FSA Consultation Letter, 14 March 2006

LABELLING - Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and Better Regulation for the EU

We seek your views and comments on the European Commission's consultation document on labelling.Responses are requested by: 5 May 2006

For a copy of the Commission's Consultation Document, see: Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and Better Regulation for the EU

Consultation details

The key points in this consultation are:

• The rationale for labelling legislation
• Food Labelling
• The future scope and structure of food labelling legislation
• Alcoholic drinks
• Nutrition labelling
• Country of origin
• Health warning on alcoholic drinks
• Labelling of non-food consumer products

The attached paper ‘Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and Better Regulation for the EU' is a consultative document from the European Commission. It forms part of the EU review of labelling. This document explores the broad approach to labelling of both food and non-food products. It also addresses particular labelling issues such as country of origin labelling and the labelling of alcoholic drinks. The Commission will take into account the outcome of its consultation in drafting proposals for legislation, which are expected, along with an impact assessment, in 2007.

The European Commission's paper covers areas of policy outside the Food Standards Agency's remit. These include health warnings on alcoholic drinks, welfare labelling, labelling of non food products, some origin labelling provisions and labelling of some types of alcoholic drinks. The Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have agreed that the Agency should co-ordinate the public consultation on this document and that they will consider any responses received that relate to their policy areas before agreeing the Government response. Responses on all these points should therefore be sent to the Agency.

Responses should be structured to match the questions listed in Annex A. [See Annex A]

The rationale for labelling legislation

In paragraphs 7–12 of the document the Commission sets out its thoughts on the overall approach to labelling.

• Do you agree with the overall approach as set out by the Commission?

The Commission identifies, in paragraphs 11 and 12, a need to re-examine how far its current approach to labelling meets the objectives set out in its overall approach and poses a number of questions. Stakeholders are requested to provide their views and the rationale for those views.

• Are there any benefits in simplifying and clarifying the structure and scope of existing labelling legislation, both horizontal and vertical, and bringing common aspects together?
• Is it practical to consider food and non-food labelling together, or should they be dealt with separately?
• Should there be more or less prescription in labelling legislation?
• Is there sufficient flexibility in existing EU legislation to allow industry to quickly adapt to changing consumer needs and demands?
• Is there a role for self-regulation or co-regulation in relation to labelling issues?
• How should the proposals for revision of labelling legislation be taken forward? Under a framework? In parallel but linked in terms of timing and approach? or dealt with individually?

Food labelling

The future Scope and Structure of Food Labelling Legislation

Paragraphs 16–21and 25–26 of the Commission's paper focus on the future structure and scope of general food labelling legislation.

• What is the most appropriate legislative instrument for any future revision to food labelling, Directive or Regulation?
• If food labelling is dealt with separately to other labelling legislation how should/could the current provisions be brought together?
• Is there scope to distinguish information that must be provided and information that must be available about a food product?
• Could food legislation provide general rules on how this information is provided? (For example, must be on label/could be off label)
• How much latitude should be allowed to Member States to set their own rules about what information must be provided and must be available about foods sold loose, sold prepacked or delivered as such or not where there are no implications for the single market?
• Should the legislation provide for requirements to be fulfilled, or guidance to be followed with a view to preventing risk of misleading consumers where voluntary information is provided?
• Should the legislation be more prescriptive on the format and size of text or could this be covered by voluntary or soft legislation?

Alcoholic Drinks

Paras 23–24 relate to the labelling of alcoholic drinks. The Commission concludes from consumer research that consumers have little interest in ingredient listing on alcoholic drinks except to identify where ingredients have been added to ‘natural' products. They further propose that the only substances that may need labelling are allergens, and possibly food improvement agents. They also raise questions about alcopops.

• Do you agree with the Commission's conclusions?
• Is it possible to define ‘natural' in terms of alcoholic drinks?
• What ingredients should be labelled on alcoholic drinks?
• Currently exemptions exist for products with an alcoholic strength of more than 1.2%. Should this exemption be recast to ensure ingredient listing of mixed drinks like alco-pops?

