The European Commission has already travelled some distance down the road towards a revamped set of food labelling regulations for the European food industry. It has been a pretty bumpy journey thus far and the road ahead looks far from smooth. With so many conflicting views and interests to consider, what will the final draft of the legislation look like and, more importantly, can it be made to work?
The Commission first announced its intention to review EU legislation on labelling back in 2004. The review was seen by many as being long overdue – most current labelling legislation can trace its origins back to 1979, with a consolidation in 2000 and various modifications and additions, such as allergen labelling, having been added in piecemeal fashion over time. The result is a complex series of Directives and amendments, which not only make life difficult for food manufacturers and regulators, but do not necessarily deliver the information that the consumer needs. The aim of the review was to come up with a streamlined package of legislation that would deliver benefits to the consumer, while providing a clear and unambiguous set of requirements for the food industry and the
regulatory authorities.
Accordingly, the Commission produced a consultation document, Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and better Regulation for the EU, in February 2006. The document was distributed to industry, consumer bodies and other interested parties and the Commission then awaited the reaction. A report on the responses received was published in early 2007 and clearly revealed how difficult it would be to achieve a consensus on many aspects of food labelling. For example, the food industry favoured minimal mandatory labelling and an emphasis on voluntary schemes and self-regulation, while consumer organisations wanted legislation to be the main driving force for providing the consumer with better on-pack information and expressed distrust of self-regulation. But where the divisions came into really sharp focus was on the question of nutrition labelling. Most EU Member States, consumer groups and health organisations were strongly in favour of mandatory nutrition labelling, preferably including a front-of-pack indication of key nutrients to help consumers make healthy choices. This stance was largely a response to the increasing concern over obesity in the population and the diet-related health problems that go with it. The idea being that labelling legislation could be used to help change consumer behaviour and foster healthier eating, while also acting as an incentive for the industry to produce healthier products. The food industry on the other hand, saw voluntary schemes as the way forward, with consumer demand being the driving force rather than labelling legislation. Drafting the legislation was plainly not going to be easy.
Proposed legislation breaks cover
Nevertheless, at the end of January 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers, often referred to as the Food Information Regulation, or FIR. Preliminary examination of the Regulation revealed that many of the mandatory labelling requirements present in existing legislation, such as product name, list of ingredients, net quantity, an indication of shelf life and so on, were to be retained, but some important changes had also been written into the proposal, including:
• Mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling of pre-packaged foods for energy, fat, saturated fats, carbohydrates, sugars and salt per 100ml/g, or portion, of the product.
• The mandatory nutrition declaration to be accompanied by an indication of the percentage of the reference intake value provided (effectively the current voluntary Guideline Daily Allowance, or GDA, nutrition labelling system).
• Member states own national labelling schemes will also be permitted provided that they do not conflict with the mandatory requirements of the Regulation.
• Mandatory information must be clearly printed in a minimum font size of 3mm against a contrasting background.
Other changes included an extension of the requirement for allergen labelling to non pre-packaged foods sold directly to consumers on-line or in restaurants and an alteration to the country of origin labelling requirements in certain cases to include principal ingredients.
The FIR proposal, while clearly an attempt to reconcile some of the points made in response to the earlier consultation document, still contains several provisions that are proving to be highly contentious. For instance, the prescription of a minimum font size – a seemingly innocuous measure – has already provoked a lively debate. Many manufacturers have protested that the space available on their packaging is simply too small to accommodate all the mandatory information required in a 3mm font size. As trade body the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU (CIAA) commented in a statement on the FIR proposal, “What is suggested is not workable. We agree that legibility is a key issue for manufacturers, who want to provide clear information to consumers. But it is more than a simple question of font size.” On the other hand, consumer organisations have pointed out that if the industry didn’t use so much of the space on packaging for branding and marketing information – often up to 80% of total pack area – there would not be a problem. This may be fair comment in some cases, but manufacturers producing small pack sizes have expressed concerns that they may have to increase packaging size to accommodate mandatory labelling information. This could create a farcical situation where extra packaging and extra waste is being produced just to provide space for a legal label. It now seems that the Commission has noted these concerns and has taken the point that legibility is what counts. There are signs that it is moving away from a 3mm font size in favour of something smaller, perhaps 1.6mm as specified in Canadian labelling rules, or even 1.2mm, but with additional guidance on clarity.
