Why labels need an overhaul

Two MEPs discuss food labelling.

Richard Corbett

Imagine what life would be like for diabetics, for people with severe allergies and ordinary consumers anxious to know the content of what they are eating, if every country in Europe’s common market (in which products circulate freely) had either a different system of food labelling or did not have any requirements at all.

Yet this is an issue which causes controversy and anger amongst some producers and retailers. When the EU introduced the food supplements directive, which set out a ‘positive list’ of permitted ingredients in vitamins and food supplements and was aimed at ensuring that supplements are safe and appropriately labelled, several manufacturing groups (albeit unsuccessfully) took the case to the European Court of Justice.

It is surely right that consumers should receive crucial information about food products such as expiry dates, nutritional labelling and recycling details. People have to be able to trust what they put on their plates. There is no doubt that nutritional labelling will help consumers to make informed choices about the food that they eat.

A recent survey by the UK consumers group Which? found that 99% of people wanted health claims on food checked before products went on sale and were surprised that such claims were not fully regulated already. Indeed, we are only talking about basic consumer rights. People have a right to know whether the "low fat" yoghurt that they buy as a healthy option for their children is in fact unhealthy in other respects such as sugar levels.

This is not about seeking to regulate taste. Having effective nutritional labelling is not about telling people what they can and cannot eat. But it goes without saying that ensuring that all food products have proper nutritional information will make it easier for consumers to make healthier dietary choices that will help ward off the deadly threat of heart disease, strokes and obesity.

Trickier is how to make labelling effective. The Commission’s health and consumer protection department (DG SANCO) estimates that, although most consumers are keen to have food labelling - particularly on processed food products - they often ignore the nutrition label. A possible solution could be to introduce something similar to the ‘signpost’ scheme used in the UK. In March 2006, the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) approved a voluntary colour-coded nutritional labelling scheme despite the objections of some manufacturers. The FSA’s scheme uses green, amber and red to indicate whether foods contain low, medium or high amounts of fat, saturates, sugar and salt.

Besides, it stands to reason that labelling can benefit manufacturers as well since they can use this tool, not only to provide nutritional information to prospective consumers, but also as a means of highlighting the qualities of their foodstuffs compared to their competitors. As we have seen from the huge increase in the number of people buying organic food, people want to know what they are eating and are prepared to pay for quality produce.

Indeed, European standards on food labelling are good news for responsible companies. Without a common EU system, each member state would devise their own labelling schemes and companies would have to comply with 27 different systems to sell their products across the EU. Therefore, taking action at an EU level will both keep the regulatory burden on food companies to a minimum and provide important information to consumers.

It is, of course, important to maintain a balance. Food labelling that is complex and difficult to understand would give few benefits and create heavy costs for companies. But, provided that there is co-operation between the EU, member states, manufacturers and consumers, there is no reason that such a balance cannot be struck.

• UK Socialist MEP Richard Corbett is a member of the Parliament’s all-party group on land use and food policy.

Jan Mulder

European agriculture’s biggest asset is its quality of production. In 2004 the European Parliament introduced a pilot project to investigate the possible establishment of a European food quality label. In February the final results of this study were presented to a broad public of stakeholders.

More than in any other trading bloc in the world the European Union is concerned about production methods that go beyond mere human health concerns.

Besides the legal standards, many producers have attached a variety of additional rules to their production. These are reflected in the wide range of food quality labels, which we can find imprinted on products in our supermarkets. Of course it is very desirable that farmers are trying to add value to their products by differentiating their production methods. A disadvantage, however, is that consumers are sometimes confused by the abundance of different food quality labels. One of the problems is that it is often not completely clear what is the exact meaning of a certain label. A further difficulty is that some quality schemes seem to form obstacles to the free movement of goods within the Union. Because of the big variety of standards it is problematic for farmers and other market parties to switch between clients.

All signs at present, keeping the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in mind, point to an increased access for agricultural products from all over the world to the European market. Thanks to this proposal for liberalisation of the EU market, European farmers have to compete increasingly with the rest of the world. This might give rise to unequal competition conditions. Many production conditions that are imposed on European farmers are not imposed on farmers outside the EU. Ideally this aspect could be taken into consideration within the WTO negotiations. But the rest of the world is not very receptive to this idea. Also the European Commission, which is negotiating international trade liberalisation agreements on behalf of the member states, does not seem to give much priority to recognition of Non-Trade Concerns under the WTO-agreements. The second best solution in my opinion would therefore be twofold.

First, labelling of European origin should be strengthened, enabling the consumers to see at first sight whether products originate from the European Union or not. In parallel to this labelling, consumers should be made much more aware of the high standards which European agriculture must attain. The European agricultural model should be explained to the wider society.

Second, a European superior quality label should be developed, which would be attributed to food quality schemes which can provide proof that their production standards are considerably higher than what is legally required under European rules and regulations. To ensure transparency and comprehensibility, an online register should give insight to consumers on the meaning of the different quality labels. The main objective, of course, is that consumers must be able to make a well informed choice.

Acquiring such recognition should be completely voluntary. The register could also help to facilitate the mutual recognition of quality labels, in order to avoid segmentation in the market for farmers. The industry should as much as possible control itself. But an independent European institution should have the final control responsibility to ensure proper recognition.

Unfortunately, member states still do not seem to be enthusiastic about the idea. This could be attributed partly to unfamiliarity with the notion, as well as to fears of having to change existing national labels. Such fears are unnecessary, as the system would allow existing schemes to continue as they have always done. The only change will be the addition of the possibility to get a European recognition, making things more transparent for consumers. The Commission should take the lead in this.

• Dutch Liberal MEP Jan Mulder is a member of the Parliament’s all-party group on land use and food policy.

Two MEPs discuss food labelling.

• Primary Source