OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation (Elintarviketeollisuusliitto ry)

ETL

The Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation represents Finnish food and drink companies in labor market and industry policy contexts, aiming to influence the operating environment to support member companies' success in Finland and internationally.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jan 2026 · Cardiovascular diseases and food industry

Meeting with Aura Salla (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Jan 2026 · Timely topics at the food industry

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Jan 2026 · UTP

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Dec 2025 · UTP, event planning

Finnish food industry urges more funding for food security

7 Nov 2025
Topic — This consultation gathers feedback on the post-2027 EU budget focusing on industrial competitiveness.
Message — The federation requests food manufacturing be included in sectors essential for food security. They also urge for increased funding and simpler application processes for companies.12
Why — Specific funding would help the industry overcome pressure from faster-growing international competitors.3
Read full response

Finnish food industry urges regulatory simplification and packaging exemptions

6 Nov 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses legislation to enhance EU economic security through sustainable circular production.
Message — The federation requests that the Commission avoid regulatory overlaps and simplify packaging requirements. They propose excluding single-use packaging from reuse targets if recycling rates exceed 90 percent. They also advocate for a priority access mechanism for high-quality recycled plastics.123
Why — This would reduce administrative costs and protect established, high-performing recycling systems from new burdens.45
Impact — Proponents of mandatory reuse models lose if exemptions are granted to existing recycling systems.6
Read full response

Finnish food industry urges simplified safety rules and digital labels

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The European Commission is proposing to simplify EU food safety and marketing regulations.
Message — The federation proposes adopting digital labelling for products and aligning BSE testing with international standards to reduce costs. They also advocate for easier health claim rules and more flexibility for plant-based food additives.123
Why — These changes would lower operational expenses and allow more marketing flexibility for reformulated products.45
Impact — Consumer groups might worry about reduced safety monitoring and less clear on-package information.67
Read full response

Response to European Innovation Act

3 Oct 2025

To grow and create added value, food companies need predictable and encouraging conditions for innovation. Finnish Food and Drink Industries Federation stresses the (1) importance of developing an innovative regulatory environment and making smoother authorization processes of new products, and (2) the need for RDI funding to encourage innovation in food industry. 1. Innovative regulatory environment Promoting an innovative friendly regulatory environment for EU food companies should cover actions which ensure entry of new innovations into the market. For example, the approval processes for novel foods, new plant breeding techniques or the approval processes for nutrition and health claims must not stifle companies product development and innovation. Novel food production can help address sustainability and cost challenges in food production. In Europe, the approval process for a completely new novel food can take up to four years and guidelines often change during the application process. A lengthy approval process does not encourage European companies to innovate, nor does it motivate investors to fund new, promising European product development projects. The EUs novel food approval process could be faster by ensuring EFSA is well-staffed, improving application guidance with clear checklists,and allowing controlled production trials. Requirements and testing should be simplified, especially for established methods, and tasting during development should be permitted for better feedback (regulatory sandbox). EFSA should consult with applicants during the process, and approvals from other countries should help speed up EU applications. Minimum safety standards must be set, with trial periods and recall options as needed. Companies should be able to collect all key lab data upfront, and reporting requirements should be streamlined. Finally, reducing costs, e.g. by minimizing animal testing and validating alternative methods, would make the process more efficient and encourage innovation. 2. RDI funding for food industry The EU Competitiveness Fund and EU research programs must include RDI funding for the development of new food production methods and food products as well as the efficient and creative use of side-streams of food industry. Food must be prominently featured in future work programs and e.g. in the Bioeconomy strategy. Applying for public RDI funding must be smooth and administratively simple (application, reporting) for companies of any size. Finnish Food and Drink Industries Federation represents 250 Finnish food companies and most of the food industrys production in Finland. The members cover all food industry sectors ranging from dairy, meat, beverages, and bakery to processed fruits and vegetables, oils and fats, grain mill, animal feeds and fish products.
Read full response

Finnish food industry urges voluntary and harmonized nature credits

27 Sept 2025
Topic — The EU is developing a roadmap for biodiversity-based nature credit markets.
Message — The federation demands a voluntary model based on harmonized definitions and indicators. They request public seed funding and pilot programs to test practical solutions. They also suggest merging carbon and nature markets to simplify the system.123
Why — Merging credit markets would reduce administrative costs and increase market attractiveness.4
Impact — Non-expert stakeholders lose influence if policy-making remains restricted to select expert groups.5
Read full response

Meeting with Katri Kulmuni (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Sept 2025 · Ruoka-alan ajankohtaiset asiat

Meeting with Alexandra Nikolakopoulou (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety)

18 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on the role of the food industry in the following EU initiatives: origin labelling and the need for revision of nutrition and health claims.