However, it is the part of the FIR dealing with the mandatory nutrition declaration that is the focus of most concern for the food industry and is likely to be the topic of heated debate for some time to come. While the Commission proposal has opted for something based on the industry favourite GDA labelling rather than the ‘traffic light’ systems promoted by the UK Food Standards Agency, it has also decided to include six nutrient factors on the front-of-pack label. Many manufacturers think that this is too much and does not give consumers the ‘at-a-glance’ information they need to make a purchasing decision. As the CIAA response commented, “The Commission proposal tries to turn the back-of-pack into the front-of-pack by making six elements mandatory.”
Little consensus on nutrition labelling
The controversy is at least partly due to the existence of several different voluntary nutrition labelling schemes, which have already been adopted to varying degrees in Europe. For example, the CIAA promotes its own scheme, based on GDA nutrition labels, which includes percentage of GDA for five key nutrients, calories, sugars, fat, saturates and salt. However, the five-element label is intended for back-of-pack, with front-of-pack labelling being limited to calories only. The Confederation surveyed over 2,000 food and drink manufacturers of all sizes across Europe last year and found that 44% of all respondents were already using the voluntary GDA labels on their products. The CIAA says that most of its larger members will include the information on 100% of their products by the end of 2009, with smaller companies later following that lead.
The two countries leading the way on national nutrition labelling are Sweden and the UK. Sweden has its own voluntary ‘Keyhole Labelling’ scheme, which was first introduced by the National Food Administration (NFA) as long ago as 1989. The green keyhole symbol on the front of the pack signifies foods that are lower in fat, saturated and trans fats, sugars and sodium, and which contain more fibre. There are 26 food groups to which the keyhole label can be applied, including, dairy, spreads, meat and fish products, fruit, vegetables, cereals and some prepared products. However, although the scheme is voluntary, products displaying the keyhole must comply with nutritional criteria for the relevant food group. The scheme is said to have a high rate of recognition and understanding among Swedish consumers and the NFA says that it has contributed towards the development of healthier products by the food industry. The Keyhole scheme is also being implemented in Norway and Denmark and may eventually be adopted by Finland and Iceland too.
In the UK, the situation is more complicated. There are currently two competing voluntary schemes vying for consumers’ attention. The Food Standards Agency is promoting a system of front-of-pack colour coded symbols intended to show consumers immediately if they are making a healthy choice. The red, amber and green colour coding used in the ‘traffic light’ system is claimed to provide “easy-to-understand advice on foods that have high, medium and low amounts of saturated fats, sugars and salt.” Several major retailers have taken up the system, notably Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer. The traffic light symbols are also supported by many consumer and health organisations in the UK, but by only a few manufacturers.
In contrast, the manufacturer’s trade association the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), the UK’s largest food retailer Tesco and most of the biggest manufacturers support a voluntary five-element GDA-based scheme for front-of-pack labelling – in this respect it differs from the CIAA scheme. Tesco front-of-pack labels now show the amount of each nutrient contained in a serving or pack and what percentage of the GDA this equates too. Other manufacturers and retailers are implementing yet another scheme, in which GDA figures and colour coding are combined in a hybrid design. All sides produce strong arguments in favour of their preferred approach. The Food Standards Agency says that GDA labels do not give the consumer an at-a-glance picture of the food and are too complicated for shoppers to tell quickly whether products constitute healthy choices. The FDF on the other hand is of the view that traffic light labels can give a distorted view of the nutrient content of products. For instance, some foods that are actually very healthy to eat in small quantities, such as nuts, score red lights for their levels of fat and energy in 100g, so giving a false impression of their value in a balanced diet and acting as a turn-off for the consumer.
