“Parliament does not intervene on these subjects out of pleasure: it does so above all because of the unique level of tension and distrust that reigns between industrial players and large retailers”, asked President LR of the Business Committee. economics Sophie Primas.
The text arrives in the Senate chamber just two weeks before the end of the round of annual negotiations which take place from December 1 to March 1 for consumer products.
Criticized by the big brands, it had given rise in January to ten days of media confrontations, with in particular Michel Edouard-Leclerc, before its adoption by the deputies, unanimously by the voters.
The text of MP Decrozaille modifies on an experimental basis the balance of power between suppliers and industrialists of the food industry, and large retailers, deemed too favorable to the latter.
It aims to fill the “legal vagueness” in the event of failure of negotiations on March 1, which does not interrupt the contract and in fact benefits the buyer since the latter can continue for several months to order products from the supplier. , which he pays at the old rate.
It thus creates an additional period of one month to allow mediation aiming either to conclude an agreement or to define the terms of a notice of commercial termination.
The senators “framed” the device, providing in particular that the price applicable during the one-month break notice should take into account “the economic situation of the market” (inflation, average increases accepted by competitors, etc.).
The centrist rapporteur Anne-Catherine Loisier boasts “a position of balance”, believing that “everyone will find his account”.
Resale at a loss
But the most divisive change made in committee by the senators, and which should be debated in the hemicycle, relates to another provision: the supervision of the threshold for resale at a loss.
This provision, known as SRP+10, adopted as part of the Egalim 1 law intended to protect farmers’ income, obliges supermarkets to sell food products at least 10% more expensive than the price at which they bought them.
The bill intends to extend until 2026 the experiment of the supervision of the threshold of sale at a loss and promotions, which expires in April.
Regarding the resale at a loss threshold, the commission proposes to suspend the measure for two years, until January 1, 2025, to take account of the inflation period.
The FNSEA immediately cried out for “provocation”, considering that this initiative “risked having dramatic effects for the entire sector” by relaunching “a price war” on food products.
This device “has absolutely not worked”, retorts the rapporteur, for whom it is “regarding 600 million euros taken each year from the pocket of the consumer” without benefiting farmers.
The consumer association UFC-Que Choisir calls for its “immediate abolition”, to lighten the weight of current food inflation.
The government will oppose the suspension, “a source of destabilization for our agri-food sectors” and which risks reviving “the price war between distributors”.
Another initiative of the senators: they voted in committee the extension to all consumer products, in particular hygiene and maintenance products, of the supervision of promotions on food products which aimed in particular to put an end to operations “1 product purchased, 1 product offered”.
For Ms. Loisier, it is a question of protecting a French sector, the importance of which the Covid crisis has shown.
According to the commission, this measure would have “a minimal inflationary effect, much lower” than the gains in purchasing power that the suspension of the SRP+ 10 would represent.