Meeting with Sebastian Tynkkynen (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Sept 2025 · Ajankohtaiset asiat

Meeting with Sabine Pelsser (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety)

17 Sept 2025 · Upcoming EU strategies related to innovation and competitiveness of the EU food industry, including in the field of novel foods.

Finnish food federation urges flexibilities in 2040 climate targets

16 Sept 2025
Topic — This consultation amends the European Climate Law to set 2040 emissions targets.
Message — The federation requests sectoral flexibilities and carbon credits to ensure cost-effectiveness. They demand that legislation must not restrict food production on peatland soils. The EU should provide common funding for sustainable investments across the food sector.12
Why — Flexibilities and funding would prevent high costs and protect raw material supplies.3
Impact — Environmentalists suffer as peatland cultivation contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.4
Read full response

Meeting with Gijs Schilthuis (Director Agriculture and Rural Development)

16 Sept 2025 · To discuss the role of the food industry in the following EU initiatives: CAP revision, economic and environmental sustainability initiatives, farm income policy, carbon credits , nature credits.

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Sept 2025 · Current food industry related issues

Finnish food industry seeks central role in bioeconomy strategy

23 Jun 2025
Topic — The consultation explores ways to update the EU's circular, regenerative, and competitive bioeconomy strategy.
Message — The federation requests that the revised strategy explicitly recognizes food manufacturers as central stakeholders in the sustainable bioeconomy. They advocate for a supportive regulatory framework for biotechnology and state aid to accelerate investments in plant-based proteins.12
Why — Specific financial frameworks would help companies scale up alternative protein production and biotechnology.3
Impact — Foreign suppliers of agricultural inputs face reduced demand as Europe prioritizes domestic fertilizer production.4
Read full response

Meeting with Veronica Manfredi (Director Environment)

6 Jun 2025 · Water resilience and food industry

Meeting with Pekka Toveri (Member of the European Parliament) and Confédération Générale des Entreprises du Maroc

19 May 2025 · Current Topics in EU politics

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and Svenska lantbruksproducenternas centralförbund r.f. and

15 May 2025 · Future of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP)

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

2 May 2025 · CMO regulation

Finnish food industry warns against unilateral contract exit rights

10 Mar 2025
Topic — This consultation addresses proposed changes to agricultural market regulations to support farmers.
Message — ETL opposes granting farmers unilateral rights to withdraw from contracts and calls for bilateral renegotiations. They also demand the removal of mandatory contract registration to reduce administrative burdens.123
Why — Maintaining current rules ensures raw material security and prevents new administrative costs for processors.45
Impact — Farmers would lose the proposed legal right to exit long-term contracts during market shifts.6
Read full response

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)

5 Mar 2025 · (1) Vision for Agriculture and Food, (2) Clean Industrial Deal, (3) Simplification

Finnish Food Industry Demands Regional Flexibility in Water Strategy

3 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Water Resilience Strategy will manage scarcity and enhance water industry competitiveness.
Message — Any restrictions or efficiency targets must remain proportionate to local conditions and previous efforts. The EU should avoid new reporting burdens and price controls that increase industrial costs. Decision-making on water resource management must stay under national jurisdiction.123
Why — Finnish companies would avoid high compliance costs and price hikes for abundant local water.4
Impact — Environmental groups lose uniform EU-wide enforcement of strict water efficiency and conservation standards.5
Read full response

Finnish Food Industry Urges Uniform Rules and Crisis Resilience

31 Jan 2025
Topic — The consultation explores ways to strengthen the Single Market and remove barriers.
Message — The group requests consistent implementation of EU rules and longer transition periods. They want a crisis mechanism allowing temporary deviations from standards during disturbances. Any future health taxes must be harmonized to prevent market distortions.123
Why — Uniform standards and simplified reporting would significantly reduce administrative burdens and costs.45
Impact — National governments lose the flexibility to set independent tax rates and rules.6
Read full response

Meeting with Katri Kulmuni (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2025 · Ruoka-alan näkökulmat EU:n teollisuuspolitiikkaan, innovaatioihin ja ilmastosääntelyyn

Meeting with Antti Timonen (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen), Sanna Laaksonen (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen)