These established schemes are presumably what the Commission had in mind when it included in the FIR proposal a provision to allow national voluntary labelling schemes, providing they do not conflict with the mandatory aspects of the FIR. But this provision itself has turned out to be controversial. Many manufacturers have observed that different nutrition labels in different EU countries will mean that food exports will be affected by the need to produce different packaging.
This could be seen as a barrier to free trade in the community and will certainly carry extra costs for businesses. Furthermore, the plethora of nutrition labels on the front and the back of the pack could be a source of confusion, rather than useful information, for consumers. Thus thwarting one of the basic objectives of the Commission in drafting the FIR proposal.
Final version of the Regulation still uncertain
There is still a long way to go before the FIR becomes part of EU law. Before it can receive a First Reading in the European Parliament (EP), amendments to the proposal have to be considered by the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and others. A staggering 1,300 or more individual amendments have been proposed to date. ENVI has considered around half of these so far, but has now asked for a delay to allow further consultation. There will also be EP elections in June and the chances of a First Reading being completed in the current Parliament look very slim.
It also seems likely that the version of the FIR presented to the EP will have changed significantly from the original proposal. In an explanatory statement attached to its first report on the amendment process, ENVI rapporteur Renate Sommer MEP, while supporting the aims of the proposal, commented that, “the EU labelling system outlined in the proposal does not strike your rapporteur as one suited either to reducing red tape and simplifying legislation or to helping consumers obtain better food information.” Sommer also expressed the view that front-of-pack nutrition labelling should be confined to energy content, or it would risk being ignored by consumers. The statement describes the provision for Member States to adopt their own rules as “completely incomprehensible” and expresses concern about the additional costs for industry. Sommer concludes the statement by proposing, “a comprehensive revision of the approach suggested by the Commission”, going on to lament the lack of scientific research underpinning the proposals.
That last point is a key one and goes some way to explaining how we arrived at the present confused position. Many commentators, and indeed the ENVI rapporteur herself, have expressed surprise at the timing of the proposal. The CIAA believes that the reason the proposed FIR allows national labelling schemes to run alongside the mandatory requirements is insufficient scientific data to support one particular scheme. It is all the more remarkable that the proposal should have got this far when one considers that a major EU-funded research project to study nutritional food labels and their effect on consumer choice, operating under the acronym FLABEL, was launched only last November. The project will receive nearly €3 million in funding and will incorporate 12 partners from eight countries. Its brief is to find out which type of nutrition label is most popular with consumers and which is most effective in getting information across. One of its outcomes is intended to be “an easy-to-use labelling system that will help consumers to make the healthiest food choices.” But FLABEL won’t be completed until 2011, a year after the FIR is supposed to have come into force. Although some research on the topic has been published, notably a large pan-European survey commissioned by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC), there is nothing as comprehensive or closely focused as FLABEL to refer to. Many experts are mystified as to why the Commission has gone ahead without the science, and industry voices have expressed concern that the FIR may be significantly changed within a few years of coming in force to reflect the latest research, resulting in yet more additional costs for manufacturers.
It seems clear that the Commission is determined to push ahead with the FIR, but how the finished version will look is less apparent. With powerful voices at the EP pushing for something along the lines of the CIAA voluntary scheme, which already has widespread support across industry, a compromise based on that scheme seems probable. Yet it seems unlikely that the UK and Scandinavia will be willing to give up their national schemes for such a compromise having made most of the running in nutrition labelling. So the parallel national schemes will probably remain, at least for now. Whatever happens, one thing is certain, the debate is far from over.
Further information
The FIR proposal:
ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/
proposal_regulation_ep_council.pdf
The FLABEL project:
www.flabel.org/en/
