Consumers could shortly be able to sift through yet even more information than that currently available on the labels of food products which they want to purchase. A number of MEPs sitting on the Environment and Public Health Committee of the European Parliament have recently – much to the distaste of a number of member states and small and medium sized enterprises – approved the mandatory inclusion of more detailed data on food labels.
In 2008, the European Commission proposed a new set of rules to regulate the provision of food information to consumers. The proposed regulation sets to combine existing rules on food labelling and nutritional information into one regulation with the objective of clarifying, modernising and simplifying food labelling within the EU. In a recent vote on the draft law taken within the ENVI Committee, MEPs insisted that certain key nutritional data and other information ought to be made compulsorily available on food labels.
Such information would be in addition to the information in relation to name, list of ingredients, ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates which, in compliance with current rules, companies already put on food labels.
Among the data that the ENVI committee wants companies to be legally obliged to display in a table at the back of the packaging, are details of energy content and amounts of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt as well as trans-fats. All this information would have to be expressed per 100g or 100ml as well as per portion and could also be accompanied by guideline daily amounts.
The origin of certain foods, such as beef, honey, olive oil and fresh fruit and vegetables, must already be stated on the label and the proposed law, with the blessing of the Council of Ministers extended such a requirement to swine, sheep, goat and poultry meat. MEPs are now insisting that the indication of the “place or country of provenance” must be a requirement for all fresh meat and poultry, fish, milk and dairy products and other single-ingredient products. MEPS also voted in favour of the fact that country-of-origin labels should be carried when meat, poultry or fish is used in processed food products.
Meat labels must therefore indicate where the animal was born, reared and slaughtered. In addition, meat from slaughter without stunning, in accordance with certain religious traditions, should be labelled as such and meat consisting of combined meat parts must be labelled “formed meat”.
MEPs also emphasised that consumers must not be misled by the presentation of food packaging. Foods should not be labelled in such a way that they could create the impression that they are a different food. This means that misleading depictions of fruit or other foods on labels even if they are not present in the product itself must be prohibited.
Where an ingredient has been replaced, this should be clearly stated on the label, the committee asserted. Furthermore, because of the dangerous health implications of aspartame for pregnant women, food containing aspartame should be labelled as such. Clearer labelling of allergens as well as the freezing date of fish, meat and poultry products are also a must, the MEPs have agreed.
In so far as the legibility of mandatory information is concerned, parliamentarians called for a minimum font size of 1.5mm and 0.9mm for packs under 8cm in size.
Non-prepacked foods intended for immediate consumption have so far been spared from the applicability of the above stringent rules as were micro-enterprises making handcrafted food products.
The vote taken within this committee is not in any way conclusive. Representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers now need to embark on the arduous task of agreeing on the regulation as amended, prior to a second-reading vote in the European Parliament at a plenary sitting in July. Once the legislation is adopted, industry would then have three years to adapt to the new rules and another two years to apply the rules on the nutritional declaration.
Particular requirements such as the country-of-origin labelling voted favourably upon by the MEPS have already been earmarked as a cause of much contention. Small and medium sized enterprises have noted their disagreement with such a legal requirement and the practical difficulties that this could imply when, for example, a particular meat product has been reared and slaughtered in two different places. They contend that such an obligation could indeed serve as an opportunity for larger companies to override their smaller counterparts.
The committee has also been accused by industry of doing nothing in those areas where amendments could have proven to be of more direct benefit to consumers. By way of example, MEPs could have insisted that nutritional information ought to be given on the basis of the amount consumed and as prepared for consumption rather than as an indication of nutritional values per 100g as sold, as the current legal provisions dictate.
A protracted battle seems to be in the offing. Both consumer organisations and the food industry must gear themselves up to have their patience tried and tested until the final rules are adopted.
mariosa@vellacardona.com
Dr Vella Cardona is a practising lawyer and a freelance consultant in EU, intellectual property, consumer protection and competition law. She is also a member of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality.