Commission examines what it says on the label

By Tim King

Date: 08/06/06

Although the EU has just agreed new rules on making claims for nutrition and health, there is further legislation on labelling in the offing.

Next week (June 16) is the deadline for interested parties to comment on a consultation document that the Commission put out earlier this year on the labelling of consumer products. The Commission argues that "a coherent overall approach to labelling" is needed.

The scope of the consultation applies to both food and non-food products. It raises issues that are of common concern across all types of labelling, such as the potential cost to small- and medium-sized enterprises and the potential use of logos or symbols, which might reduce the need for multilingual labelling.

For food labelling, the existing common labelling requirements are set out in a directive of 2000 and other related pieces of legislation. The 2000 directive is itself a codified version of a 1979 directive and most of the provisions date back to 1978. The Commission argues that an update of this legislation is needed because consumers' expectations and the food market have evolved significantly in the meantime.

In addition to the 2000 directive, there are specific provisions for the labelling of particular foods, such as chocolate, meat and fish, which have their own specialist legislation.

The consultation paper argues that it would be "very difficult" to put all the food-

specific information requirements in a single legislative package. But it suggests that it would be "more feasible and hopeful" to put all the existing horizontal provisions (ie those applying across the whole realm of foodstuffs) in one proposal, to simplify and clarify requirements.

One of the difficulties for labelling is the physical restraint of the size of the label: there is a limit to how much information can be put, legibly, on food packaging.

The consultation paper suggests making a distinction between information that must be placed on the packaging and information that should be made available to any consumer wanting it, by some other route, such as a website.

The consultation suggests the possibility that the EU might be prescriptive as to the format and size of text.

It raises the question of what to do with information that is not obligatory, but is voluntarily published. Should the EU introduce rules or guidelines to reduce the risk of consumers being misled by voluntary information?

The consultation also raises further questions about nutrition labelling. According to EU law, nutrition labelling is optional, but becomes compulsory when a nutrition claim is made for a food in its labelling, presentation or advertising. In practice, many food companies voluntarily provide nutrition information, even when they are not obliged to do so.

The paper asks whether nutrition labelling should be mandatory, even where nutrition claims are not made, and what the regulatory burden might be.

The existing nutrition labelling directive also sets rules on the format of nutrition labelling and the consultation questions the efficacy of that format.

"There is evidence that the majority of consumers do not actually make use of the nutrition label," it says, before suggesting other possibilities.

The Commission appears to recognise that coming up with new obligations to provide information is not in itself sufficient. What matters is whether consumers locate the information and act on it.

The expectation is that new legislative proposals could be published at the end of the year. The closure of the consultation period will not bring the arguments to an end.

Article reports on the European Commission's plans to update the general Directive on food labelling dating from 2000.
Article is part of a European Voice Special Survey, 'Nutrition and health claims'.