the legal advice it received before adopting the measure.
Summary: Only 188 MEPs supported the delegated Act in plenary, and Boylan says the Commission's position conflicts with the court's paragraph 88. She argues any indication that suggests goods originate from a place other than where they were harvested would be deceptive under the ruling.
Legal basis and citation: Boylan cites paragraph 88 and the case law referenced in paragraph 73 of the judgment to explain why the delegated Act fails to meet the court's test. She stresses the ruling is unequivocal that certain indications would mislead consumers about origin.
Consumer impact and institutional credibility: Boylan warns that the Act is deliberately misleading customers because no consumer could be expected to know what the regions listed signify or where products were actually harvested. She argues the Commission is damaging the credibility of institutions by not upholding international law.
Demand for answers: Boylan calls on the Commission to outline the legal advice tendered before adopting the delegated Act and to provide clear explanations for how it believes the measure complies with the court ruling.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Only 188 MEPs voted in favour of this proposal when it came to plenary and that's because people aren't believing what the Commission is trying to sell us, that this actually complies with the court ruling. And I am going to be very specific in setting out how it doesn't comply because paragraph 88 of the ruling also is unequivocal. It says any other indication would be deceptive for the purposes of the case law referred to in paragraph 73 of the present judgment as it could mislead consumers as to the true origin of the goods at issue in the main proceedings inasmuch as it would be likely to suggest that those goods originate from a place other than the territory in which they were harvested. So I don't think the court could be any clearer and it is very frustrating that we have yet to get any proper answers from the Commission in relation to this because not only is it not upholding international law and damaging the credibility of the institutions, but it is also deliberately misleading customers because no consumer could be expected to know what these regions stand for, where the products have come from. So I would like to ask the Commission colleagues to outline the legal advice that was tendered to them before adopting this delegated Act.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