30 Jan 2025 · Food industry and competitiveness; Technology in Food industry; Security of Supply

Meeting with Pekka Toveri (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2025 · Current Topics in EU politics

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jan 2025 · CAP

Meeting with Anna-Maja Henriksson (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Dec 2024 · Food and drink policy and security

Meeting with Pekka Toveri (Member of the European Parliament) and Arla Foods amba

4 Dec 2024 · Current Topics in EU politics

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament) and Kemira Oyj

4 Dec 2024 · Ajankohtaisaiheet

Finnish Food Industry Urges Fair Competition in Ukraine Trade

1 Oct 2024
Topic — This consultation concerns accelerating the mutual elimination of customs duties with Ukraine.
Message — Trade liberalization must be conditional on Ukraine meeting all EU food safety requirements. New trade openings should be delayed until the impacts are better understood.123
Why — This strategy prevents Finnish food producers from being undercut by lower-standard imports.4
Impact — Ukrainian agricultural exporters may face barriers and delays entering the European market.5
Read full response

Meeting with Sebastian Tynkkynen (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Sept 2024 · Pohjoismaiden elintarviketeollisuuden tavoitteet

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament) and Finnish trade union representation to the EU

25 Sept 2024 · Ajankohtaisaiheet

Meeting with Anna-Maja Henriksson (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Sept 2024 · Food industry in the Nordic countries

Meeting with Pekka Toveri (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · Current Topics in EU Politics

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · Ruoka-alan kilpailykyky

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

11 Jul 2024 · Exchange on the current issues of the food chain.

Response to Update of the food safety criterion regarding Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods

7 May 2024

We support the submission from the Industry Listeria Group. Finnish Food and Drink Industries Federation is very concerned about this proposal and wants to ask for your consideration of the following remarks. Lmo in raw materials is controlled by CCP (e.g. temperature, pH and water activity). The possibility of pathogen growth is already taken into account in the determination of shelf-life of RTE foods, which is why operators often use the used by date instead of the best before label. Challenge tests support the growth of Listeria also in products where it would not grow in natural samples. Challenge test uses a cocktail of strains, which consists of a laboratory strain and possibly a strain isolated from the production environment and/or the product. The strain is often completely isolated from another product or production environment. The strain cocktail is adapted to growth conditions in a high nutrient broth. The cells are virtually stimulated to exponential growth before inoculation, whereas in the production environment the strains are often stressed by process conditions, production environment conditions and detergents and disinfectants. The inoculation number of cells to the product is 50-200 cfu/g according to the reference laboratory's guidelines. In natural samples, the cell content is considerably lower and natural contamination cannot usually be determined quantifically, i.e. the cell content is below the limit of determination (<10 cfu/g). In addition, if Lmo is present on the product contact surface, post-contamination may not be present throughout the product surface. In challenge tests, Lmo is inoculated throughout the product. Challenge tests should not be the only way to allow also <100 cfu/g during shelf life. The use of shelf life studies, other reliable studies and predictive models should be equivalent to challenge tests. It is important to take into account the operator's self-monitoring history and shelf life tests. The number of samples acceptable for the durability tests should be reasonable, as only few operators have large numbers of naturally contaminated samples to show. The availability of challenge tests is currently poor. They are also time-consuming and expensive. Currently, there is a risk that authorities require FBOs to carry out challenge tests. This and the other points mentioned above would practically mean zero tolerance of Lmo for a wide range of food groups. The risk assessment should also be able to determine the virulence (pathogenicity) of Lmo strains, e.g. by means of whole genome sequencing. Sometimes even MLST type might be sufficient to determine virulence. The interpretation of the proposed Regulation could lead to increased, even unnecessary, recalls. This would increase food waste, decrease consumers confidence in European food production and make it less competitive compared to food imported from third countries. In the worst case scenario, operators would reduce sampling to avoid the discovery of Lmo. Legislation should encourage comprehensive sampling. Proposal text clarifications needed Footnote (2): absence must change to not detected (ND). Non-detection does not guarantee absence. This is a technical wording error the values observed referred to are those from by CA testing, not done by the FBO. Any detection by the FBO needs to be supported by evidence of criterion 1.2a compliance Methods for FBOs can be validated alternatives to ISO-11290-2 or ISO-11290-1 We propose instead of 1.2b ND throughout life 1. Current law enforced at all stages of supply & distribution as this is known to be effective in reducing listeriosis (One Health data for Ireland & UK) 2. Failing this, a quantitative limit of 10 or 20 cfu/g as defined by EN/ISO 11290-2 throughout life would reflect public health & sustainability policy needs without disincentivising FBOs from carrying out monitoring testing so reducing control.
Read full response

Meeting with Taneli Lahti (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen)

24 Apr 2024 · food industry in Europe and the EU´s direction in the upcoming years. The discussion encompassed among others how the priorities of the next Commission are prepared as well as competitiveness and resilience of the food industry in Europe.

