Revised guidance on country of origin labelling just published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for the food industry and enforcement authorities may lead to further confusion on processed foods.
While the guidance is intended to provide greater clarity of information, there will undoubtedly continue to be some confusion where compound foods, such as ready meals featuring ingredients sourced from several different countries, are offered for sale. There is also likely to be heated debate about what constitutes ‘substantial change’ in any manufacturing process, which determines to a large degree the country of origin of that food.The new guidance suggests that the true place of origin of a food should always be given if the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food comes from, or has been made in, a different place or area.
And while it recognises that consumers would be unlikely to expect products such as Madras curry to come from Madras, for example, it still suggests that for, say ‘British Classics, ‘Indian’, ‘Thai’ or ‘Chinese’ meals, an origin declaration might be necessary to clarify where the product was made. As an example, it suggests that a lasagne that is produced in Germany and marketed in an ‘Italian’ range, or with indications of origin such as Italian flag colours, should provide a declaration such as ‘Produced in Germany’
Although there is no statutory definition of ‘place of origin’ or provenance in the 1996 Food Labelling Regulations, international trade rules recognise and the 1968 Trade Descriptions Act 1968, upon which some of the guidance is based, states that ‘goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change’. However, what constitutes ‘substantial change’ will inevitably be open to interpretation and will ultimately be up to the courts to decide.
For example, the FSA’s guidance suggests that treatments or processes that result in a ‘substantial change’, would include, for example, the transformation of pork into bacon, ham, sausages or pies, while the simple slicing, cutting, mincing and/or packing of meat would not amount to such a change.
However, in an apparent contradiction, it also suggests that pork sausages made in Britain using pork from countries outside the UK should not be described as ‘British pork sausages’, because the place of origin of the primary ingredients is different. Instead, the FSA suggests that these products could bear the name ‘Pork sausages’ and “if helpful”, a further declaration could be made, such as ‘Made in Britain from pork imported from Denmark or Belgium (ie, more than one country)’; or ‘Made in Britain from Dutch pork’
Similarly, the guidance advises that foods that are marketed, for example, as ‘Great British Classics’ should contain ingredients that are predominantly from the UK. The only exception would be for products such as chocolate, where it is obvious to the consumer that certain ingredients (in this case, cocoa beans) could not come from the country in question.
Likewise, salmon smoked in Scotland but made from Norwegian salmon should not be described as ‘Scottish smoked salmon” but as ‘Norwegian salmon smoked in Scotland’, or ‘Imported salmon smoked in Scotland’
The guidance also suggests that where it is not possible to refer to a single country, the information given should be as specific as possible. For example, lists of alternative supplier countries or groups of countries recognisable to consumers (such as “the EU”) are more helpful than terms like ‘Product of more than one country’ or ‘Origin will vary’, etc. But it then concedes that even phrases like ‘Origin will vary’ are more helpful than no information at all.
However, the guidance has been described as a step in the right direction by two of Britain's leading meat bodies.
Both EBLEX (formerly the English Lamb and Beef Executive) and BPEX (British Pig Executive) have highlighted the need for clear, transparent labelling so the consumer is left in no doubt about what they are buying.
EBLEX chief executive Richard Lowe said: "There is plenty of existing legislation which says labels should not mislead consumers, but we still see sporadic examples of poor labelling and merchandising practice.
"Our extensive research of consumers' understanding of labels conducted last winter showed a spectrum of good to bad labelling practice. We know shoppers' desire for country of origin information on meat packs is higher than for any other food category."
BPEX chief executive Mick Sloyan said: "BPEX's engagement with retailers has seen labelling practice improve, especially on fresh meat, but there remain many examples of poor practice with regard to processed and cured pork products.
"It will be interesting to see whether during this year's festive season origin labelling of gammon is improved as that has in the past sometimes been rather suspect."