20.2.2020 EN Offi cial Jour nal of the European Union C 57/25 Publication of an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2020/C 57/09) This publication confers the right to oppose the amendment application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) within three months from the date of this publication. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION OF PROTECTED DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN/PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS WHICH IS NOT MINOR Application for approval of an amendment in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(2), of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 ‘MOJAMA DE BARBATE’ EU No: PGI-ES-01210-AM01 – 3 October 2018 PDO ( ) PGI (X) 1. Applicant group and legitimate interest Consejo Regulador de las Indicaciones Geográficas Protegidas Mojama de Barbate y Mojama de Isla Cristina, Glorieta del Agua no 4, planta 2, módulo 9 41940 Tomares Seville SPAIN Tel. +34 954151823 Email: [email protected] The legitimate interest of the applicant group is based on the fact that it is the body responsible for managing the Protected Geographical Indication ‘Mojama de Barbate’ and was the original applicant for registration of the name. 2. Member State or third country Spain 3. Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment(s) Name of product Description of product Geographical area Proof of origin Method of production Link Labelling Other [to be specified] 4. Type of amendment(s) Amendment to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Amendment to the product specification of registered PDO or PGI for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published not to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1. C 57/26 EN Offi cial Jour nal of the European Union 20.2.2020 5. Amendment(s) In general, there are three main reasons for the amendments: — during the period in which the specification was being checked following registration of the PGI, some requirements proved to be impossible, or very difficult, to meet given the artisanal nature of the product. Corrections of certain mistakes found are included here. None of the amendments diminishes the quality or distinctive nature of the product. — some descriptions have been removed as they added nothing to the specification, but instead complicated matters and slowed down the checking process. — some sections considered essential have been expanded, for example the description of the ronqueo [traditional carving procedure], in order to make checking easier. Section B. Description of product 5.1. In the first paragraph of section B of the specification and in point 3.2 of the single document, the word ‘sazonado’ (‘seasoned’) has been replaced by ‘salado’ (‘salted’). This was a mistake which has been corrected. The correct description of the product under Spanish law is ‘salado y seco’ (‘salted and dried’). The term ‘sazonado’ is used for foods which are in season, meaning ripe or at their peak. 5.2. In the third paragraph of section B of the specification and in point 3.2 of the single document, where Categoría Extra is defined, the words ‘which is less fatty’ have been deleted. — In the fourth paragraph of section B of the specification and in point 3.2 of the single document, where Categoría Primera is defined, the words ‘which contain more fat’ have been deleted. These phrases have been deleted as they are descriptive and do not characterise the product in any way. 5.3. In the sixth paragraph of section B of the specification and in point 3.2 of the single document the parameter ‘humedad relativa’ (relative humidity) has been replaced by ‘actividad de agua’ (water activity). This was a mistake as relative humidity is an environmental parameter while water activity measures the moisture in a food item. It has been established that the water activity (aw) must be below 0.9. 5.4. In the first paragraph of subsection B.1 of the specification and in point 3.3 of the single document, the weight of the bluefin tuna has been changed from 200 kg to 150 kg. This is justified by the smaller size of the fish currently caught, while naturally respecting the minimum permitted size, without compromising the quality of the finished product. 5.5. In subsection B.2 of the specification, aerobic mesophiles have been deleted from the table as they are not pathogenic microorganisms. They are covered by the horizontal rules and do not enhance the quality of the product. 5.6. The heavy metals table has been moved from subsection B.2 of the specification to B.1. Subsection B.1, which covers raw materials, is the section under which heavy metal content should be checked. The change is due to the need to know the concentration of heavy metals before the fresh cuts enter the production process. This is to ensure that finished products are never made from raw materials with a high heavy metal content. Section D. Proof that the product originated in the area 5.7. In point 3 of section D of the specification, the requirement for production logbooks to ‘follow the template adopted by the Regulatory Board’ has been removed, as the production logbook is a self-monitoring tool for operators and the Regulatory Board should not be involved. — Again in section D, the whole of the final paragraph has been deleted, i.e. ‘The Board must issue the certified salting facilities with numbered labels to serve as a guarantee of origin and artisanal processes when the products are placed on the market’. This is because use of numbered labels is not considered necessary for product control, which can be done effectively using product and batch identification numbers. The removal of this requirement facilitates placing the product on the market. 20.2.2020 EN Offi cial Jour nal of the European Union C 57/27 Section E. Description of the production method 5.8. Point c) of section E of the specification entitled ‘Ronqueo (cutting-up of the tuna)’ has been developed generally, to give a more detailed description of the process, which is considered to be one of the most important steps in the production of quality mojamas. — In the second paragraph, the following has been deleted ‘the body of the tuna is opened out and the backbone removed’ and replaced by: ‘a slit is made along the line between the pelvic fin and anal finlets; then another slit is made along the line of the dorsal fin and dorsal finlets. It is this step that produces the sound which gives the process its name: ronqueo. When the knife rubs against the backbone it makes a sound reminiscent of snoring (ronquido in Spanish). When the aforementioned slits have been made, two further slits are made, one on each side of the fish, at the insertion point of the pelvic fin. The purpose is to separate the two upper parts (negros or descargamentos) from the two lower parts (blancos or descargados).’ — In the third paragraph, the following has been deleted: ‘The skin, remaining bones and dark meat are removed from the loins. After cleaning, the four loins produced from the upper parts and the four produced from the lower parts are washed and cut into strips. The length of the strips depends on the width of the tuna loin. The thickness must not exceed 5 cm.’ and replaced by: ‘The skin is removed and the loins detached. They are cleaned of bones and sangacho (this is the traditional name for the strip of darker meat that runs along the length of the fish, produced by coagulated blood). This produces four loins classed as Extra and four classed as Primera. After cleaning, they are washed and cut into strips which eventually become mojamas. The length of the strips depends on the width of the tuna loin.’ — Again in the third paragraph, the requirement that the strips must not be more than 5 cm thick has been deleted. The cutting is done manually, which means that, while the person cutting is highly skilled, there are inherent irregularities in the resulting cut. If a strip exceeds 5 cm at any point, the irregularities prevent certification of an otherwise perfectly executed operation. In addition, references to the level of fat in the classification of the loins obtained have been deleted from this section for the reason explained in point 5.2. 5.9. In point d) of section E of the specification entitled ‘Salting’, the requirement that the layer of salt be 2 to 4 cm thick has been deleted. This is because checks conducted over the course of a year have shown the difficulty of making exact measurements owing to irregularities in the salt. What matters is that the loins are entirely covered by salt and never touch each other. — Again in point d), for the same reason, the following has been deleted: ‘The tuna strips are entirely covered in order to ensure even distribution of salt’ and replaced by: ‘ensuring that no tuna loin touches another. The salt must be distributed evenly to ensure that the tuna strips are entirely covered.’ — Again in point d), the word ‘tuna’ has been replaced by ‘tuna loin’ to give a more accurate description of the material.