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jan 2024 · Relevant food policies

Meeting with Nils Torvalds (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

25 Jan 2024 · PPWR

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

25 Jan 2024 · Packaging and packaging waste

Meeting with Timo Pesonen (Director-General Defence Industry and Space)

24 Jan 2024 · Fact finding mission

Meeting with Petri Sarvamaa (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jan 2024 · European food security

Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jan 2024 · The state of Finnish Food and Drink Industry

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Nov 2023 · PPWR

Meeting with Suvi Leinonen (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen)

26 Jun 2023 · Food industry

Response to Revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products

15 Jun 2023

Hunajan alkuperämaamerkinnät (2001/110/EY), Ehdotus hunajan alkuperämaiden merkitsemisestä on kannatettava hyvä uudistus. Pellolta pöytään strategian ehdotus pakollisten alkuperämerkintöjen laajentamiseksi on erittäin kannatettava. Hedelmätäysmehut (2001/112/EY) Ehdotus uuden sokeria vähennetty -täysmehutuoteryhmän perustamiseksi on kannatettava. Ehdotus lisää kuluttajien mahdollisuutta valita vähemmän sokeria sisältäviä täysmehuja ja antaa yrityksille mahdollisuuden kehittää täysmehujen tuoteryhmää. Mehuteollisuus pitää tärkeänä, että jäsenvaltioilla on jatkossakin mahdollisuus sallia täysmehujen ja vastaavien tuotteiden alhaisempi luontaisen sokerin pitoisuus. Sokerin vähentämisvaatimus -30% soveltuu hedelmätäysmehuille hyvin. Täysmehujen raaka-aineet ovat kuitenkin hyvin erilaisia kooltaan, väriltään ja maultaan. Esimerkiksi marjatäysmehuille tulisi sallia myös muut kuin 30 % luontaisen sokerin vähentämismahdollisuus, sillä jo esim. 10 % sokeripitoisuuden alentaminen vaikuttaa tuotteen makeuteen. Monet pohjoisen Euroopan luontaiset marjat ovat happamia ja sokeripitoisuudet ovat matalia luontaisesti. Suomi on ainut maa Euroopassa, joka on valmistellut vain luontaista sokeria sisältävien täysmehujen sisällyttämistä virvoitusjuomaveron piiriin (esitys on jo notifioitavana EU:ssa). Hillot ja marmeladit (2001/113/EY) Hilloteollisuus esittää mahdollisimman maltillista hedelmämäärän korotusta ja ehdottaa, että hedelmän määrää ei nosteta hilloissa ja nostetaan +50 g/kg erikoishilloissa. Tällä muutoksella jo vastataan kasvavaan kysyntään tuotteille, joiden hedelmäpitoisuus on nykyistä korkeampi. Esietty muutos tulee nostamaan hillojen raaka-ainekustannuksia merkittävästi, joten maltillinen nosta on turvallinen vaihtoehto myös kuluttajan kannalta. Kuluttajatestejä ei ole tehty eli hillojen kuluttajalaadun parantumisesta ja kuluttajahyväksynnästä ei ole varmuutta. Raaka-aineet ovat maksuprofiililtaan erilaisia. Esim. puolukkahillossa +20 % marjamäärän nosto muuttaa hillon makua hyvin happamaksi ja rakennetta kuivemmaksi. Suomalainen hilloteollisuus pitää tärkeänä, että jäsenvaltioilla on jatkossakin mahdollisuus sallia hillojen ja vastaavien tuotteiden alhaisempi sokeripitoisuus. Ehdotus lisätä hillon ja erikoishillon valmistukseen käytettävien hedelmien vähimmäismäärää on perusteltu tuotteiden ravitsemuksellisen laadun parantamiseksi. Ehdotettu muutos kuitenkin todennäköisesti aiheuttaa hallinnollista taakkaa ja kustannuksia tuotteiden valmistajille johtuen raaka-aineiden saatavuudesta ja hinnasta. Tämä puolestaan nostaa tuotteiden kuluttajahintoja ja voi vähentää kotimaisten hillojen käyttöä.
Read full response

