Trade Talk
The European Commission professes to have a policy for simplifying legislation. To prove this, it proposes to abolish the fruit and vegetable standards.
Alas, this is insufficient to compensate for other burdens from proposed new and potentially more complex regulations currently in the pipeline. Contrary to the aims of lifting burdens from industry and helping the consumer, these may remove the incentive to develop new products, provoke the withdrawal of existing popular lines and delete useful consumer labelling information.
The proposed EU nutrient profiling rules are prompting this concern and the time allowed for consultation is ridiculously short. Arbitrary definitions are proposed to categorise foods for which less strict profiles will apply. For example, meat, fish or dairy products must contain a minimum 50% protein to benefit from lesser requirements. Why 50% and not 40%? Does it help consumers if processors are prevented from making health claims because products contain more than the subjective thresholds of fat, salt or sugar?
There is no point marketing products if they cannot differentiate themselves. They might as well be withdrawn.
Another proposal designates a product containing more than 15% sugar as less healthy than one containing 14%, say. The rationale is lacking. The overall diet of many people eating this allegedly 'dangerous' food could be sufficiently healthy and low in sugar to accommodate these levels without affecting health. Portion size matters!
Another proposal of dubious benefit dictates that some claims about beneficial properties must be accompanied by statements that the foods are high in fat or salt if they breach the arbitrary limits laid down. Thus, a cheese with reduced saturated fat content will have to declare prominently that it is high in salt.
Confusion will be compounded if a traffic light system is introduced because the same product will have red traffic lights for fat, saturated fat and salt. The consumer may well wonder why the label singles out only the high salt content. They might be given the impression that salt is somehow worse for health than fat. The incentive to create healthier options will be diminished if manufacturers have to append so many warning labels. They might as well retain the saturated fat and salt, and market the foods on taste and enjoyment.
If these fears are realised the effect will be that information that legislators deem helpful to consumers will cause confusion instead. It won't be the first time!
Clare Cheney
Director general
Provision Trade Federation