Nutrition labelling

The Commission notes in its discussion document that there is a general consensus within the EU that the current system of nutrition labelling needs to be improved. There is, however, currently no agreement on the best way forward. The Commission is seeking views on a number of issues relating to the future of nutrition labelling.

The Agency previously responded to the 2003 Commission consultation on nutrition labelling issues. These responses reflected comments from a range of UK stakeholders.

The Agency would appreciate comments from UK stakeholders on the following questions, on which the Commission is now seeking views:

• Should nutrition labelling be mandatory?
• How much information is required?
• Is there an optimum number of elements, i.e. energy and nutrients, that should be declared and, if so, what these should be?
• Are there alternative formats for providing nutrition information?
• If the consumer finds difficulties in using the current numerical format then are there alternative, better ways of providing nutritional information on labels?
• Where should the nutrition label be put? The Commission discussion paper states that evidence suggests that simplified front of pack labelling (‘signposting') may offer significant advantages in terms of increasing consumer use.
• How can this be taken forward in any revision of the legislation?
• Is there any benefit in having dual labelling – the ‘traditional' label on the back of the pack with a signpost on the front?
• How important is presentation of the information? The Commission discussion paper states that consumers often complain that nutrition labels are poorly presented, making them difficult to use. In particular, concern is expressed that the labels contain too much information and the type size is too small (especially when multi-lingual labels are used on products).
• While it might be difficult to set down prescriptive rules on presentation, because of the many different types of packaging used, is this something that should be considered?
• Alternatively, would this be an opportunity for best practice to be developed by the industry?

Origin labelling

Paragraphs 29–31 of the paper details the apparent mismatch between the current legislative requirements for origin labelling and consumer demand as evidenced by Commission research.

The Commission suggests a number of ways forward (paragraph 32) including mandatory origin labelling on all foods at either Member state/EU/Third country level or at EU/Third country level, setting out a procedure for the approval of request for mandatory origin labelling for specific foodstuffs, or to focus ensuring that existing country of origin requirements are more transparent for consumers.

• Which, if any, of the options listed by the Commission do you favour? and Why?
• Can you identify any other issues related to origin labelling not covered by the paper?

Health warnings on alcoholic drinks

The EU Commission seeks comments on the possibility of health warnings on alcoholic drinks. This is described as ‘evidence gathering' and does not constitute a proposal for action by the Commission.

The Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England , published in March 2004, tasked the Department of Health with exploring with the EU Commission the possibility of regulatory action to secure health warnings on labels and packaging.

Within the UK , the Alcohol Industry's Social Responsibility Standards, published in November 2005, contain a commitment to a voluntary agreement with Government to include a ‘sensible drinking message' on labels, packaging, advertising, and at point of sale. Implementation of this agreement is currently under discussion.

In responding to the Commission's request, the Department of Health suggests that comments should aim to cover:

• Whether industry self-regulation or legislation would be preferable
• Whether introduced as a legislative requirement or through voluntary industry self-regulation:
• Should there be one or more standard messages agreed with Government?
• Alternatively, should industry itself decide the content of any message?
• What particular health issues should be the focus of any agreed messages?
• Should agreed messages be in addition to reference to units of alcohol on the container? How should reference to units be related on the label to Government recommendations on sensible drinking?
• Should information on units of alcohol (or an alternative measure) vary by Member State or be standard across the EU?
• Should the content of health warning messages be decided at EU level or at national level?
• The evidence base may suggest that any health warnings on drinks labels would be effective only if supported by health or educational campaigns or other interventions. What implications does this have for the content of any health warnings and the process by which these are decided?

Labelling of non-food consumer products

The discussion on non-food labelling in paragraphs 43–45 provides a very basic outline of the issues and existing work in this area, and seems unlikely to be an adequate basis for new proposals. However, if consultees have any concerns about any initiative which might be implied by paragraph 45, we should be grateful to know about these concerns.

Discussions on the Commission's proposal on origin labelling should in any case continue through existing channels, and those stakeholders already engaged on the issue need not respond separately to this consultation. Anyone who is interested in the Commission proposal, but has not yet made their views known to appropriate representative bodies or to the Department of Trade and Industry, should contact John Lane at the DTI (john.lane@dti.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7215 5402).