Pure and simple?

Few would disagree that current food labelling legislation is outdated. It has been in place for nearly 30 years and largely reflects the thinking of the 1970s when it was developed. The number and types of products available, the ways in which they are marketed, the types of information sought by consumers and, hence, the complexity of food labels, have increased phenomenally over this period. Much of the information provided is claimed to be poorly understood by the average consumer and most stakeholders agree that simplification and modernisation of the existing rules is urgently needed.

How disappointing, therefore, to see the details of the European Commission's proposed new Regulation on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers. Its aims are simplification and consolidation of existing requirements, while ensuring consumers can make informed choices and, according to press releases, citizens will soon get "clearer information" ... "the proposal, in a nutshell, simplifies the rules" ... "clarifies and modernises food labelling legislation for the benefit of consumers, businesses and control authorities alike". But will these aims actually be met - does the publicity fit the facts?

One fundamental change will require specified nutritional information on the front of packs of most products in a defined and, it is claimed, comprehensible manner. This will be given per 100ml/g, plus the percentage of the reference intake value provided by the food or, in certain circumstances, on a per portion basis.

This requirement is said to be driven by the desire to enable citizens to make an informed choice to adopt healthier eating habits. Considering the frequent, historic criticism that nutrition information cannot be understood by the average consumer, it remains to be seen how the additional information will be considered helpful or used across all 27 Member States.

The proposal will also allow Member States to adopt national recommendations, guidance, standards or any other non-binding rules on additional ways to present the nutritional declaration. This would permit the continued use of the UK FSA traffic light labelling.

Another major proposal seeks to improve legibility by stipulating a minimum print size of 3mm for all statutory information and a significant contrast between the print and the background. Clear legibility has, of course, been required for 30 years but the 3mm print size will be physically impossible on many labels or packages unless their size is substantially increased, in potential contradiction to the environmentally-driven Packaging Waste legislation. The unchanged exemption for small packages with a largest surface area of 10 cm2 is largely irrelevant in this respect.

Requirements for origin declarations in most cases remain unchanged but the rules are clarified and tightened. For example, if a product origin is declared but differs from that of the primary ingredients, the origin of these must be given. Specific new rules are introduced for meat whereby places of birth, rearing and slaughter must be given.

Despite claims to simplify general rules, the proposal fails to delete a single existing technical requirement. Nor does it consolidate labelling provisions from "vertical" commodity legislation, many of which are highly technical and potentially poorly understood. The only element that may be regarded as "simplification" is the transfer of the raft of current ancillary provisions from separate Directives to Annexes of the new Regulation. This will certainly be a welcome help to businesses and enforcement to identify the requirements for a given product but, overall, there remains much simplification that could, and should, have been done.

Although the proposal continues to permit Member States to adopt national rules for food sold loose and pre-packed for direct sale, including catering firms, allergen information for these products will in future have to be displayed or made available on consumer request.

Alcoholic beverages will have to provide full mandatory labelling as required for other pre-packed food. However, spirits, wine and beer continue to be exempt.

The proposal will now undergo scrutiny and debate by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament under the "co-decision" procedure. Is it too much to hope that practicalities may be recognised and a degree of pragmatism may emerge?

A former head of regulatory affairs at Nestlé UK, Neville Craddock is a food law and safety consultant. arivyyrpenqqbpx@ghaubhfr28.sfarg.pb.hx​​