Finnish food industry urges cost-effective pesticide reduction rules

13 Sept 2022
Topic — This consultation reviews EU rules to reduce pesticide risks and promote sustainable farming.
Message — Legislation must ensure cost-effective production and food quality. They demand long transitional periods and economical substitutes before removing chemicals. Reduction targets should reflect national starting points and use usage data.123
Why — These changes would help manufacturers avoid high costs and maintain stable yields.4
Impact — Environmental groups lose because longer transitions and adjusted baselines delay pesticide reduction.5
Read full response

Meeting with Ville Itala (Director-General European Anti-Fraud Office)

18 May 2021 · Food fraud

Response to Setting of nutrient profiles

2 Feb 2021

Elintarviketeollisuusliitto (ETL) on Suomessa toimivien elintarviketeollisuuden yritysten työmarkkina- ja elinkeinopoliittinen edunvalvoja. ETL kiittää mahdollisuudesta esittää näkemyksiään Pellolta pöytään –strategian toimenpideohjelmaan sisältyvien elintarviketietoja koskevien aloitteiden vaikutusarviointeihin liittyen. ETL painottaa asian laaja-alaista tarkastelua ja huolellista arviointia. Liitetiedostossa on kuvattu tarkemmin näkemyksiämme.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

Several questions remain open concerning the food and drink sector The Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation (ETL) represents Finnish companies in the food and drink industries in labour market and industry policy contexts. ETL supports the EU Taxonomy goals as a classification tool for harmonizing marketing of special financing instruments for so called ‘green’ financing. Taxonomy should be one of the channels which enables a well-managed transition towards carbon-neutral economy. However, from the food industry's view, the taxonomy framework must be put into its right context and be strictly dealt as a special tool. The terminology used in the taxonomy regulation as well as in delegated acts is very confusing concerning agriculture and food production: It is said that taxonomy criteria defines what is considered ‘sustainable’ production. However, there are also other EU policies, such as ‘Farm to fork’ and CAP, defining sustainable agriculture and food production, with related roadmaps. A clear distinction is needed to separate the taxonomy criteria from general food chain sustainability goals. If this is not made, we will confront severe difficulties in putting these policy tools together and reaching the EU environmental and other food policy goals. Also mainstream production is needed for this, and not categorized as unsustainable and be left without incentives. We express our concern on the process and tight schedule for establishing the taxonomy framework. To secure the desired impact on climate actions, the legislative process needs to fulfil the principles of better regulation. Sustainability criteria are very difficult to define scientifically as several aspects and approaches must be considered simultaneously. Effects are not always easily measurable due to biological phenomena or processes related to food production. Additionally, some choices can be even controversial. It seems very difficult to define qualified and commonly acceptable criteria in a hasty process executed by an external body outside the widest sectoral knowledge, even if experts are used. The connection between food industry and the criteria that are set on the primary production (agriculture) in the suggested delegated act is a source of great confusion. The referred financial tools in the taxonomy framework are typically not used by Finnish agricultural actors. There are no PIE companies in the primary production sector, either. However, certain food processing companies that source agricultural raw material fall within this scope. At this stage there seems to be uncertainty on how this connection should be dealt with, and what the potential related consequences for food industry would be. Criteria for agriculture, including verification and reporting, are very restrictive in the draft. Hence, it is very likely that there will be no immediate readiness to implement them. Based on the current criteria for agriculture, we estimate that food industry as a part of food chain will not be to a great extent involved in the implementation of the taxonomy system. The proposed TSC framework is not technology-neutral in all aspects and does not fully respect the principle of science-based approach. The proposed framework is overlapping with existing EU sectoral environmental legislation and thus creating uncertainty regarding carbon-neutrality investments.
Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

