I advocate for a food labelling model that contributes to both a better understanding and use of nutrient information among consumers and the legal harmonisation of the internal market
Renate Sommer
European commission plans to simplify food labelling are unrealistic and risk confusing retailers, according to parliament’s rapporteur on the provision of food information to consumers Renate Sommer.
Writing in this week’s edition of the Parliament Magazine, Sommer warned that the proposals would place a heavy burden on small food retailers and conflicts with the small business act.
Read the full text of the article below:
Keeping track of information on the composition and nutritional value of food is not easy in today’s supermarkets. Despite the consumer’s right to information, the lack of comprehensive rules on compulsory labelling within the EU often means the quest for information is like looking for a needle in a haystack. The lack of harmonised labelling provisions does not only confuse consumers, but harms the internal market by hindering equality in competition. It confronts the European food industry with trade distortions, often resulting in additional costs. They are faced with a wide range of existing legal provisions at the national and community levels, which gives rise to legal uncertainty.
The stated goal of the commission’s proposal is to get rid of these problems and simplify the existing legal framework governing food labelling. Combining and replacing several directives, the proposal seeks to increase fair competition among actors in the food chain, provide legal certainty, reduce bureaucracy and, last but not least, promote better information and healthy choices among obesity-struck European consumers.
Unfortunately, the provisions of the commission’s proposal contradict the goals stated in the introduction. This becomes particularly obvious when analysing the potential effects of additional national labelling schemes, which are provided for in the proposal. Contrary to the commission’s goal to harmonise trade in the food sector, the proposal risks confronting manufacturers and retailers with 27 additional labelling systems, with new legal uncertainties and significant costs for labelling and storing, as products would have to be labelled and stored in accordance with the specific rules in force in each member state.
And there are more ideas from the commission that are unrealistic and completely unfounded. If the commission believes that legibility of information on food labels can be improved through the mere fixing of a minimum font size, it is mistaken and neglects the consequences this requirement would have for many products. For many packages, a font size of 3mm is only feasible through bulkier food packaging, which cannot be in our interest. For multilingual packages, a 3mm font size would not be workable at all. Therefore, the focus of the legislation must be on means to improve legibility as a whole, taking into consideration factors such as font type, spacing and contrast.
What is most striking, though, is the burden the commission seems to be willing to impose on small specialist food retailers and manufacturers, such as bakers, confectioners, butchers and restaurants. This exemplifies clearly that the commission’s proposal is in conflict with the small business act. Providing around 50 per cent of all food consumed in the EU, those SMEs constitute the backbone of the European food industry and guarantee the diversity of food specialities in the different regions. The commission’s proposal makes the member states responsible for laying down food labelling rules for non-prepacked products, assuming that they provide for limited requirements workable for small businesses. However, this procedure comes with a risk: if member states are slow in adopting special rules or decline to do so, specialised food producers in these countries would have to apply the far-reaching provisions of the proposal and put their business at risk. Therefore, in my report, I suggest exempting non-prepacked food and food offered by caterers and restaurants from the labelling requirements.
I advocate for a food labelling model that contributes to both a better understanding and use of nutrient information among consumers and the legal harmonisation of the internal market. Contrary to claims by some industry representatives, who feel that the requirement for new harmonised labels would be too costly, a one-time investment in new harmonised labels will, in the long run, result in significant cost reductions. The food industry will no longer have to comply with different labelling rules in the member states and can sell products using the same label across the EU. Through the deletion of unrealistic demands by the commission, such as the 3mm font size, my report seeks to ensure that these benefits are not reversed through additional costs.
Voluntary labelling initiatives by the food industry seem to show that improved information to the consumer is not only affordable, but necessary to satisfy consumers’ demands. Unfortunately, none of the labelling models discussed, ranging from traffic light symbols to guideline daily amounts, has been sufficiently researched to find out its impact on consumer behaviour. The same holds true for the labelling model proposed by the commission, which states explicitly that no consultation with experts was required. The result is a labelling model that favours a plethora of information, confusing consumers rather than enlightening them. Calling for the mandatory display of six nutrients on front of pack is an effort to educate, not inform, consumers.
In my report, I therefore propose a basic labelling model that provides all the necessary and relevant information for consumers while at the same time being feasible and applicable to the wide range of food and drink products that need to be covered by the regulation. The most demanded information is on the energy content of food. I want to make sure that this is easily visible front of pack, that consumers are protected from misleading marketing strategies and that all relevant information is displayed in the same place and manner. By providing food manufacturers with flexibility for additional labelling schemes, they will have the chance to respond to new findings about consumer wishes and need
Read articles from our special report on food labelling in the Parliament Magazine's digital online archive from:
Ludgar Fischer, a food policy advisor at employers' organisation UEAPME
Deputy director general of European consumers' organisation Willemien Bax
Adamos Adamou, the co-chair of the MEP heart group
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.