Elintarviketeollisuusliitto ry (ETL) tukee FoodDrinkEuropen (FDE) valmistelemaa vastausta Farm to Fork -konsultaatioon. FDE:n kattavien kommenttien ohella haluamme vielä erikseen korostaa seuraavia seikkoja: - EU-maiden mahdollisuudet tuottaa suoraan ihmisravinnoksi kelpaavia ruokakasveja vaihtelevat; tietyissä osissa Eurooppaa tämä on erityisen haastavaa luonnonolosuhteiden takia. Kaikkialla Euroopassa tulee voida tuottaa ruokaa jatkossakin. Kotieläintaloudella on esim. pohjoisissa jäsenvaltioissa vallitsevissa lyhyen kasvukauden olosuhteissa varmemmat ja suhteellisella kilpailukyvyllä mitattuna paremmat mahdollisuudet huolehtia ruokaturvasta. Kotieläintaloudella ja -tuotteilla on monia hyviä puolia, joita ei tule jättää huomioimatta Farm to Fork -strategiassa: eläinperäiset tuotteet ovat laadukkaita proteiininlähteitä, jonka tuotannossa voidaan hyödyntää niin nurmet kuin vain rehuksi kelpaava viljakasvituotanto sekä kiertotaloutta edistäen ohjata eläinperäisiä lannoitteita kasvinviljelyyn. Koronaviruksen aiheuttama tilanne on osaltaan osoittanut sen tärkeyden, että eri alueiden tulee edelleen pystyä huolehtimaan omasta ruoantuotannostaan. - Lihavuuden ehkäisyyn suunniteltavissa toimenpiteissä on tärkeää huomioida vapaan kaupallisen viestinnän merkitys toimijoiden liiketoiminnalle sekä kannustaa vastuulliseen itsesääntelyyn varsinkin lapsille suunnatussa markkinoinnissa. Kaupallisen viestinnän vapaus edistää yritysten välistä kilpailua ja hyödyttää kuluttajia. Kilpailun ja markkinointiviestinnän myötävaikutuksella markkinoilla on kuluttajille laajemmat valikoimat, kattavasti tietoa ostopäätöksiä varten sekä edullisemmat tuotehinnat. - Merkittävä osa elintarvikealan yrityksistä on jo sopinut itsesääntelytoimin etteivät ne kohdista mainontaa lapsille. Yksi tällainen itsesääntelytoimi on esimerkiksi EU Pledge -aloite: http://www.eu-pledge.eu/sites/eu-pledge.eu/files/images/eu-pledge-infographic.pdf. EU Pledgen ehtoja on kehitetty vuosien aikana huomioiden eri kanavissa tapahtunut mainonnan kehitys. EU Pledgessä on mukana suurimmat kansainvälisesti toimivat elintarvikealan yritykset, joiden mainonta kattaa 80 % ruokamainontaan käytetyistä varoista. Aloitteessa on sovittu sääntöjen vastaisen toiminnan sanktioinnista ja/tai valitusten käsittelystä. - Monilla yrityksillä on myös omia ohjeita ja lisäksi alan toimialajärjestöt ovat laatineet niitä eri jäsenmaissa ja osana kansainvälistä yhteistyötä. Euroopan elintarviketeollisuutta edustavan FoodDrinkEuropen ’Eat and live well’ -sivustoilla on kerrottu eri maissa ja yrityksissä tehdyistä mainonnan ja markkinoinnin sitoumuksista: https://www.eatandlivewell.eu/responsible-marketing-and-advertising/. - Farm to Fork -strategia liittyy tiiviisti moneen muuhun keskeiseen Green Deal -aloitteeseen (mm. uusi kiertotalousohjelma, biodiversiteettistrategia sekä ilmastoon ja ympäristöpäästöihin liittyvät aloitteet). Sidosryhmien on täten vaikutettava usean eri kanavan kautta, mikä lisää päällekkäistä työtä sekä hallinnon että elinkeinon edustajille. Onnistuneen lopputuloksen turvaamiseksi on tärkeää, että em. aloitteisiin liittyvä työ komission eri pääosastojen välillä koordinoidaan hyvin niin, että sidosryhmillä on mahdollisuus seurata prosessia ja antaa palautetta tarkoituksenmukaisten kanavien kautta. Elintarviketeollisuusliitto ry edustaa ruokia ja juomia valmistavia yrityksiä työmarkkina- ja elinkeinopolitiikassa. Toimintamme piiriin kuuluvat noin 600 yritystä kattavat lähes koko elintarviketeollisuuden tuotannon Suomesta. Elintarviketeollisuus on Suomen neljänneksi suurin teollisuudenala. Sen liikevaihto on 11,2 miljardia euroa. Ala työllistää 38 000 henkeä. Koko ruokaketju työllistää Suomessa suoraan ja välillisesti noin 340 000 henkeä eli 13 prosenttia työllisestä työvoimasta. Elintarvikeviennin arvo on 1,6 miljardia euroa ja tuonnin 4,6 miljardia euroa.
Read full response

Response to Enhancing Market transparency in the agri-food chain

19 Jun 2019

Elintarviketeollisuusliitto (ETL) haluaa kiinnittää huomion seuraaviin täytäntöönpanoasetuksen muutosehdotusta koskeviin seikkoihin. 1. Hintojen lisäraportointi ei paranna maataloustuotannon kannattavuutta Elintarviketeollisuusliitto pitää tärkeänä maatalous- ja elintarvikemarkkinoiden avoimuu-den lisäämistä erityisesti kuluttajien ostotiedon lisäämisen osalta. Hintatietojen lisäraportointia ETL ei kannata ja katsoo, että komissiolle toimitettavien hinta- ja määrätietojen täydentäminen uusilla tuotteilla ei paranna maataloustuottajan asemaa elintarvikeketjussa, vaan voi pikemminkin heikentää tuottajan mahdollisuuksia parantaa kannattavuuttaan. Tietojen jakaminen erityisesti pitkälle jalostettujen elintarvikkeiden hinnoista voi johtaa negatiivisiin kilpailuvaikutuksiin. Kilpailuhaitta on sama, jaetaanko tietoa yritysten välillä vai julkisesti. Kilpailu voi rajoittua, jos julkaistusta hinnasta tulee vertailukohta kaikille alan toimijoille ja hintataso tiedon avulla yhtenäistyy. Hinnan avoimuus todennäköisesti myös vahvistaa neuvotteluvoimaa elintarvikeketjun siinä osassa, jossa se jo valmiiksi on vahva. 2. Hintatietojen vertailukelpoisuutta EU-tasolla on mahdotonta saavuttaa Komissio esittää, että hintatietojen keruuta laajennettaisiin tuottajahintojen lisäksi katta-maan joidenkin elintarvikkeiden osalta elintarviketeollisuuden myyntihinnat ja kaupan ostohinnat. Ostohinnat tulisi toimittaa komissiolle niiden jalostettujen tuotteiden osalta, joiden kulutus on vähintään 2 % EU:n tuotannosta. Esitys on monelta osin ongelmallinen. Ensinnäkin yksittäisten hintatietojen poimiminen valtavan laajasta jalostettujen tuotteiden valikoimasta ei tuota oleellista tietoa koko elintarviketuotannon menestymisestä. Vertailukelpoisia tuotteita on vaikea löytää edes yhdeltä markkinalta ja samankaltaisilla tuotteilla on harvoin yhtäläinen asema kuluttajan ostoskorissa eri maissa. Toiseksi, yhtenäisen tuotemäärittelyn aikaansaaminen EU-tasolla on käytännössä mah-dotonta, koska elintarviketeollisuuden ja loppuasiakkaan välisen hintaan vaikuttaa monet eri tekijät. Näin ollen, kun yhtenäistä tuotemäärittelyä ei ole, komission raportoimat hinta-tiedot eivät ole vertailukelpoiset, vaan suurella todennäköisyydellä harhaanjohtavat. Kolmanneksi, esimerkiksi Suomen pienet ja keskittyneet elintarvikemarkkinat estävät hintatietojen nykyistä laajemman tietojenkeruun kilpailun häiriintymättä. Lisäksi Suomessa ei vielä ole kuluttajien ostokäyttäytymistä mittaavaa tietolähdettä, minkä avulla EU-tason kulutusmäärät voitaisiin arvioida. 3. Yritysten raportointivelvollisuuksien lisääminen ilman selviä hyötyjä ei ole hyväksyttävää ETL vastustaa yritysten hallinnollisen taakan lisäämistä ilman selvien hyötyjen osoitta-mista. Kilpailun häiriintymättömyys ja yritysten tietosuoja kaikissa elintarvikeketjun osissa tulee suojata. ETL katsoo, että maatalousmarkkinoista on jo tarjolla riittävästi sekä yksityisistä että jul-kisista lähteistä peräisin olevaa tietoa, joiden avulla maatalousmarkkinoista voi saada kokonaisvaltaisen kuvan. Tiedon hyödyntämiseen sen nykyisessä laajuudessaan on kiinnitettävä enemmän huo-miota ja opastettava eri toimijoita tiedon käytössä. Lisäksi jo nyt julkisesti saatavilla ole-van tiedon lisäksi yritykset jakavat sopimustuottajilleen markkinatietoa myös omissa si-säisissä julkaisuissaan ja muissa viestintäkanavissaan. Edellä mainitut seikat huomioiden hintatietojen läpinäkyvyyden lisämisestä nyt kommentoitavana olevat ehdotukset eivät ole kannatettavia ja niistä tulisi luopua. Kunnioittavasti ELINTARVIKETEOLLISUUSLIITTO RY
Read full response

Response to Commission Implementing Regulation on the provision of voluntary indication of origin or place of provenance of foods

31 Jan 2018

The Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on this issue. We fully support the input from Food Drink Europe. Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation has 260 member companies and cooperation agreement with the Finnish Bakery Federation and the Finnish Meat trade Association. The activities of companies within the spheres of the ETL cover the majority of food and drink industry production in Finland. It is very important to provide consumers with useful and meaningful information. This can be achieved by setting of EU harmonised rules. This will also be in line with the principles of the free movement of food and drink products in the Single Market. We have the following key comments: Transitional period: Transitional period should be at least two years, because time is needed to make the necessary adjustments in supply chain, storage practices/logistics and label art work etc. Scope: Protected Geografical Indications and registered trademarks should be and remain out of the scope. PGI's are regulated in other legislation and trademarks are not intended to provide information on origin of foods but to distinguish them from those of other produces. Customary and generic names is rightly also out of the scope, but a description/definition of "customary name" on EU level is desirable to avoid differences in national interpretations "Made in" or the like; should fall outside the scope if it is not clearly intended at giving information to the consumer on the country of origin or place of provenance of the ingredients used. Indication of country of origin/place of provenance: The current text does not provide a solution for cases where frequent variations of origin occur. Sourcing from different/varying origins is often to the benefit of consumers (lower price and/or constant quality). Presentation of the information: The presentation requirements seem to be unnecessarily restrictive and not in line with Better Regulation. The font size requirement is disproprtionate as is the requirement to indicate the origin of the primary ingredient in the same field of vision. Interpretation issues: As the current draft leaves open a number of fundamental interpretation questions there seems to be a need for a EU Guidance document. In general, we think it essential that any still outstanding interpretation issues should be dealt with well before new legislation comes into force.
Read full response

Response to COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) concerning the denial of authorisation of formaldehyde as a feed additive

18 Dec 2017

The Finnish Food and Drink Industry Federation ETL finds it very important to have formaldehyde containing additives available for reducing microbial contamination in feed and animal based food chain. ETL emphasizes the importance of formaldehyde in decontamination and control of Salmonella in animal feed production, because of the lack of efficient alternatives. We understand the principle to avoid carcinogen classified feed additives, but once formaldehyde is approved of uses for several other industries feed Salmoneallae decontamination shall remain as one of them. Only a minor part, 0,2 %, of formaldehyde use in EU takes place in feed production. At the same time safety of workers must be taken care appropriately. The new modern technology may be utilized in this context even more in future. Finnish national legislation demands that no Salmonellae bacteria of any serotype are found in feed. The feed operator (feed material supplier or compounder) is liable for all the consequences like recalls, animal slaughters and cleaning of farms. Formaldehyde as part of the liquid preparations has been used to handle the batches of incoming feed material if they are found to be contaminated with Salmonella. This has been done to ensure that only salmonella-free feed material enters the feed mills as well as farms. The handling has not been done routinely, but only after Salmonella bacteria are found in sampling. We know from practice that so far only formaldehyde containing additives have the efficacy needed in this context. Because the reason and arguments for this initiative to prohibit formaldehyde are based on work safety the approach should be working safety conditions and not the use as feed additive as such. According to several scientific opinions formaldehyde does not cause any danger to animals and food. Even the feed treated with formaldehyde does in normal practices not bring health concerns. Only the chemical treatment stage is critical, and conditions soon after that. This issue shall be taken care of special regulations from working safety regulations and authorities. There are several works showing that this is possible. (Referring also EFSA 2014 opinions and proposals to set legally binding occupational exposure limits for formaldehyde in near futrure.) There exists also a contradictory interest to keep feed and food clean and healthy for people, and in this context a total prohibition by feed additive legislation is not appropriate. This as long as there are no effective proven alternatives existing. At the EU accession Finland was granted a special permission to run own Salmonella control program in meat (beef, pork and poultry) and egg production, so called additional salmonella quarantees. As now, the prevalence of Salmonellae in Finnish animal production is maintained very low. A total prohibition of formaldehyde would contradict this principle.
Read full response

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President)

11 Dec 2017 · Food Supply Chain